you contradict urself alot bro, i think ur just in love with Jsmoooooove.
1.jamison was not meant to be a shooter for our bench, which you said he was, but then you said he was supposed to be our bench's 2nd scorer(which is the truth)
Dude you make no sense You think that Jamison isn't meant to be a shooter on our bench but that he was meant to be the second scorer? I said Jamison was meant to be the extra scorer on the bench,
THAT is all that's missing on our bench is an extra shooter.
It was MEANT to be Jamison but he hasn't come through as of yet.
Jamison was meant to be our extra scorer off the bench and I stated it from the first sentence so where was I incorrect? I think you misread me and are now trying to make a point that doesn't exist.
2. you admit that our bench needs a 2nd scorer, a shooter will not be that. a shooter will thrive with Nash,a shooter most often wont thrive with our bench(ask jodie effing meeks)(HE IS OUR SHOOTER) the bench needs a playmaker(was supposed to be Jamison).
lol are you REALLY trying to say that a shooter and scorer aren't the same thing? Jamison is our second guy that's on the wing as a spot up shooter he's nothing more nothing less, he's asked to be a shooter that's why a majority of his shots come from three. Our bench unit is meant to punish people at range. Hill and Howard are on the inside to handle rebounds and take it to the post and the funny thing is Jamison has been getting some wide open threes. You say a shooter won't thrive with our bench which is just an idiotic statement first of all, you use Meeks as an example despite the fact he's known to be streaky and hasn't even had a defined role yet on our bench till recently. Tell me, what happened last night when he started acting like what he was(a spot up shooter) and stopped trying to do too much? That's right he scored. He got easy shots and he scored.
So for you to say a shooter won't thrive on our bench is just idiotic.
Jamison was made to be a guy that would get himself open shots from the mid range and three which is what he's been good at and he's actually done, the unfortunate thing he's missed a majority of his shots.
3. kobes minutes will continue to be too high, as long as our bench is wack. so, the bench needs to be fixed to keep his minutes down, and thats what i want to do,,,you want to keep the bench below average and therfor keep kobes minutes up.
But I don't think you grasp how much you're giving up if you put Jamison in the starting lineup. You're basically trying to say
"Moving Jamison to the starting the lineup while having 2 bench players helps us more than having Josh Smith in the starting lineup and another shooter on our bench."
That is the single most idiotic statement you can make. Why the heck would we put Jamison in the starting lineup if we aren't content with what Pau is doing. You think Jamison would do any more? Oh that's right you expect NASH to carry the load along with Kobe and Dwight despite the facts team exploiting when we're weak at the 4 that it WOULDN'T WORK.
We get busted by other teams because of our lack of interior D, if you put Jamison as the starting 4 you're basically telling a team "go ahead and score 60 points in the paint against us please.. we aren't even trying to defend you in there."
Use your head man. Jamison is a worse defender than Pau, he's smaller than Pau, his shot has been worse than Pau this season and he's 'stretched' the floor absolutely none this season against a bench lineup. You want to put him there against STARTING 4s and then sit back and say "its fine cause those 2 players on our bench will make up for it."
No, they won't. No one in their right mind would start Jamison because they don't want to get Josh Smith. It's nonsense and it's hard to believe you're actually trying to argue it.
4. if we dont move Jamison or Hill into our starting Pf slot, Jamison will continue to be a waste of a pickup(playing SF)
that lineup would be better than our starting lineup now(for this team ran by nash) , plus thorton and isaiah would make our bench great. if we get some depth on the wings, metta can play less(kobe at the 3), and kobe can play less(better bench=less minutes) , and Jamison would play the position where he had twenty 20point games where he shot 45% or more last season(66game season).. OUR TEAM WOULD BE SO MUCH BETTER with all the above.
So you want to start Kobe at the 3 in your thought pattern over Metta? holy crap trying to make your point is just making this worse for you. Yeah let's enjoy watching Kobe defend Durant and try to muscle LeBron in the post for entire stretches, it will be fun and won't wear him down at all.
Dude it's just getting more idiotic by the moment. In all honesty you should just stop now.
You're arguing you'd rather have Hill/Jamison starting over Josh Smith and have Kobe as our starting small forward.
I think this conversation is over.