east texas bb

I must have misunderstood what AcesFull was saying.  I thought he meant he would rather have 5 spot up shooters to 5 players that can do it all.  My bad.  I misunderstood him. Most playmakers are more cerebral, because they can see the entire game happening.  I am tired of typing, serously, i could argue all day but this is a moot point.  Yall take spot up shooters.  I will take 3 playmakers, a spot up shooter and a good low post.  ANd I left The Jarvis Bernard kid off because I never heard of him.  It was not on purpose, I honestly had not heard of him. And I know that if Ryan Donahue(offered to play at SFA) and Kenyon Spears(Lamar), who played with a very good friend of mine, Marlon Jackson, can shoot the ball from out side or they would not have played or been offered to play at the next level.  They were the only two I KNOW OF , from HJ to play at the D1 level.  ANd Rondo is better than Nate.  He is the best PG in the league, I looked on Yahoo.  My bad.  Had a brain fart, yall will have to excuse me. Good day to East Texas.  Enjoy your families.

Aces Full, how would you get the ball down the court with 5 spot up shooters?  And who would get the ball to them if they got in the halfcourt? I love shooters, I was a shooter when I played, but I think you are misunderstanding (or maybe it was defined clearly enough) the definition of a playmaker.  To me a playmaker is a player who can shoot, create his own shot, and create shots for others.  A spot up shooter to me has to rely on someone to get them their shot whereas a playmaker is a player who can do it all.  Michael Jordan is the best example I can give. 

It was a pole from the beginning of the year, looks like they have dropped.  NW is still good though. I dont think Silsbee will ever overlook HJ.  I dont know who said they were going to have a down year, they are ranked in the top 5 in the state. 

Central Heights will slow it down to a half court game and pound it inside and if they ever start shooting the ball well they will be very good. They have 10 kids that can play. Woden will get up and down, they play scrappy and get after it, but will get up and down which is not in their favor against SA or Woodville.  That is what worries me.  Woden has beat some good teams but lost to some poor ones.  So I really hate to say how those games will come out.  They can shoot well at times too. 

By the stats you posted they would be the same in all catagories except points and assists.  Rondo would lead in assists and Nate in points. And any coach knows stats only tell so much. There are too many intangibles in basketball.  But that brings us to what the Celtics need, because they already have plenty of playmakers.  They dont need another one out there it would only take away from the better players.  The way the Celtics have there team organized is the best for them to win, that is why Rondo plays more and Nate dosent.  Nate plays the perfect backup role on this team, he can come in with high energy when they need it and produce points quickly if they are in a slump.  If you were coaching the Celtics wouldnt you do the same.  Well it sounds like the other guy on the other board, you heard about because Nate and Rondo come up in casual converation so much, and me would agree.  You are exactly right, they DID pay Bosh alot of money for being average, and regretting it, and if you read alot you will hear other people are saying the same thing. And the 1/2 and 1/2, that is why I said everyone has an opinion, I wasnt saying you couldnt have yours. That is awesome that Rondo got All Star status. That makes him in the eyes of the people of America one of the top guards in the league and I will add it didnt hurt that he had high assists stats because of the team he is on.  But anyway, he made it, so I wont argue that.  And your last statement is the premise to our entire conversation, I am not argueing that the Celtics have a great combination and that is what makes them good.  I am saying for hopefully the last time, that a person who makes plays is more valuable than a spot up shooter.  Yes you need both, not argueing, but which makes the team "go".  Since you are from HJ, was the Ryan Donahue or Kenyon Spears playmakers or spot up shooters.  The best 2 players to come through that program in the last 10-20 years.

And I wish the best for the Bosha kid, either if he is a spot up shooter or a playmaker.  He will still make an impact either way.  Regarding Rondo, that is why I said we could agree to disagree.  You can believe as you choose and I will.  That is what is great about America, we all get an opinion.  But dont come on this board and act as if you know me, you do not know me and I dont know you.  Just like your posts you are assuming from something.  I will gladly tell anyone what my name is if they want to know, I am not going to hide behind a screen name.  That is how it is set up but I will post message anyone and tell them.  And I gather since you can get on a coaches board you must be a coach.

What are you talking about if your theory was not "bought" on the coaches board last year why would it on here?  I dont understand.  Please enlighten me.  You have me curious. Do you think you know me, I will private message you and tell you what my name is. And not everyone is diagreeing with me.  It looks like about 1/2 and 1/2. Garnett is a shot creator or playmaker.  And I didnt see your question about Miami is why I didnt answer it but I will.  The Heat have 2 good playmakers.  Bosh is very average and that is not just my opinion.  No doubt that the Celtics are better than the Heat.  They have a better TEAM.  Do I think the Heat will be good by seasons end?  Yes, they will be trouble in the playoffs if Wade and Lebron can learn to play with each other.  The Celtics are "hands down" better than 2 playmakers from the Heat vs. a seasoned Celtics team, including 2 playmakers, a great spot up shooter and good post play.  What it takes to make a team.

Central Heights will win the district.  More than likely will not lose a game.  I have watched Central Heights play alot of good teams and win and I still havent seen them shoot the ball as well as they can or play as well as they can.  If they peak at the right time, they will make a deep run in the playoffs.  Teams are struggling to score over 30 points on them.  SA, Woden, Woodville, and Newton will fight it out for the last 2 spots.  Personally I think it will be Woden and SA but that is why you play the games.  Woden has a good group this year, but will lose there 2-3 best players.  They have a couple of good sophs but not enough to carry them.  From there down it goes down hill.  It dosent look good for the next 10 years. I dont know what SA, Woodville or Newton has for the future. 

It looks like Silsbee is the team to beat in Southeast Texas.  Good win against #1 in 2AA. Depening on which pole you look at. 

I do not have any affiliation with anyone in sout east texas, im a little north.  I would say HJ will continue to have success, they have good coaches, good admin, and a good program.  They may be down for a few years but they will mostly likely always be good if they do things the right way.  The same goes for Silsbee.  I do believe that the HF players are going to rattle the box in the coming years. Alot of places could have the same, it is just if they want it and do they know about how to get it.  You have to start with the youngest kids, preferably 1st to 2nd graders and have a hand in development of players all the way up with coaches that know what they are doing.  Most programs dont.  Either football gets in the way, admin, or the coaches do not stay long enough or know enough to build a program. 

I have been watching your threads for awhile now without posting and have notcied that you do exactly what you have done in this thread.  Take a simple topic about who is better a playmaker or a spot up shooter and turned it in to the Celtics (greatest franchise ever) against me.  You are very good at twisting words.  Again, you should be a politician.  It looks like we are not going to agree on this topic, so lets let it go and agree to disagree and talk about something else later.  Have a good Sunday with the family to all.

And I am not saying I know even anywhere close to what the Celtics coaches or Gm knows.  I have alot of respect for them all including their assistant Kevin Eastman.  My point on Nate Robinson and Rondo was that if you put them on different teams they would be very close to each other or Nate has the edge.  On the Celtics, Rondo gets the nod because he is EXACTLY what they need.  And understand I am comparing a very average guard to Rondo.  Guys, Rondo is good for his team, but do you really think he would be good on another team in the league.  THIS IS WHAT STARTED THE TOPIC:  IS A "PLAYMAKER": someone who can create shots for himeself, someone who can create shots for others, someone who can hit the spot up jumper more valuable or less valuable than a SPOT UP SHOOTER: one that can hit the open shot when it is passed to him in an open situation?  You dont have to say you need them both, I know that. I just want to know which is more valuable.  On dont say the Celtics, because they have 2-3 very good playmakers.  But on 99% of any team in America and 99% of coaches will tell you, they will take the player who creates.  If you can admit that then you are terribly stubborn or do not know the game.  I believe it is the former not the latter.  I believe you know the game stevenash, but for some reason you are having trouble admitting this.

Player A should shoot the foul.  At the time he was fouled he was still in the game so I would say he shoots. 

Ballin4life, I agree with most all you said.  I want a spot up shooter but only one maybe two and not on the court at the same time.  You cant go to sleep and church on here without people posting like crazy.  When do yall sleep or spend time with family? Back to topic, Rondo didnt play on the weakest Team USA in while because he had no place.  The other two guards were so much better than him.  Rondo is good where he is at, you put him on another team and he will not flourish.  Give credit to the Celtics Gm.  If Nate Robinson was in a different place he would be flourishing, but he dosent get the chance because the Celtics need someone just like Rondo.  Someone who can pass to their All-Stars.  They dont need Nate because he can score and will take points and opportuity away from the Big 3 which are better than him and need to be taking the shot.  JJ Reddick was a playmaker in college, in the NBA the speed has caught up to him.  SteveNash, no one on here gets as angry as you, they can post their posts without being beligerent.  The Celtics have done a great job of creating a team, that is why they have Nate and Rondo.  If the two played on different teams you would see different results but the Celtics know what they are doing and recruit the best players to play around their 3.  The Celtics dont need a playmaker at PG, because they have 3 already.  That is why Rondo plays.  Rondo has been a very lucky person, to get signed with the Celtics.  Any other team, you would not here his name.  ANd then you bring up Mario Chalmers playing 37 minutes.  How much of that time is the ball in his hands?  Come on.  Make a statement that has credibility.  People who know basketball will see right through that argument.  And alot of people are assuming that a playmaker has to be a PG, I never said that.  I said, and reapeat, and am still waiting on someone to tell the truth that a playmaker, AKA, Michael Jordan is better than a spot up shooter.

ANd you didnt answer on my other question, you made the assumption because of lack of years that in the future Rondo will be MVP of the League.  I would love to hear that one.

In your earlier post about the Celtics, why did you "inadvertanly" leave out one of the reasons the Celtics were so good, the play maker Larry Bird.  Were you a spot up shooter in HS? Seriously, I dont think we are going to agree.  I know you have to have the last word as you do on all of your post because you are either very bitter or very arrogant.  I am not going to post again on this topic, I have alot more to do.  We can argue another time. But if you will do me a favor just answer me on the question, I would like to know.  Do you think a playmaker is more or less valuable than a spot up shooter?  A simple more important or less important will do.  Thats the least you can do, I came out DIRECTLY and answered your question about Rondo. 

You missed out on the biggest point, Iverson didnt create for anyone but himself, that is not the kind of guard I am talking about. I can not stand Allen Iverson. He is an Allen Iverson maker not a playmaker.  THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT AND YOU DO IT IN DIFFERENT POSTS TO.  YOU TAKE PART OF THE ANSWER AND REARRANGE IT TO FIT WHAT YOU NEED. Why would you pick Allen Iverson?  Because you know he is selfish and it fits your argument.  You should be a politician. I think everyone is agreeing except you that a playmaker is more valuable than a spot up shooter.  I agree that the best teams emply both, but the one that makes the team go is the one that can do it all while the other waits and hopes he gets a kickout.  And I know you say your feelings are not hurt but actions speak louder than words.  And listing your guards, you missed a few of the top 5, a couple of big ones.  Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James.  any of those vs your best shooter and sorry to tell you but your golden boy Ray Allen is not the best shooter in the NBA right now.  Steve Nash has a higher percentage than anyone over his career.  He is what you call a 180 shooter, 50% from the floor, 40% from the 3 point land, and 90% from the line.  There are only 5 in the NBA right now that shoot that high and Nash leads them and Allen is 3rd or 4th.  I already said Ray Allen could create shots himself and you told me he couldnt. So which is it? I will address your infatuation with Rondo, yes he is a good defender, one of the best in the league.  He is a very average passer I dont care what the stats say, if one eyed one legged man was passing to the guys he does they would have alot of assists. He is a very below average shooter.  That makes him 1 dimensional. Shaq shoots a higher percentage than Rondo, does that mean he is a better shooter? No, it means he takes all his shots close to the goal. Rondo is not even a top 10 guard in the league. I can name 10 better than him any day of the week.  If the Celtics had someone else they would run the tables.  Watch the next game and notice one thing.  When Nate Robinson goes in watch how much better the Celtics become, because someone has to guard him instead of play play4-5 feet off of him. And Nate is a very average guard.  I will pick my best playmaker and you pick your best spot up shooter.  Mine is Michael Jordan.  Who is yours? 

Elgin beat Woden by 2 for 5th place.  Central Heights beat Huntington by 15 for 3rd.  Didnt stay to watch the finals.

ANd a spot up shooter cutting and moving is not creating their OWN shot.  They are using screens and the benifit of the defense helping on the playmakers to get his shot.  So there goes another arguement down.  Name the top 5 all-time guards.  I would bet you anything they could create their own shot.

Man you get your feelings hurt too easily. No one said you did not know basketball, we are still waiting on you to tell us whether a "playmaker" is more or less valuable than a spot up shooter.  So far you have made the argument that they are.  If that is so, you DO need to re evaluate your thoughts on the game of basketball.  On the upside, is there a place for a spot up shooter? Heck yeah.  But not 5 on the court at the same time. They wouldnt get the ball down the court. THE SPOT UP SHOOTER IS DEPENDANT ON THE PLAYMAKER TO GET HIM A SHOT.  Right or wrong?  He will get some shots within the team offense but the majority will be off of someone helping on defense on the guy who is making the play. If you believe Steve Nash is "basketball knowledge" then why the heck are you argueing with me?  He is a playmaker (one who can create a shot for himself, others, and hit the open shot). Rondo (4) years and Nash (15).  Concerning Nash's 2 MVP's.  Please do not tell me you think he will be a MVP.

Updates: Crockett beat Huntington 20, Paris beat Central Heights in a close game, Woden beat Martins Mill by 10 I believe. 5th Place Game will be Woden vs. Elgin at 3:30 HS GYM 3rd Place Game will be C.H. vs. Huntington at 5:00 HS GYM Championship Game will be Paris vs. Crockett at 6:30  HS GYM

I dont even read but the first few lines of your posts then scan the rest and once again you didnt answer my questions.  Just answer the questions.  You are comparing Nash on the decline of his career and the peak of Rondos which is not much of a peak.  If you will look up the stats, I believe Nash has 2 MVPS in the entire league which Rondo has no chance of ever coming close.  Nash has one of the highest if not the highest field goal percentage in the league and he shoots jumpers.  Rondos field goal percentage is high because he cant shoot and he only shoots layups.  7th and 8th graders can make those.  MY COMPARISON OF NASH AND RONDO WAS NOT STATS, THATS WHERE YOU ALWAYS MISS THE POINT, IT IS THAT ONE CAN CREATE HIS OWN SHOT AND SHOTS FOR OTHERS AND TAKE A GAME OVER IF HE NEEDS TO. (AT THE PEAK OF HIS CAREER)Just answer my questions man.  It dosent make sense to think that a spot up shooter is more valuable than a MVP.  Pull the curtain back man, you will see a whole new world.  Secondly, I never said nothing about "uughs" and "aahhs" from the crowd.  If you knew me I could care less about that.  What makes a team go are the players that can create a shot off the dribble.  You ever heard the term "players make plays".  Big coaches term.  I love team ball over individual ball, my point on creating your own shot was if you can do that you can also creat shots for the entire team.  One player is 1 dimensional and the other player makes the team go.  You need to re evaluate you outlook on the game.

He must be a good one, most officials do not like coaches, they are just looking for an excuse to give them the seat belt rule.  Kind of like the small town cop scenerio.  They think (actuallly do because the State has givin it to them) they can not be touched and want to show their power to the coaches.  Very hard to find an official who is trying to do his best and really takes his calls seriously.  Wish there were more like the guy you are talking about. 

Well the officials have been getting it wrong then, because they have been charging the coach a tech, the player a tech and giving the coach the seat belt rule all cases I have heard of.

It seems to me they turn a blind eye to it in the bigger cities but small schools they will give you heck and are getting even worse.  I hear Dallas and Houston players can transfer quite easily without getting into trouble but in small towns they can control it more so they do.  I dont agree with the rule but it is a rule, you should be able to play where you want.  It is not fair to a player to work his tail off his entire life and get stuck with a coach who is football first and basketball second and dosent really care if they succeed in basketball or not.