Charlie V reminds me a lot of Mark Aguirre. Not real athletic or real fast, but he's big, has a solid handle, a plethora of post moves and an excellent shooting touch.
Printable View
Charlie V reminds me a lot of Mark Aguirre. Not real athletic or real fast, but he's big, has a solid handle, a plethora of post moves and an excellent shooting touch.
Turnovers galore, but a win is a win. We can't really afford to nitpick.
Big Ben was great.
Celebrating with a Melatonin cocktail.
MA pushed peeps aroundQuote:
Originally Posted by Kstat
Stuck looked mature, ben looked young. Fun game for the first 3 quarters.
And only one positive post about Stuckey!
Just goes to show the boxscore MUST lie cause according to it he was our best player.
Shot 7-11!!! Rebounded, dished the rock, didn't jack up any 3's.
And only 1 person mentioned him.
LMMFAO
He played very well at times and not very well at times, too.
So is that how we should measure things these days? If stuckey gets praise, it's a win?
Maybe we should go through the whole roster and give thumbs up and thumbs down to each player?
It seemed like we were getting past the whole "it's all about stuckey" phase over the past week or so, but let's get it on.
You got over it cause I was absent for 3 days (might have to be gone for a few more cause my pc went all fucked up and I'm gonna need to get someone to check it out I think)
Anyway, NO it's not all about Stuckey BUT
I saw the boxscore and thought, "WOW - Kid actually had another good game. This move off the ball is gonna blow up in Joe's face."
So I came here expecting certain people to be all over this.
But whatever man - I don't give a fuck. I know he's not a PG. Him playing well when he ain't at PG just makes me right.
Oh, and for the record if he manages to play well at times according to you then that must mean dude had a pretty good game lol
I'm sure that you can see in the box score that we had something like 28 assists (and 20+ turnovers too, I think, I haven't had a chance to analyze the box yet) and that was largely due to some of the best player movement that I've seen from the Pistons in a long time. Hell, even Big Ben was cutting to the hoop like a mofo and was getting easy hoops/dunks out of it. Most of the turnovers came from our stone handed bigs losing the ball on entry passes and from Stuckey doing his bull in a china shop thing and just barrelling dudes over with the ball (he had at least 3 offensive fouls that I can recall off hand).
So yeah, there was lots of good things and lots of not so good things, but the win tips it into the favor of GOOD. If we could play the likes of the Bucks every night, we might be onto something.
I got treated to a suite for this game. It was the first time I've been in one of those and it was impressive. Free food and beer equals a win. It was sad to see how empty the place was.....I'm guessing we won't be adding 2009-10 to the attendance banner. And I know this might be blasphemy, but Mason is starting to wear on me.
As for the game.....I think this was the Bucks being not very good more than anything. Delphino looked like he would keep it interesting but then they'd sit him for long stretches and Jennings has the looks of a great player but his shot is a bit broke. The Pistons are who we thought they were.....too many guards and a few big guys that have too many flaws. I still love Ben though, he still brings the place to their feet. Oh and Gordon had to be told where to be on offense just about every time down the court....don't really know what the deal was there. Overall though, it was great to get back and see a win.