Come on guys. Stop changing what I was saying! I said that PP wasn't coming out with defensive intensity and it was hurting this team. I wondered why. In the post game interview PP said exactly that. He said that they weren't coming out to start games with the defensive intensity that they needed to and included last nights game. PP is backing up what I said. I don't need anyone else on here to validate that. The man himself agreed. He said they needed to do a better job and they weren't playing as intense on the defensive end as they should. How can anyone continue to disagree with my point after that?!
I said that I wasn't worried about his offense, that it would come back. I stated that if he stepped up the D the team would follow. There was an obvious difference in that game when he and KG started playing that way. No one can dismiss that. Then the entire team started feeding off that and we started coming back. PP's timely return of his jumper sealed it, and I credit his defense for getting that going as well. I hope he listens to his own words of wisdom and starts the games this way.
I have to give a TP to EJ here because he is right.
His criticism, and that's all it was it wasn't "mocking" or "throwing under the bus" or some of the more inflammatory ways used to describe EJ's original post, was with his defensive intensity and a possible perceived lack of focus. Let's not twist his words because you may not like the direction his criticism is aimed. He had a valid point that more than one other person here agreed with.
his point is it's due to a lack of effort, which i certainly DON't agree with. The struggles are thier, and EJ made a good argument, but no, i don't accept that Paul is coasting on defense and not trying, sorry.
I also don't accept that getting in foul trouble in one game and having a kid go off on everyone consititutes "proof" of lack of focus and effort, and yet all the other good defensive preformances were because of, and I'm qouting "Taking bad shots and clanging up threes" is an acceptable out for one half of your argument being falicious.
People take and clang 3's because they can't drive due to good defense, not because they say "well, i COULD drive, this guys not putting the effort in, but screw it, i love shooting from way outside my range, im a moron"
EJ made his argument about pierce's lack of effort and commitment and disagreement, and He's argued it well. Not agreeing with him doesn't mean i'm somehow summarily dismissing paul's struggles or "changing what he's saying"
You questioned paul's effort and commitment to defense, using specfic examples. I challanged those examples. How is that changing what your saying?
To EJ i would say, don't change your argument halfway through. You argued it well, and to be sure, you could be right and i could be wrong, i don't know the man, mabey he is dogging it on defense and not coming out with defensive intensity, but its odd that every example i bring up (I.E the 5/7 games where he was good to great) is dissmised out of hand while his two bad games (granger and prince) are magnified.
He did well on arrtest? arrtest wanted to shoot bad shots all night, nothing to do with paul.
Did well on green? He's a rookie, of course paul did well.
Did well on LBJ? lebron wanted to take jumpers and shoot 30%, it was part of his plan, nothing to do with paul.
He held RJ to below his averages? doesn't matter, RJ tourched him.
I fail to see how providing examples of when paul put in good defensive effort is "changing the argument" when the argument, as per the post was "paul isn't bringing good defensive effort, and thats hurting the team"
its having a diffreing opnion, which is allowed . It doesn't mean im 100% right nor that EJ is 100% wrong, it means we disagree. and how boring would this borad be of we agreed on everything 100% of the time?
