Hawks 119, Kings 97: Anatomy of a Nervous Breakdown

by Ziller on Mar 17, 2009 7:30 PM PDT in Recaps Comment 56 comments

Some might point to Atlanta's 42-point second quarter as the cause malheureux, but the mother of all bad offensive sequences can really be to blame.

First, the second quarter. The Hawks weren't terribly good on offense, and the Kings weren't terribly bad. Donté Greene and Calvin Booth had to play substantial minutes in the second due to foul trouble. Greene cannot guard Al Horford. Booth cannot guard Horford. Ergo, Horford scored pretty easily. Credit Mike Woodson for going to the well until Kenny Natt figured it out and stuck Jason Thompson in the game and on Horford's hip.

Also, Joe Johnson managed to abuse Rashad McCants off the dribble three straight possessions, resulting in a basket, a pair of (made) free throws, and an easy assist to Solomon Jones, the result of Booth being forced to bite on J.J.'s drive. Granted, McCants also had two steals in this stretch. But it stood as one of only two segments of the game in which Johnson basically scored at will. I wouldn't blame it on anyone but the cruel mistress named Reality.

Also, Josh Smith hit a three at the buzzer to end the second quarter. Josh Smith shoots 26% from three on his career. I can live with that shot.

But the fourth -- WHOA NELLIE! The Kings came into the quarter trailing by six points. Let's look at the offensive possessions ...

No. 1: Spencer Hawes misses a deep three.

No. 2: Hawes kicks out of a tight spot to Beno Udrih for a mid-range jumper, good.

No. 3: A broken play results in a Kevin Martin airball from 425 feet.

No. 4: Francisco Garcia dribbles into J.J.'s lap.

No. 5: Udrih hands the ball off to Acie Law IV.

No. 6: Coming out of a time-out, Law fouls Garcia before the inbounds pass. Garcia hits two free throws.

No. 7: Thompson gets a second-chance bucket, draws a foul, hits one FT.

No. 8: Will Solomon misses a deep three after a Martin kick-out, gets his own long rebound, curls inside the arc, and misses a mid-range jumper.

No. 9: Nocioni misses a three after a kick-out from (I believe) Martin (but possibly Udrih).

No. 10: Martin loses it going to the rim.

... and scene.

The six-point deficit has turned into a 15-point deficit in six minutes of game time. Because the Kings couldn't score more than a measly five points in 10 possessions. And okay, sure, maybe defense had something to do with it too. (Atlanta scored 17 points in their nine possessions.) But we know this team to be laughably bad at defense. You'd think they could score a little. Just ... a ... little.

The starters did play well though, winning the first and third quarters. For Martin, a tidy 31 points on roughly 22 shooting possessions. The defensive rebounding for our starting frontcourt was simply abysmal: two defensive boards for each of Hawes Nocioni and Thompson, in a combined 90 minutes of work. The Hawks had 16 offensive rebounds in 36 opportunities, all flavors of nasty rolled into one.

But (positivity! I'm a slave to you) Thompson was a maniac on the offensive glass (six in 28 minutes) and Hawes earned his Nifty merit badge on offense. Udrih shot like mud, but his ball-handling only once (the aforementioned fourth quarter turnover) veered into dingy. Six assists, one turnover ... don't make me swoon.

Three more opportunities for a victory over the East, fellows. Please. Do. It.

0 recs | Comment 56 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

TS%

Martin = 69%. Yay.

The rest of the team = 45%. Not so much.

The core of this team is showing flashes. We need coaching and a draft that will allow JT and Donté to bequeath their Hello Kitty backpacks (maybe we’ll even have to get Bobby Brown’s out of storage).

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Mar 17, 2009 7:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Only got to listen to most of the 1st quarter

on my lunch break. Looks like they just took half the game off again. We really need a Natting coach. Kenny is a nice guy and probably not half bad as an Assistant, but he always seems outclassed. Looking at the boxscore, Why oh why did Calvin Booth get playing time? JT foul trouble? Why Calvin Booth and not Ike Diogu even?

I’m sort of glad I didn’t get to see this game. As for winning against the East, I think we’ll lose to Charlotte and New York and then beat Philly at home. But we’ll probably lose all 3 being the Kings.

by Aykis16 on Mar 17, 2009 8:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes Booth did not play badly when he came in

He was one reason the Kings weren’t down more Aykis. Calvin Booth was a necessary sub. Any coach would have done that under those circumstances.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....

by pookeyguru on Mar 18, 2009 6:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again didn't see the game and have nothing against Booth.

I just would’ve liked to see Diogu more.

by Aykis16 on Mar 18, 2009 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Diogu is not sticking with this team

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Mar 18, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Booth

I thought he played well when he came in. For a guy who has only played in two games all season, and this was his first appearance in a Kings uniform, it was nice to see him ready to go when his number was called.

Not spectacular, but definitely solid. And you can only assume that since he got the call while Diagu was mouldering at the end of the bench, that he’s showing more effort and/or ability in practice.

Nice to see. Good effort.

Coming to you live from the land of interim coaches.

by LeaguePassAddict on Mar 18, 2009 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Diogu may have cashed in his US career

and its obvious to the staff
or it may just be Natt’s sometimes strange rotation decisions based on. . . . .(?)

So imitate the action of the tiger!.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Mar 18, 2009 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

His PER is up to

44.98 now!

Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott

by Kfan in Korea on Mar 18, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hawks score 68 easy points in the paint

I’ll say it again, 68 points in the paint.

Not blowing by guards at the perimeter for the most part, just very simple, strong, boring post moves to the hole by smallish big men and some by even smaller guards. Just a ‘suck the life out of you’ demoralizing offense.

It would be nice to see some post play from closer than 12 feet from our team(?).

I won’t even talk about rebounds against a team that doesn’t start anyone over 6’9".

No worries, we’re ALL set in the middle. :)

So imitate the action of the tiger!.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Mar 17, 2009 10:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

How exactly does Blake Griffin make the Kings better?

Explain this to me. I didn’t say IF, I said “how exactly”. Not that I’m expecting a response. I’d be more likely to get an intelligent response from Dubya on this issue.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Mar 18, 2009 7:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude

pookey, it’s too early to be this angry

Never forget: I am a complete idiot

by Exhibit G on Mar 18, 2009 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is

I’m tired of his divisive half arguments he’s constantly throwing out there.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Mar 18, 2009 7:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not rising to your childish insults

Figure it out for yourself how the NCAA leader in rebounds or the NCAA leader in blocked shots would make us better ‘exactly’.
And Poooh, every time I ask you about why you like Rubio and intensely dislike Griffin and Thabeet without having seen either play, you respond ‘you wouldn’t understand’.

I believe you build a team from the inside out. I don’t think our work is done. Games like last night’s will convince GP (if he wasn’t already) of the same.

So imitate the action of the tiger!.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Mar 18, 2009 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How do you know I've never seen either play?

That’s a bad assumption on your part. It’s not like you’re beating the system to try & watch Rubio’s spanish league games.

I’m not insulting you. I’m calling you out. There’s a difference. You wouldn’t understand anything I say because I’ve already said it. You missed it then; you’re missing it now. You’re too dense, obtuse, and obnoxious to ever admit you could make a mistake.

Figure out how the NCAA leader in rebounds or the NCAA leader in blocked shots wouldn’t make us better. Hmmm, Kurt Thomas led the NCAA in scoring and rebounding one year. How good has he been over his career? (Bad example I realize.)

Michael Beasleywas 3rd in the NCAA in scoring and led in rebounding last season. How well has that translated so far?

I don’t fail to see how Blake Griffin will be an All-Star. What I fail to see, other than Griffin being better than any other big in the draft, is going to make the Kings that much better with his presence. He doesn’t block a lot of shots, or he won’t on the NBA level.

Thabeet doesn’t have any offensive game. You want to waste a top 4 pick on a guy who plays one side of the court?

I have nothing personally against Thabeet or Griffin. I don’t stand to gain anything if Ricky Rubio is picked by the Kings.

I’m done with you. You’re a waste of space and conversation.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Mar 18, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A reply without a response

1. You still haven’t admitted whether infact you have or have not watched them play.
2. Beasley’s first yr > JTs and verdict still ultimately out.
3. You cite a self admitted bad example (?)
4. You say you fail to see how Griffin or Thabeet would make us better without defending what you base your opinion that Rubio would (I know, I ’wouldn’t understand’)
5. You think PG is our biggest need, I agree its a big need but believe to win games you must score easy pts at the basket and limit the other teams from doing the same.
6. I believe defense, including reboundiing, comes first, starts at your big ‘power’ positions and makes offensive execution easier .
7. I believe you build a championship team from the inside out.
8. Of the last five or six championship teams and finalists, I’d say only one, SA, had an All-Star caliber PG. ALL were strong at the basket.

So imitate the action of the tiger!.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Mar 18, 2009 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Griffin > Nocioni as PF, Greene as PF, Booth, Diogu, Simmons ...

Griffin would help this team. The argument should be whether a different prospect would help this team more.

by Ziller on Mar 18, 2009 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No doubt - that is the debate

But apparently arguing a side Pooh doesn’t agree with is

" a waste of time and conversation"

You don’t believe Griffin > JT?

He’s got the same intensity and hustle with much better skills IMO.

For all those who worry about 6’9" I point to Al Horford who dismantled us in the paint last night and KLove and DLee, slightly less skilled, less athletic versions of Griffin who also play right at the rim and look to be some of the leagues most consistant rebounders for years to come – and score easy baskets at the rim.

So imitate the action of the tiger!.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Mar 18, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do either of our young bigs show signs of scoring EASY baskets at the rim?

or being dominating rebounders? They might yet develop to that but . . . .

They both seem to have to work too hard so far to me.

So imitate the action of the tiger!.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Mar 18, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know that

The fact that you just pointed it out is exactly why I’m done with him.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Mar 18, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

another reply w/o a response

you ask that I get specific, claim I won’t, I do, then you sulk and whine because you are the one without an argument based on any philosophy or facts.

So imitate the action of the tiger!.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Mar 18, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know that Blake Griffin is beating up on the PFs and Centers of the Big 12, but I wonder what he could have done against Horford and Josh Smith. My guess is not much.

And a lot of those points were on drives to the rim. I don’t think Blake could have helped there either. Thabeet maybe, but I don’t like his offense, and I don’t think he’s worth the #1 or 2 pick.

by misterbrister on Mar 18, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

As for Griffin, I have no real idea how well he'll defend in the NBA

He plays right at the rim though, so he’ll rebound and is comfortable fighting for position there at both ends. Probably at least OK.
Thabeet has almost exactly the same problems JT does on offense, not a lot a simple moves to the basket, bad left hand, questionable footwork. I expect he’ll score in double digits if given the ball enough. Now on D, Thabeet’s footwork, unlike JTs, is amazingly good. He will be a stopper at the next level. That good footwork on D makes me believe he’ll get better with his offensive footwork and develop at least a few good moves to the rim. At 7’3", that should get him by. I can live with 4-5 dunks/layups and 6-10 free throws if a guy is changing the game that much on the other end.

So imitate the action of the tiger!.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Mar 18, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gotta say

Just finished watching the bulls beat the celtics, entirely on the backs of Salmons and Brad Miller. They were superb. Not at all saying the Kings should have held onto them with a youth movement in action but its tough to see the talent on display tonight wasn’t there for the Kings all season long really.

by Slick on Mar 17, 2009 10:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Same goes for Bibby and Artest

Once Bibby arrived in Atlanta, their team became a legitimate playoff contender. Artest is carrying Houston on his back right now with T-Mac and Yao out. You can pick up some great players and put them on crappy squads, then see those same players turn to crap. (See Starbury*) It’s all effort based from team chemistry and players buying into the organizational system.

by CloudyEyes on Mar 18, 2009 6:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well put

It’s all effort based from team chemistry and players buying into the organizational system.

Team Chemistry – I think we’re getting there
Organizational System – what’s that?

Never forget: I am a complete idiot

by Exhibit G on Mar 18, 2009 6:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Organizational system being the coaching staff, how the team is maintained, the play sets, loyalty to the Kings organization, etc etc.

by CloudyEyes on Mar 18, 2009 6:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

That was meant as a sarcastic “we don’t have any idea of what an organizational system is”

Never forget: I am a complete idiot

by Exhibit G on Mar 18, 2009 7:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sarcasms on the internets we cannot compute!

But yeah, I agree!

by CloudyEyes on Mar 18, 2009 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

at the end of the Wiz game

I saw players shaking thier heads, looking away in dissatisfaction as Natt drew up a play. I’d note that after the game KM said ‘I decided to go for the win right there’.

So imitate the action of the tiger!.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Mar 18, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not just Natt

The entire thing stinks from the top down.

by KingsFan on Mar 18, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Once again

Petrie got punked.

by KingsFan on Mar 18, 2009 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

?

Petrie was open on the wing and K-Mart didn’t pass it to him?

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Mar 18, 2009 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Punked?

You think Miller and Salmons are worth more here than as cap and roster space?

Maybe for the short term, having them here would give us a couple more wins in a never-had-a-shot-at-the-playoffs season.

In the long term, we’re rebuilding, so Petrie has to consider what we want beyond this season. And that would be youth, athleticism, and people who can play in a system designed by Pete Carrill.

Coming to you live from the land of interim coaches.

by LeaguePassAddict on Mar 18, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't like arguing with you LPA, or even correcting you

As I fear repercussions of everything LPA based. However, who fit in Carril’s system better than Brad Miller did?

Also, if this trade wasn’t financially motivated, which it was, then why not keep MIller & Salmons around when Miller’s contract expires, and who knows, maybe Salmons opted out as well?

Last but not least, ah sowwy, ah sowwy.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Mar 18, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My point

Is that we need youth AND athleticism AND Princeton folks.

Miller = 1/3 (Princeton Offense)
Salmons = 1/2 (Athleticism and sorta youth)

We need guys who are all three.

Coming to you live from the land of interim coaches.

by LeaguePassAddict on Mar 19, 2009 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm

Okay. I agree.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Mar 19, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just think we should have gotten more

for Miller and especially Salmons.

by KingsFan on Mar 18, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah?

Like what?

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Mar 18, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We gave up the two best players in the trade and got back the worst contract. No one can say what we could have gotten back, because we don’t know what the options were.

If there truly were no other available options, then I can see the case for making the deal we did. It is certainly easy to make a case that we didn’t get a very good deal. Of course its all speculation, but the day of the trade, the moderators of this site said Nocioni’s contract is exactly what we don’t need. There’s a plausible case that something different must have been out there, though of course its completely unprovable.

I think, GP decided Miller and Salmons had to go, and this was the only deal he had, that he was sure he could get rid of both. He rationalized it by talking himself into Nocioni’s intangibles. I can see it, I also am disappointed with the way it went down and what we got, but we can’t really crucify GP I don’t think without knowing more.

The ultimate victory in competition is derived from the inner satisfaction of knowing that you have done your best and that you have gotten the most out of what you had to give…Howard Cosell

by ForThree on Mar 19, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've heard this before

Disagree with this then; Disagree with it now. I don’t think there was any better option on the table. I don’t think Salmons enticed any NBA team enough to want to take on a bad contract (like Kenny Thomas) on. I also don’t think this is anything but revisionist history. It is what it is.

i agree Nocioni’s contract is not what the Kings needed. They also didn’t need a roster with a pouting Center being paid well over 10 million dollars either. There was multiple priorities here. In the long run, I don’t think Nocioni is the poison pill you make his contract to be. And, I never thought 2010 was a viable option to begin with.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Mar 19, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can’t say with any certainty there wasn’t another offer out there either. We certainly agreed to disagree on this one a while back pookey, I understand.

I just don’t think its fair to ask KingsFan to come up with alternatives when there’s no way anyone could know what alternatives were out there.

I agree with you, that if there were no other possibilities, then this deal was better than doing nothing, just for addition by subtraction reasons.

We disagree on the probability that something else could have been done, that’s all.

The ultimate victory in competition is derived from the inner satisfaction of knowing that you have done your best and that you have gotten the most out of what you had to give…Howard Cosell

by ForThree on Mar 20, 2009 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think we rationalized Nocioni's intangibles

As much as we rationalized the idea that Petrie offloaded what, six or seven contracts for next year and only got one back in return. Regardless of what we think of Nocioni at this point, I think if you look at the big picture, there’s a lot to like about Petrie’s work the last few months.

And you are right, we gave up the two best players in the deal, but that’s really not saying much. Just because they were our two best doesn’t mean they had the value across the league you think they should have.

Lonely people mixing with one another? Breeding? Creating an even lonelier generation? You're not allowing natural selection to do its work. You're like the guy that invented the seat belt.

by otis29 on Mar 20, 2009 7:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

six or seven contracts?

We got rid of Miller, Salmons, Bobby Brown. The worst of those contracts expired next year.

We’re eating Mikki Moore’s contract, (the buyout), nothing gained there. Everyone else was expiring anyway right?

Petrie did what he had to, to get Miller and Salmons off the team. In return, we got Nocioni, and his contract. You can make a case its a heavy price to pay to get rid of those guys, both of which have a PER for the year over 16. Like I said above, if this was the only choice, I see it, but at face value it seems reasonable to ask if we could have done better.

The ultimate victory in competition is derived from the inner satisfaction of knowing that you have done your best and that you have gotten the most out of what you had to give…Howard Cosell

by ForThree on Mar 20, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let me ask you this

What reasonable options that you think were out there that Petrie decided not to do?

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Mar 20, 2009 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is it impossible to imagine

we could have gotten rid of both for all expirings?

Are we reasonably sure the market value for those two guys was below zero? That’s my problem, essentially, we paid Chicago (by taking Nocioni back) to take Miller and Salmons. That’s why I was frustrated with the deal.

Now, if getting nothing for them wasn’t available, and maybe it wasn’t, then for personality and freeing up time for the young guys reasons, I can see why we made the deal, but that doesn’t make me love it. I think its at least as likely that somewhere along the way GP could have dumped Miller for expirings or closer to it than expirings + Nocioni. But as I said above, we’ll never know.

If GP did pass on the chance to dump them for expirings, then I think he made a mistake. Not an end of the world, he should be crucified mistake, but he didn’t make the deal I would have preferred.

The ultimate victory in competition is derived from the inner satisfaction of knowing that you have done your best and that you have gotten the most out of what you had to give…Howard Cosell

by ForThree on Mar 20, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

Yes, by that time, I do think it was. I still think it’s impressive that the rest of the players WERE expirings. And the money we’re talking about with Nocioni is being spread over THREE seasons. Petrie did effectively kill Chicago’s chance of not paying luxury tax to re-sign Ben Gordon by taking all their expirings.

I disagree with you. You disagree with me. You wanted more. I disagree with the premise that more was available. A lot of teams wanted to cut salary in this market, and yet, very few actually did. So in a way, I like what Petrie did even more.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Mar 20, 2009 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hawes

I haven’t had a chance to watch any recent games, but the notes about Hawes tossing up a long three concerns me. Is this something he’s started doing regularly, or was this considered odd in the moment?

Never forget: I am a complete idiot

by Exhibit G on Mar 18, 2009 6:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It happens occasionally where he puts up a 3

It’s not entirely out there.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Mar 18, 2009 6:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And watching the replay

It was a decent shot for Spencer.He was open and it came off Beno penetrating.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Mar 18, 2009 6:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by lietothegirls on Mar 18, 2009 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

Yeah, I’ve got no problem with the occassional three from Spence. I was just curious about the quality of his three-point shot selection. Sounds like it isn’t a major concern.

Never forget: I am a complete idiot

by Exhibit G on Mar 18, 2009 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ya If you notice

They’re usually from the corner, in other words " a smart 3"

by Aykis16 on Mar 18, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of Hawes,

it looks like you can sign up to receive text messages from him. And really, no one could possibly resist receiving insight as deep and nuanced as last Wednesday’s message:

cavaliers on friday

by twasserm on Mar 18, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL twas

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Mar 18, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs