AbeVigodaLive wrote:
[note: i don't know why robson is getting the ho-hum for speaking the truth by the way. is only optimism "enlightening?"]
I'll be surprised if he doesn't get a Pulitzer Prize for that write up. It ranks right up there with the "Wiggins is a Huge Disappointment" piece that was penned on this site early this season. Insightful and enlightening stuff - similar to Rube Chat.
Robson is a true columnist not a spewing random thoughts to make headlines type. This article isn't groundbreaking it just outlines everything he has been either thinking and saying in other articles. If a person stumbled upon it as a more casual fan than most people here it would be a marvelous read. For us it's basically just preaching to the choir with nothing really new.
longstrangetrip wrote:I appreciate your contributions to this forum, abe, and fully admit that those who generally lean more to the pessimistic view have been far closer to being correct than the optimists like yours truly. It's a character defect on my part...I have a hard time following a team as passionately as I do without keeping the rose-colored glasses on. But I'm grateful to the pessimists for balancing my view from time to time.
One bit of pessimism that I don't agree with: the Knicks were not better than the Wolves last year, even with all the injuries we suffered. We proved we were better by beating them both times we played. This is one time that we should be grateful that we play in the far stronger division. We finished with one less win (and more ping pong balls) than the Knicks not because they or the Sixers are a better team than us, but only because we played a much tougher schedule. Playing in the West will make it more difficult for us to get to the playoffs next year, but let's be grateful in the moment because playing in the West gives us a better chance at getting Towns.
I'd agree with that. One would have to think the Wolves would have at least a couple of extra wins if they played in the East. The other angle is that the Wolves' future does look brighter than the Anthony Albatross around the Knicks' organization right now.
And I'm "all in" on Towns right now. Damn you people. You talked me into him as the season went on... then when I watched him play more... I'm all in.
I think he might be the one possible franchise changer in this draft. Okafor and Russell might be very good, but can they change an entire culture which brings many more wins quickly?
longstrangetrip wrote:I appreciate your contributions to this forum, abe, and fully admit that those who generally lean more to the pessimistic view have been far closer to being correct than the optimists like yours truly. It's a character defect on my part...I have a hard time following a team as passionately as I do without keeping the rose-colored glasses on. But I'm grateful to the pessimists for balancing my view from time to time.
One bit of pessimism that I don't agree with: the Knicks were not better than the Wolves last year, even with all the injuries we suffered. We proved we were better by beating them both times we played. This is one time that we should be grateful that we play in the far stronger division. We finished with one less win (and more ping pong balls) than the Knicks not because they or the Sixers are a better team than us, but only because we played a much tougher schedule. Playing in the West will make it more difficult for us to get to the playoffs next year, but let's be grateful in the moment because playing in the West gives us a better chance at getting Towns.
I'd agree with that. One would have to think the Wolves would have at least a couple of extra wins if they played in the East. The other angle is that the Wolves' future does look brighter than the Anthony Albatross around the Knicks' organization right now.
And I'm "all in" on Towns right now. Damn you people. You talked me into him as the season went on... then when I watched him play more... I'm all in.
I think he might be the one possible franchise changer in this draft. Okafor and Russell might be very good, but can they change an entire culture which brings many more wins quickly?
Why? They got swept by the 76er's. Yea they get to play the Knicks 2 more times, but on the "Flip" side, the Knicks would get to play the Wolves 2 more times
longstrangetrip wrote:I appreciate your contributions to this forum, abe, and fully admit that those who generally lean more to the pessimistic view have been far closer to being correct than the optimists like yours truly. It's a character defect on my part...I have a hard time following a team as passionately as I do without keeping the rose-colored glasses on. But I'm grateful to the pessimists for balancing my view from time to time.
One bit of pessimism that I don't agree with: the Knicks were not better than the Wolves last year, even with all the injuries we suffered. We proved we were better by beating them both times we played. This is one time that we should be grateful that we play in the far stronger division. We finished with one less win (and more ping pong balls) than the Knicks not because they or the Sixers are a better team than us, but only because we played a much tougher schedule. Playing in the West will make it more difficult for us to get to the playoffs next year, but let's be grateful in the moment because playing in the West gives us a better chance at getting Towns.
I'd agree with that. One would have to think the Wolves would have at least a couple of extra wins if they played in the East. The other angle is that the Wolves' future does look brighter than the Anthony Albatross around the Knicks' organization right now.
And I'm "all in" on Towns right now. Damn you people. You talked me into him as the season went on... then when I watched him play more... I'm all in.
I think he might be the one possible franchise changer in this draft. Okafor and Russell might be very good, but can they change an entire culture which brings many more wins quickly?
Why? They got swept by the 76er's. Yea they get to play the Knicks 2 more times, but on the "Flip" side, the Knicks would get to play the Wolves 2 more times
Maybe because they had a winning percentage of 30% against the EC versus 13.4% against the WC.
longstrangetrip wrote:I appreciate your contributions to this forum, abe, and fully admit that those who generally lean more to the pessimistic view have been far closer to being correct than the optimists like yours truly. It's a character defect on my part...I have a hard time following a team as passionately as I do without keeping the rose-colored glasses on. But I'm grateful to the pessimists for balancing my view from time to time.
One bit of pessimism that I don't agree with: the Knicks were not better than the Wolves last year, even with all the injuries we suffered. We proved we were better by beating them both times we played. This is one time that we should be grateful that we play in the far stronger division. We finished with one less win (and more ping pong balls) than the Knicks not because they or the Sixers are a better team than us, but only because we played a much tougher schedule. Playing in the West will make it more difficult for us to get to the playoffs next year, but let's be grateful in the moment because playing in the West gives us a better chance at getting Towns.
I'd agree with that. One would have to think the Wolves would have at least a couple of extra wins if they played in the East. The other angle is that the Wolves' future does look brighter than the Anthony Albatross around the Knicks' organization right now.
And I'm "all in" on Towns right now. Damn you people. You talked me into him as the season went on... then when I watched him play more... I'm all in.
I think he might be the one possible franchise changer in this draft. Okafor and Russell might be very good, but can they change an entire culture which brings many more wins quickly?
Why? They got swept by the 76er's. Yea they get to play the Knicks 2 more times, but on the "Flip" side, the Knicks would get to play the Wolves 2 more times
Fair enough. Truth be told... sometimes I go out of my way to be positive around here.
But, the East wasn't as good. So, it's possible the Wolves would have stolen a win or two here and there against some of those 33 - 40 win type of teams instead of battling more 55 win teams.
Carlos-- I'll be surprised if he doesn't get a Pulitzer Prize for that write up. It ranks right up there with the "Wiggins is a Huge Disappointment" piece that was penned on this site early this season. Insightful and enlightening stuff - similar to Rube Chat.
Wow--I wonder who the moron is that thought Wiggins was a huge disappointment. I'd like to give him a piece of my mind!
Camden0916 wrote:It's been fun watching most of you hop on the Towns train. I'm so proud I could shed a slight tear.
I liked towns before the year so I have always liked him. I am worried though that my love for him is because of you. Because of the constant positive reinforcement you give him. Same thing happened with Stauskas I didn't like him that much, but the constant reinforcement you gave him changed my opinion and I thought Stauskas would be a darn good pick. Just worried that is happening with towns with some on this board. (Once again towns is my number 1, and my theory about you dosen't mean towns becomes Stauskas)
I think what turned the tide with Towns wasn't just Cam constantly chatting him up, but also the fact he actually started to produce on a consistent basis as the season wore on and people that aren't as wonky when it comes to college ball saw him play when the games really started to matter. Kudos to Cam for being on the Towns train early, but I think we all would have eventually hopped on anyway.
