Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: MrMichaelLee and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Wizards (14-46) at Oklahoma City (15-45)

Sorry this is late. My computer caught a virus. Doing the best I can.

Wizards starters: Mike James, Dominic McGuire, Antawn Jamison, Andray Blatche, Darius Songaila.

Thunder: Russell Westbrook, Thabo Sefolosha, Nenad Krstic, Nick Collison, Kyle Weaver

Refs: Joe DeRosa, Jason Phillips, Leon Wood

Line: Thunder by 4.5.

Caron Butler is out again with the hamstring injury. He had an MRI on Tuesday that revealed some swelling. He stretched out prior to the game with head athletic trainer Eric Waters, working with resistance cords. Butler said hopes to ready for San Antonio on Friday ... Kevin Durant (sprained ankle) and Jeff Green (sore back) are out ... With only 10 players available, and DeShawn Stevenson now out of the season, Wizards Coach Ed Tapscott contemplated putting Brendan Haywood on the active list to have the necessary 12 players. Haywood is nowhere near ready to play, but Tapscott joked, "He's here. The other guys aren't." But when he put out the final roster, Haywood remained on the inactive list ... The Wizards have an opportunity to sweep their first season series of the year. If they fail, they will have four more chances -- against Sacramento, Minnesota, Utah and the Los Angeles Clippers.

By Michael Lee  |  March 4, 2009; 8:23 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Other Side: Oklahoma City Thunder
Next: Thunder 88, Wizards 83

Comments

As has become the norm, McGee looks very impressive tonight. He will draw quality coaches interest to the Wizards.

Posted by: bozomoeman | March 4, 2009 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Kalo_rama and Samson151.

Back to the last thread "The Other Side: Oklahoma City Thunder" reference star players becoming championship coaches.

Based on your analogy of what a NBA star is your argument is verified hands down.

However, my criteria of what a NBA star is, is less stringent than that of yours. My NBA star is anyone who was ever named as an AllStar in the League.

Now that might seem to be a little weak, but I would be hard pressed to not call any player named to the AllStar team in his career not an NBA star.

Now Partick, you might call a Superstar, but since he never got a Ring, his passion can not be underestimated as a coach.

If I'm correct Samson151, Phil Jackson did make several AllStar Teams even though you just want to call him an journeyman.

An NBA star is simply and AllStar in my book. By that criteria, NBA stars have done quite well as coaches.

LarryInClintonMD

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | March 4, 2009 9:58 PM | Report abuse

"If I'm correct Samson151, Phil Jackson did make several AllStar Teams even though you just want to call him an journeyman."

Phil calls himself a journeyman. Of course, that may just be a clever Zen-type ploy.

Posted by: Samson151 | March 4, 2009 10:10 PM | Report abuse

So what is the general opinion about Greivis Vasquez? Future pro or not future pro?

Posted by: Samson151 | March 4, 2009 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Nick Young was beyond horrific and yet remained in the game in crunch time. Another absurd move on the part of Tapscott.

McGuire = Baller.

McGuire is exhibit A as to why McGee and Crittenton need to play at least 25 minutes per game from here on out, especially considering they would only be replacing Mike ames and Songaila. Blatche should be playing 25+ minutes anyway but its not clear that Tapscott has figured that out either.

Posted by: UltimateFootballNetwork | March 4, 2009 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Now that was an ugly game. Wiz lose. Nothing accomplished.

McGee plays only 12 minutes. I would ask why, but the answer would be non-sensical.

Young is playing as if his days are numbered. Even Critter seemed out of joint. Blatche was annoyed at everything.

I wonder what garbage Taps is spewing in the locker room.

Posted by: Izman | March 4, 2009 10:37 PM | Report abuse

So what is the general opinion about Greivis Vasquez? Future pro or not future pro?

Posted by: Samson151 | March 4, 2009 10:10 PM

I think Vasquez is a 1st round pick for sure. I have watched a lot of college basketball this season and believe he is somewhere b/w 10-20 on my big board. He is big, long, can handle the rock, penetrate the lane, finish at the rim, and can knock down outside shots.

He needs to work on his outside shot more (only shooting 33% from 3) and his overall FG% too (40%). I also think that with better players around him he will excel. At MD they ask him to do so much that it forces him to take a lot of bad shots.

At this point I think he is a lock mid round, 1st rounder, in this weak draft.

Posted by: dominic10464 | March 4, 2009 10:39 PM | Report abuse

"So what is the general opinion about Greivis Vasquez? Future pro or not future pro?

Posted by: Samson151 | March 4, 2009 10:10 PM "

I'm a Terp alum, and I have to say that this dude is goshawful.

He is slow, can't create his own shot, can't jump, and can't defend.

He's a first round pick for sure, in the D-league.

I would pick DJ Strawberry on my team before I pick Vasquez.

Posted by: DC_MAN88 | March 4, 2009 10:47 PM | Report abuse

As Michael Jackson would sing....

"WHO'S BAD?"

Yes, they be Les BouleS...the worst team in the NBA....losing to the Thunder, a team that was missing both Green AND Durant in the lineup!

How in the world does MeTawn, a "premier defender," get out of this game with only 1 personal foul?

This dude is seriously, not even trying to play defense.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=290304025

Posted by: DC_MAN88 | March 4, 2009 10:51 PM | Report abuse

That was an awful game.

As someone mentioned, Nick Young was horrible tonight. He is not good and I do not see him being any good in the near future. Jacking up horrible shots and awful defense are not going to win NBA games, ever.

The only bright spot is McGuire. He is playing well. Some of that rebounding at the end of the game was very impressive. If he keeps playing like the way he is, he is going to be a starter on some team in the league. Playing good defense and rebounding go a long way to winning games.

Posted by: dominic10464 | March 4, 2009 10:51 PM | Report abuse

The Thunder did the unthinkable, they won a game without Kevin Durant!!! Jeff Green didn't play either. No excuses, no Tapscott sucks at coaching rants, and no the Wiz had injuries excuse. We suck!!! Ivan and Mike, we suck.

Abe and Ernie, you better pick Blake Griffin with the 1st pick in the draft.

Posted by: wizfan81 | March 4, 2009 10:53 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Terp alum, and I have to say that this dude is goshawful.

He is slow, can't create his own shot, can't jump, and can't defend.

He's a first round pick for sure, in the D-league.

I would pick DJ Strawberry on my team before I pick Vasquez.

Posted by: DC_MAN88 | March 4, 2009 10:47 PM

I think you are wrong. He has carried MD on his back in the last stretch of games. All he does is create his own shot. You just don't put up the numbers he has without being able to create your own shot.

Posted by: dominic10464 | March 4, 2009 10:58 PM | Report abuse

"I think you are wrong. He has carried MD on his back in the last stretch of games. All he does is create his own shot. You just don't put up the numbers he has without being able to create your own shot.

Posted by: dominic10464 | March 4, 2009 10:58 PM "

Vasquez is so overrated.

He's not as good as he thinks he is.

He showed no leadership whatsoever late in the Wake game last night as the team resorted to long range bombs which resulted in UMd giving up their lead, and then Vasquez capped it off by tossing the ball out of bounds.

Please....

Posted by: DC_MAN88 | March 4, 2009 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Your just mad because you team sucks and you are going to play in the NIT again. You can't blame that on him. He has gotten the best out of all the players around him and they have won a couple big games. If he can make those guys better, than I think he has a shot in the NBA.

Posted by: dominic10464 | March 4, 2009 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Vasquez is a second round pick, low percentage player to make it in the league. He can handle the ball, create his own shot, is big for the position he plays, attacks the rim with authority, has the intangibles and passion needed to succeed, and is a very good defender (Vasquez, at 6'7, all but guarded Ty Lawson, borderline midget speedball, out of his game).

On the other hand, he's slow, not overly athletic, prone to stupid mistakes, very streaky, and not a very good shooter.

Mid-to-low second rounder (next year), low percentage player to stick in the league.

Posted by: psps23 | March 4, 2009 11:14 PM | Report abuse

The more I listen to Mark Jackson, the more I am convinced that he would be a great hire for the Wizards.

He would demand success on and off the floor.

Hell, Mark probably could convince Ewing to also come aboard as first assistant.

What about that, Huh!

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | March 4, 2009 11:22 PM | Report abuse

"Your just mad because you team sucks and you are going to play in the NIT again. You can't blame that on him. He has gotten the best out of all the players around him and they have won a couple big games. If he can make those guys better, than I think he has a shot in the NBA.

Posted by: dominic10464 | March 4, 2009 11:12 PM "

I really couldn't care less if the Terps didn't make it to the NIT, nevermind the NCAA.

This group of players, excluding Milbourne who barely touched the ball and couldn't get into a groove because people like Vasquez kept jacking up shots (24 total), is really bad.

Posted by: DC_MAN88 | March 4, 2009 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Nick Young looks like he's been beat up mentally. If he doesn’t come into the game on fire he only plays about 4 minutes before being yanked. E Tap has already admitted that he’s been responsible for Nick Young’s bad play earlier this season. So in today’s game E Tap waits until 7:00 left in the 2nd quarter to put Nick in. He misses a few jumpers and out he comes. Then when the game is on the line he leaves Nick in there when everyone can see he playing with no confidents. No coach can be this bad. My father’s been saying EG hired E Tap so he could tank the season. I’ve been saying to him that’s crazy, but I’m starting to think he may be onto something. With all the good E Tap is doing with AB and Dmac E Tap by letting them play, he’s doing the opposite by destroying Nick Young and J McGee confidents.

Posted by: 33dgriffin | March 4, 2009 11:26 PM | Report abuse

"However, my criteria of what a NBA star is, is less stringent than that of yours. My NBA star is anyone who was ever named as an AllStar in the League."

Well, by that definition, Jamal Magloire and Brad Miller are stars. So are Wally Szczerbiak and Mo Williams. So are Antonio Davis and Shareef Abdur-Rahim.

See the problem with your definition?

More significantly, this entire discussion started as a result of you (A) saying that the Wizards should hire Patrick Ewing as coach and (B) then saying that stars can win championships as coaches. So when the discussion expanded to include other stars who have and haven't won titles as coaches, the only logical inference was that Patrick Ewing's level of stardom should be the baseline parameter for the discussion. Otherwise, what's the point? Calling Doc Rivers a "star" because he made one All-Star team in his 12+year career and then trying to use his accomplishment as a coach as a gauge of what Ewing could do is meaningless, because Rivers' "stardom" was just a barely visible, dim flicker compared to Ewing's. Ewing was one of the greatest to ever play the game, a perennial All-star, a HoFer, one of the 50 greatest of all time. Doc was a really good player who had one really great year. The experiences as a player that shape the mindset of a guy at Rivers' level is completely different that the one that shapes guys at Ewing's level. Apples and oranges. The two can't be compared in any meaningful way, which means that you also can't compare the effect that experience would have on their respective abilities to coach. One is completely different than the other.

"Now Partick, you might call a Superstar, but since he never got a Ring, his passion can not be underestimated as a coach."

You have no idea what his "passion as a coach" is because he hasn't ever been a head coach. Moreover, it takes more than "passion" to make a guy a good coach. And we have no idea if Ewing has those things. The only thing we do know is that the majority of former players at Ewing's level who've attempted to coach not only didn't win a title, but most of them weren't esp. good at coaching, period.

Posted by: kalo_rama | March 4, 2009 11:26 PM | Report abuse

"The more I listen to Mark Jackson, the more I am convinced that he would be a great hire for the Wizards.

He would demand success on and off the floor.

Hell, Mark probably could convince Ewing to also come aboard as first assistant.

What about that, Huh!

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | March 4, 2009 11:22 PM "

The more you think about it, the more you should realize that Mark Jackson is not affordable.

Also, Les BouleS, a veteran team, need an experienced coach, not a talking head.

Doug Collins sounded good also before he took the Les BouleS job. We all know how that ended.

Posted by: DC_MAN88 | March 4, 2009 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Good thing Les BouleS suck this season. Otherwise, it would have been a huge mistake not to trade for LH for the "playoff run" given the fact that Meshawn is out, nevermind the fact that he sucks, and LH is doing well in NY.

Posted by: DC_MAN88 | March 4, 2009 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Being a former superstar has nothing to do with whether or not he will be a good coach in the NBA, either way (other than his obvious knowledge and experience as a player). He wouldn't be a good coach because he was a superstar, nor would he be a poor coach because he was a superstar. It's a pretty pointless argument.

Posted by: psps23 | March 4, 2009 11:39 PM | Report abuse

THABEET in this upcoming draft not GRIFFIN. We need a franchise center.

Posted by: glawrence007 | March 4, 2009 11:48 PM | Report abuse

"Being a former superstar has nothing to do with whether or not he will be a good coach in the NBA"

Which is tantamount to saying that a persons past has no bearing on their future, which is, of course, simply untrue.

Posted by: kalo_rama | March 5, 2009 12:20 AM | Report abuse

BTW, no one said Ewing couldn't or wouldn't be a good coach. But the fact remains that the track record of superstar players suggests that the odds are against him, and the Wizards don't need to be gambling on any long odds right now. They need an experienced hand at the wheel, not someone who's learning on the job.

Posted by: kalo_rama | March 5, 2009 12:22 AM | Report abuse

"More significantly, this entire discussion started as a result of you (A) saying that the Wizards should hire Patrick Ewing as coach and (B) then saying that stars can win championships as coaches."

Yes, I did indicate as much and I disagree with the apparent correct analogy that stars of Ewing's stature mostly do not make championship coaches.

I brought the yardstick down to include others of less stature than Ewing. True. But, I liked the prospect of Ewing as coach of the Wizards and I do not necessarily take the premise even though facts indicate otherwise, that he would fail as Psps23 points out.

When GetaBigBoy... first blogged the scenario of Ewing as coach, his premise was immediately shot down based upon the factual logic you site.

So Kalo, my whole premise was more in defense of the fact that yes, most Superstars do not make good coaches, but you cannot automatically stat that Ewing would fail because he was one.

I was more or less giving GETABIGBOYCOACH a hurah' for coming with a fresh idea on the coaching situation for the Wizards.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | March 5, 2009 12:42 AM | Report abuse

psps23:"Being a former superstar has nothing to do with whether or not he will be a good coach in the NBA, either way (other than his obvious knowledge and experience as a player). He wouldn't be a good coach because he was a superstar, nor would he be a poor coach because he was a superstar. It's a pretty pointless argument."

And just what the heck do you think sports blogs are for, if not pointless arguments?

Oddly, you happened to say that during one of those arguments that in fact does have a point.

I mean, I just got back from the Redskins blog. You want to see pointless...

In fact, this is a question that generally gets debated every time a former NBA superstar's name comes up in a head coach role. You've got your 'the great understand best how to teach and inspire the lesser mortals' faction. And the other side, which points out exactly how many of the great have failed in such situations.

The one thing nobody suggests is that your typical Hall of Fame player makes your typical head coach.

Except for psps23, I mean.

So my question would be, how would you defend that idea?

Posted by: Samson151 | March 5, 2009 5:25 AM | Report abuse

"However, my criteria of what a NBA star is, is less stringent than that of yours. My NBA star is anyone who was ever named as an AllStar in the League."

Well, by that definition, Jamal Magloire and Brad Miller are stars. So are Wally Szczerbiak and Mo Williams. So are Antonio Davis and Shareef Abdur-Rahim.

See the problem with your definition"

There is NO problem with his definition. These players have been stars one way or another. Maybe only 1 or 2 yrs of their carreer but still a star. That's why they were chosen by NBA coaches and players to play in the all-star game. You definition is player who is in the HOF....what percentage is that? Even Bird was more successful as a head coach than your friend EJ.


Posted by: Dave381 | March 5, 2009 8:10 AM | Report abuse

"But the fact remains that the track record of superstar players suggests that the odds are against him

Posted by: kalo_rama"

The only way you can qualify that, as in the odds are against him greater than the odds of a non-superstar, is if you were to to analyze the total number of "superstar" coaches and their respective success vs. the total number of non-superstar coaches and their respective success. I haven't seen any argument come remotely close to that. All it has been is a baseless, few-instance scenarios where it either worked or didn't. That provides nothing of value to someone judging the argument.

What you say is true; it's a rarity to see a former superstar being successful as a head coach. What you fail to mention, which is also true, is that the number of non-superstar head coaches who have failed in this league FAR outnumbers that of failed superstars.

Both of those arguments are meaningless without a base to measure them up against. It's an exercise in futility to suggest otherwise.

Posted by: psps23 | March 5, 2009 8:57 AM | Report abuse

"Which is tantamount to saying that a persons past has no bearing on their future, which is, of course, simply untrue.

Posted by: kalo_rama"

Not no bearing. It has very little bearing. The only qualities a "superstar" would have that a "non-superstar" might not is a higher skill level, a higher knowledge of the game, and possibly higher experience level. And of course, none of those helps your argument that "superstar" coaches have the odds against them, respective to non-superstars.

Posted by: psps23 | March 5, 2009 9:11 AM | Report abuse

psps23:"The only way you can qualify that...is if you were to to analyze the total number of "superstar" coaches and their respective success vs. the total number of non-superstar coaches and their respective success."

The samples would be way out of proportion. One too small. You'd run into 'the statistics of small numbers.'

No, I don't think we can solve this one with comparison stats.

Posted by: Samson151 | March 5, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company