Team USA screwed??





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Team USA screwed??
By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 03:48 pm: Edit

So...how many of you follow Olympic basketball? All I have to say is, I honestly believe the Team USA is going to lose in Athens this time and its pretty pathetic.

Gold-most likely Lithuania
Silver-probably Serbia & Montenegro
Bronze-USA

Opinions?

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:08 pm: Edit

no way

gold-usa

I'll take it a step further, they wont have a game closer than 20 points

carmelo anthony, duncan, iverson, lebron, marbury

...trust me they won't have any problems... it is by no means a weak team

who is on lithuania? they don't even have Sabonis anymore

stojakovic (serbia) is good... but you really think one nba star can defeat a team of 12?

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:21 pm: Edit

Man, Team USA is the weakest most inexperienced team we have ever played since the 92 Olympics. Lebron, Wade, Carmelo, Amare Stoudamire, Lamar Odom, and Okafore all all inexpierenced in international competition and international rules. I'm not expecting them to make any significant contributions, no matter how good they are for rookies.

Iverson is old and injured, Marbury is the only true point guard. Boozer, Duncan, and Amare are the only big men and Duncan is the only good on out of all of them.

2002 World Championship USA took SIXTH place, after losing to Argentina, Serbia, Spain. USA did have a better overall team back then; Ben Wallace, Reggie Miller, Finley, Lafrentz, Jermaine O'neill, Paul Pierce, etc...

2004 US Team is much weaker.

The problem is that teams such as serbia and lithuania have excellent depth and have been playing together as a team for YEARS. Team USA was scrounged together and will only practice a couple of weeks.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:29 pm: Edit

2002 world championship team was a joke though

this is the olympics, they will at least take it semi seriously

lets compare players from 2002 and now 2004

duncan > jermanine
lebron > reggie miller
iverson/marbury > paul pierce
carmelo > finley
Okafore/Odom = Wallace

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 05:12 pm: Edit

Another point...in 2000 Lithuania gave USA quite a scare when they were only ONE last desperate 3 point shot away from beating USA. and the 2000 US team was MUCH better than the 2004, and Lithuania has only improved in these 4 years.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 05:28 pm: Edit

again the 2000 was considerably weaker than this 2004 team

the only good players on the 2000 team were vince carter, jason kidd, and ray allen

also dont forget that the 2000 team beat Lithuania by liek 15 points in their first metting before the semi's

We are coming in with a stronger team than in 2000, Lithuania is coming in with a weaker team (no Sabonis or Ilgauskas)

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 05:36 pm: Edit

I'll put anything on the US -- Larry Brown won't take crap from these guys and he's all ready shown it by not playing three players who were late to a practice. They are talent wise the best and Brown will make sure they are ready to play -- therefore there is no way they will lose.

By 1212 (1212) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 05:50 pm: Edit

peja isnt playing this year for the serbs, i think US will win this one hands down

By And1baller (And1baller) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 06:32 pm: Edit

Team USA is the most talented team by far but they are not going to be on par with the other teams in terms of teamwork. I, however, believe that their talent will compensate for lack of teamwork and they'll pull throught without much trouble.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 07:44 pm: Edit

Talent worked the last 3 olympics, but this time teamwork I think will finally overcome that. Plus, the 2004 team doesn't have NEARLY the same talent as the previous olympic teams, and the opposition has improved so much.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 08:18 pm: Edit

How can you say that. This is the best team they have had since 1996. The 2000 team was a joke, they were regarded as weak right from the start...yet they still won gold

Most sports analysts (and I agree with them) often compare the best olympic opposition to a mediocore CBA team

By Lethalfang (Lethalfang) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 08:23 pm: Edit

"Most sports analysts (and I agree with them) often compare the best olympic opposition to a mediocore CBA team."

On the other hand, comparing with the LA Lakers, most sports analysts (and I used to agree with them) often compare the Detroit Pistons to a mediocre CBA team.
OOPS!

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 08:26 pm: Edit

um...the 2000 team was a joke?? They had Ray ALlen, Garnett, Vince Carter, jason Kidd, Payton, and Mourning (healthy version).

I think that teams a lot better than Duncan, Iverson, Jefferson (??), Marion (??), and the inexperienced rookies.

And Lithuania only lost by 2 points, so you really think the opposition is only a CBA team??

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 08:28 pm: Edit

No one ever compared the Pistons to a mediocre CBA team.

By the way, I picked the Pistons from the beginning (not that it means anything).

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 09:17 pm: Edit

hmssrfffffphhhttt...stupid Tracy McGrady had to drop out...damn him

By Coqui (Coqui) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 12:14 am: Edit

Vancat....whatever you're on, i'd LOVE to try it.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 12:20 am: Edit

Oh trust me Coqui, you NEEED to try this Sh-t

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 12:38 am: Edit

Oh and another thing, Team USA is gonna be needing ALOT of my stuff once the Olympics are over.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 12:52 am: Edit

Don't you know that the Olymipics won't happen when terrorist attacks kill thousands in the first few days? Seriously, with the EU passports, terrorists can really move freely in Europe. And Greece isn't the most advanced nation in terms of anti-terrorism capabilities.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 02:02 pm: Edit

Duncan, Iverson (who, btw, is not "old"), and Wade are all solid players and should be more than enough to lead the team, especially Duncan and The Answer- good veteran leadership combined with ungodly skills. Lebron and 'Mello have both proven they can elevate their game when necessary. They should grab the gold this year, barring any USA/USSR type screw-overs.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Iverson is an old fart (though he still has some skill), he is being bothered by his old injury that took him out of much of last season though.

Duncan won't be able to use his brute strength like normal because the international courts have a different layout for the paint which purposely prevents big men from camping and slamming (like Shaq). Duncan is really going to have to rely on accurate shooting and rebounding, though he is pretty good at that already.

The oppositions teamwork may shut down the USA though, since they've only been practicing for a couple weeks. Its happened before and it could happen again.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 04:10 pm: Edit

USA just got blown out by Italy in a friendly


I'm still not worried... they have only been practicing together for a week up untill this point... i think they will pull it together in time for the Olympics

By Jmatt (Jmatt) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 04:46 pm: Edit

I just saw it. It was embarassing. We just don't have good perimeter players, which by the way, the italians had in abundance. But I still think such an embarassment was needed for us to realize that there are other teams out there who're good and to remove all overconfidence from our heads. If we play with respect for our opponents, I'm sure we will win. In today's game, even when they went down at the start, they all looked like they were sure they'd win it somehow. But when the shots didn't fall, that's when they started to panic. But I think because of this, we'll beat Germany tomorrow.

By 1212 (1212) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 05:20 pm: Edit

what the •••• happened, damn that was horrible

By Lethalfang (Lethalfang) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 05:50 pm: Edit

International games like this one favors foreign teams:
The 3-point line is shorter than the NBA 3-point line.
They allow zone defense, which makes it tougher for American players to display their superior one-on-one ability because you cannot get isolations for the player. The zone-buster is outside shooting, but Americans are still very much in love with the glorious one-on-one plays.
The officiating is much more tick-tack and does not allow the NBA-style physical defense.
If I remember correctly, international rules do not allow pick-and-role, which is a primary American way of getting open shots.
You are talking about breaking tons of old habits from our players in a matter of a few months.
In the past, Team USA's talent is SO much superior it never mattered. Now, however, many of the best American players opt to skip this event, and international talent are growing faster than ever, narrowing the talent gap.
Americans now actually need teamwork to win this event. The talent is still the best, but it no longer blows other teams out of the water any more.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 06:46 pm: Edit

the Italy game further reinforced USAs crucial weakness. Lack of teamwork, coordination, and relative inexperience will do alot of bad, no matter how good the individuals are.

Plus, USA lacks pure shooters and it showed in that game. It really is a shame McGrady and Ray Allen and the like had to drop out.

Its gonna be an embarrasing 2004. Hopefully, they will redeem themselves in four years later.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 09:42 pm: Edit

they might become the laughingstock of these Olympics...hopefully our superstars feel this in time for 2008.

By Lethalfang (Lethalfang) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 10:40 pm: Edit

Maybe the NBA needs to change a few rules that will promote teamwork and fundamentals, such as allowing zone defense altogether and get rid of these illegal defense crap.
You should be allowed to play defense any way you want, and if no one can shoot a 18 footer consistently to discourage the use of zone defense, then they should practice shooting.
Disproportional number of good shooters in the NBA are foreign-born. That tells you something.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 11:30 pm: Edit

How 'bout just a bit of optimism/hope, Vancat? You have a very exaggerated pessimissm...

Personally, I think that the US will win the gold, however, even if they don't it won't mean a thing to me, as the best players in the country are not playing...but if we did have the Dream Team, the USA would stomp the competition. Also, in terms of basketball, it's just the Olympics, it's more of an All-Star game than a competition to see who's the best in the world. Now, if it was amatures...then I could care about it...but it's just an exhibition (to the US at least), not that big of a deal.

*realizes he just pissed off a ton of Olympics fans...dons extra strong flame suit*

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 12:31 am: Edit

I'm just saying my ideas. I was confident USA would win the 2000 Olympics even with a weaker team and stronger opposition. However, Due to circumstances this year, I just don't see it.

Oh, plus: it's more of a "national ego and international bragging rights" type competition for America, so winning is a big deal. Screw Having fun.

By Lethalfang (Lethalfang) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 01:09 am: Edit

If we do send out the best players in the NBA, we still will not stomp the competition.
However, if we send the Detroit Pistons into the Olympic, THEY will stomp the competition, because they play as a TEAM.
In international basketball, a collection of athletes will not win the title. A team that understands the game of basketball will.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:42 am: Edit

NO the Pistons could NOT win even if they played better as a team, simply because their overall talent compared to the opposition is lacking. Now if we had McGrady, Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, Shaq, Iverson, LeBron, Kidd, and Allen practice for a few months together, they would handidly woop the oppositions ass

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 01:16 pm: Edit

I say, for the 2006 World Championships, send the And 1 Mix Tape Tour to represent the US. After Hot Sauce, The Professor, and Co. get their asses handed to them, maybe the NBA players will realize in time for the 2008 Beijing Games that showboating and one-on-one dunks won't get them anymore.

By Lethalfang (Lethalfang) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Yeah yeah yeah yeah. Team Italy's talent comparing with the Team USA is like comparing an average minor league baseball team to the NY Yankees.
But guess what happened?
This minor league team played together, knows each other, does excellent teamwork and plays the game the right way.
They draw walks. They stand in to get hit by pitches. They steal bases. They bunt; they bunt for hits. They sacrifice. They run the bases aggressively. And defensively, all they allow their opposition is a few glamorous 500-feet home runs (like these big-time 2-point dunks).
In the end, the David slays the Goliath, and in fact the Goliath never stood a chance.

By Lethalfang (Lethalfang) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 01:50 pm: Edit

I say for 2006 World Championships, send in the best college and amatuer players to the Olympics. Have them practice together for 3 months before playing their first game. They stand a 50-50 chance of winning the title.
Our college players are more athletic than all of the foreign teams. Unlike many of our NBA stars, however, they aren't going to skip the event because of excuses like "free agency, toe hurts, etc."
They will play with passion, and that will win us games.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 02:00 pm: Edit

"NO the Pistons could NOT win even if they played better as a team, simply because their overall talent compared to the opposition is lacking. Now if we had McGrady, Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, Shaq, Iverson, LeBron, Kidd, and Allen practice for a few months together, they would handidly woop the oppositions ass "

Vacant it is becoming clear you know little about basketball. First off, if McGrady and company played religiously together (like a normal nba team) they would win every game by at least 30 points.

Second off, if the Detroit Pistons played in the Olympics, or any NBA team for that matter, they would dominate. The only reason the current Olympic squad is struggling is because they have played together for a whopping one week.

As I have said before, many sports analysts compare the other Olympic teams to an average CBA team...the only advantage that they have on the US is that they have been playing together for years...which is precisely why the Pistons or any other NBA team would destroy the competition

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 03:05 pm: Edit

"First off, if McGrady and company played religiously together (like a normal nba team) they would win every game by at least 30 points."

and thats exactly what I said.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 03:08 pm: Edit

McGrady and the Superstar crew, if they made significant practice time together, WOULD kick ass. Thats exactly what I said.

I said the Pistons probably woulnd't win the Olympics because most of them are roughly equal to the competition. Only a couple players may be much better than the opposition.

By Lethalfang (Lethalfang) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 04:55 pm: Edit

The Pistons can beat NBA all-star teams any day of the week.
Pistons will dominate the Olympics.
Pistons do not have the superstar names, but US did not lose games because they lack talent.
Detroit Pistons with an active roster of 12 players have 12 NBA players plus 2 on the injury reserve list, not to mention many very good NBA players like Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace, Richard Hamilton (being NBA's best mid-range shooter would precisely make him the zone-buster in international competition), etc.
Team Italy has 0 NBA player.
There is your disparity in talent level.

By Jmatt (Jmatt) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Phew that was close!! I was sure it'd go to overtime. The ending was tight though. Iverson has said before that he has never hit a game winning shot in high school, college, or the NBA. So this must feel good for him.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 06:59 pm: Edit

Sigh, the USA Germany game further reinforced my point. USA barely beat Germany, in fact the game really could have gone either way in those last few minutes. And considering LIthuania and Serbia are much better than Germany, well...

By Lethalfang (Lethalfang) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 07:18 pm: Edit

No, Vancat, it does not reinforce your point.
Your point was that this team did not have enough talent, and that if more superstars are on the roster, we would crush the opponent.
I think your point is wrong.
Talent is not the problem.
The problem is teamwork.
NBA focuses on individual athleticism, as evident with NBA's illegal defense rules that encourages one=on-one basketball.
This squad still has the best individual talent among all competition by far. If the games are scored with compiled scores from a number of individual one-on-one matchups (like gymnastics team), US will crush the opponent.
However, the game is not played this way. We fail on 5-on-5 ball.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:22 pm: Edit

That is precisely another point that I've made. Team USA has been practicing together for, what? A couple of weeks???

Lithuania, and most of the other countries, have been playing together as a team for months or YEARS.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Oh and we DO lack talent compared to the competition. Especially in the area of perimeter shooting, for instance.

By Lethalfang (Lethalfang) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 11:06 pm: Edit

Not having played together is a point I've made over and over. That's why I proposed only a few posts ago that we should send college and amatuers and have them practicing 3 months first.
This squad lacks perimeter shooting, but still has the talent to beat any opposition because of superior athleticism if playing defense the right away.
Ever notice in college games, some of the best shooting teams ALWAYS have bad shooting nights when they go up against good defensive teams? Athleticism and effort makes good defense, but this squad is not doing it.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:15 am: Edit

WE've been sending college players to the Olympics everytime before 92. And guiess what, we've lost before. And considering that its America, we really shouldnt have.

Pros are the only way to gaurantee a victory especially since the competition is improving so rapidly, but only if they actually put in a significant amount of teamwork and practice time.

By Lethalfang (Lethalfang) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 02:15 am: Edit

We lost only once in Olympics sending college players, and even that was on a controversial referee decision in the championship game.
I'd rather watch the amatuers giving their all and go down swinging, than NBA superstars getting blown out and showing no fight.
Asking the pros to mount practice time and teamwork for Olympics? Just see the "reasons" pros turned down invitations for.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 10:42 am: Edit

Wrong, USA lost in 1972 and in 1988.

By Lethalfang (Lethalfang) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 01:24 pm: Edit

I don't know what happened in 1972, but even if it's true and I'm wrong, it does not change the big picture.
Our amatuers and college players are good enough to compete and win.
During the NBA lockout season, we had amatuers (not even the best of them) playing in the World Championship Basketball, finishing, I think it was 4th place, but title was within reach. That's far more respectable than NBA players finishing 6th 2 years ago and getting blown out by Italy just a couple days ago.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 03:14 pm: Edit

1972 was the infamous USA-USSR "incident"
in the 1988 Seoul games, US college players again lost to the USSR

By Lethalfang (Lethalfang) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 03:17 pm: Edit

and your point is?

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 04:08 pm: Edit

my point is to answer your question, since you did not know what happened in 1972. Simple as that.

By Lethalfang (Lethalfang) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 04:59 pm: Edit

And what does that fit into the big picture?

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 10:12 pm: Edit

I'm not talking about the big picture. I simply wanted to answer your question, since you didn't know what happened in 1972 and you didn't know that our college boys have lost before.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 01:29 am: Edit

We actually won the 1972 game... or at least should have... the timer ran out

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 10:09 am: Edit

yes, we definately "should" have, but we didn't.

NOw, the 92 TEam vs. Angola, now THAT is what I call an American Victory.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 05:53 pm: Edit

USA: 80
Germany:77

Bad sign? OF COURSE. Germany didn't even qualify for the Olympics, and only Iverson's clutch shot in the last second saved us.

Revised Olympic results.

1. Lithuania
2. Serbia
3. Argentina
4. Spain
5. USA

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 05:54 pm: Edit

Hold the phone: the USA just crushed the world champion Serbians on their own home court.

Anyone see a light at the end of the tunnel? God bless Larry Brown and the miracles he performs.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 06:24 pm: Edit

yes, they "crushed" them. considering the margin was only 18 and Serbia didn't even have Peja, its somewhat concerning.

Lithuania and Argentina both have fully formed TEAMS, who have been playing together for years and have much more experience.

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 06:29 pm: Edit

"only 18" ... this is basketball, not cricket. And even without Pedja, Serbia-Montenegro still is much more formidable than Italy or Germany. Especially in Belgrade.

I'm going out on a limb and say that the U.S. will win the gold based solely on today's performance.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 06:42 pm: Edit

maybe better than Italy, but its a nowhere near as good as Lithuania.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 07:01 pm: Edit

btw anybody see US womens vs. Bolivia??

BWAHAHA...thats what the men need to do.

143 to 24!!!!!!!!!! HOLY CRAP.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 02:55 am: Edit

vancat you are such a hypocrite..

"Revised Olympic results.

1. Lithuania
2. Serbia
3. Argentina
4. Spain
5. USA "

You put Serbia taking the Silver.. and now after USA destroys them (yes 18 points is a blowout).. you downplay the achievement and say .."well they didn't have Peja"....please refer to the 8th post of this thread when 1212 announced that Peja would not be playing!... you already knew damn well

... I mean comon dude are you even from America?... how bout a little patriotism (i see you despise liberals, yet you seem mighty unpatriotic for a conservative.)

By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 09:46 am: Edit

lol of course I'm from America and trust me I'd like nothing better than to see this country absolutely own the competition.

haha...the fact that I'm conservative means I should always root for america and believe its going to win? I'm all for America, but I'm just not seeing the team taking a medal this time.

P.S. I do not "despise" liberals. I have plenty of liberal friends. :)

By 1212 (1212) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 10:36 am: Edit

didnt the serbs play man on man instead of the zone that Italy and Germany utilized?

By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 02:10 pm: Edit

yes.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 02:48 pm: Edit

It doesn't really make a difference... NBA has been playing zone for a few seasons now... so the players are used to either (plus zone was huge in their college days)

By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Serbia had an off day. Simple as that. USA should be expecting MUCH better competition against Lithuania. And the lack of shooters on the US team is going to hurt.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 04:00 pm: Edit

an off day? or maybe the US needed a game or two to get their act together...i mean they only been practicing for a week going into the italy game....

..umm yea im going to have to go with the latter

..you can expect the rest of the opposition to have "off days" from here on out

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 09:33 pm: Edit

we'll see what happens against TUrkey.

Puerto Rico: adequate win
Italy: big loss
Germany: dangerously close win
Serbia: inadequate win
Turkey: My bets are on a close loss for the US.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 10:00 pm: Edit

serbia: inadequate win???


How do you figure... they beat them by 18! what else do you want from them

Puerto Rico was an inadequate win if anything ( a much weaker team) and the game was dead even at half time

Do you even watch the games? Or just always play devils advocate against the US

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 11:03 pm: Edit

yes, considering the small margin of victory (considering this is supposed to be the best NBA players), we should have demolished them. Just like we should have raped and pillaged every single other team that dared to stand against us.

Of course I watch the games. Don't be ridiculous.

A reason why I might be a little "pessimistic" this year is because I could be stuck in 1992 or 1996. Meh. Owell. I still want the USA to win, but considering that team USA should be the best and should be comprised of the best NBA players with the most practice time possible, these narrow victories this year make me nervous.

I liked it when the average margin of victory was 44 points back in 92. I liked it when USA kicked butt, and every other country knew it.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 12:04 am: Edit

"Turkey: My bets are on a close loss for the US. "

Not a stellar performance by any means... but the fact remains that the US beat them by 12. It seems as if you are underrating the US way too much. Sure they are capable of playing a lot better... but the competition they will be facing sucks

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 10:15 am: Edit

the sad part is...USA has been coming up with these very narrow margins of victory against teams that did not even qualify for the Olympics (i.e. Germany and Turkey).

And USAs critical weakness showed again as Turkey combined for 11 3pointers and USA went 0/6 from the 3point line.

By Globe568 (Globe568) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 03:44 pm: Edit

The US will undoubtedly take gold. Ill admit they have been playing crappy during the exhibition, but right now theyre just adjusting to the horrible officiating by the international referees. Do you seriously think the US commits that many travelling violations??
It is true that there outside shooting is weak, come on , Allen Iverson is the best outside shooter on the team.
If the US can play their fast paced, force turnover game, then they should breeze through the olympics.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 07:49 pm: Edit

for christs sake WTF is Marbury doing on the team! We need REAL GUARDS who can shoot and create opportunities, not some little showoff. Where the F is Michael Redd, Rick Hamilton, Ray Allen and Jason Kidd when you need them.

Hell, even Reggie Miller would be better than Marbury even at his "advanced" age.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 01:12 am: Edit

"for christs sake WTF is Marbury doing on the team! We need REAL GUARDS who can shoot and create opportunities, not some little showoff. Where the F is Michael Redd, Rick Hamilton, Ray Allen and Jason Kidd when you need them. "

You just proved you know nothing about basketball. Overall, Marbury is better than every single player you named with exception to Kidd. Kidd is a better "true" point guard (assists)...Marbury is a much better scorer

Look for the knicks to be in the nba championship next season if they land Vince Carter...marbury+carter=unstoppable

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 10:26 am: Edit

wrong...Rick Hamilton and Michael REdd are infinately better as true point guards considering they can create openings, shoot, and essentially direct the game better. As its been shown before, simply being a "better scorer" is NOT going to suffice in these games.

By Jmatt (Jmatt) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 11:36 am: Edit

I have to agree with vancat in that last post. Marbury is not the second best point guard on that list. He's too inconsistent for that.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 12:38 pm: Edit

"Rick Hamilton and Michael REdd are infinately better as true point guards considering they can create openings, shoot, and essentially direct the game better. "

Learn basketball. Let's look at last season's stats. Marbury averaged more assists than all those players with exception to Kidd (.3 less)

Kidd
PPG 15.5
RPG 6.40
APG 9.2
EFF + 20.45

Marbury
PPG 20.2
RPG 3.20
APG 8.9
EFF + 20.27

Hamilton
PPG 17.6
RPG 3.60
APG 4.0
EFF + 15.29

Redd
PPG 21.7
RPG 5.00
APG 2.3
EFF + 17.99

look at the eff ratings... Marbury and Kidd essentially had equaly good seasons... far better than Redd and Hamilton

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 03:32 pm: Edit

dude you cannot just go by a players "ability" just because of their stats. Hamilton, Redd, and Kidd are BETTER point guards than marburdy simply because they know how to play the position and are better at setting up plays, creating opportunities, etc...

Also, Hamilton and REdd are both more accurate shooters than Marbury, something that USA desperately needs. We already have plenty of people who can penetrate, and showoff by doing alley-oops all day.

And Jmatt is correct, Marbury is too inconsistent of a player to be the most effective point guard.

By Jmatt (Jmatt) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 03:36 pm: Edit

man the referee's calls (or rather no-calls) were baffling today! But at least they learnt to fight through it and didn't get rattled. It showed that they're maturing. Duncan was awesome today. Also, I loved Boozer's monster dunk in the last quarter. He finished it screaming and then stared at the turkish player on the floor. That was awesome. The one turkish player, i think his name was kutluay, was really good though. He alone kept them in the game.

By Jmatt (Jmatt) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 03:42 pm: Edit

Also, I don't think there's any use in saying the US isn't playing well because of the margins of victory. I think we should just give props to the opponents for playing the game of their lives (the one they've been preparing for months and months now).

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 04:15 pm: Edit

out of curiousity, who would you have picked for the US team if NOBODY refused? I'd pick:

Garnett, Duncan, Kobe, T-Mac, Ray Allen, Iverson, Lebron, Shaq, Jermaine O'neill, Hamilton, Kidd, Brand.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 05:55 pm: Edit

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:21 pm: Edit

"Iverson is old and injured, Marbury is the only true point guard. Boozer, Duncan, and Amare are the only big men and Duncan is the only good on out of all of them. "

Interesting.

Not sure who I'd go with but off the top of my head def Garnett, Duncan, Kobe, Shaq (dont put him on kobes line though), Lebron, Nowitzki (if he is even eligible to play for the US?), Sprewell, Tmac, Webber, Marbury, Kidd, Francis,

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 06:04 pm: Edit

I believe they have hope.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 06:42 pm: Edit

in reference to my quote, I meant Marbury is the only true point guard ON THE TEAM RIGHT NOW.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 07:12 pm: Edit

Well, Greece just blew Puerto Rico out of the water. THey are now seeded #2, Puerto RIco is #3, and USA is a disastrous #4 seed. Which means the USA will be playing top ranked A Group Spain (5-0), which will result in an almost certain loss.

By Paulhomework (Paulhomework) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 10:36 pm: Edit

if they can't beat Spain in an elimination game, then they better pack their bags right now and come back to US. We either win the gold medal or we're a complete failure.

By 1212 (1212) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 11:52 pm: Edit

this game against spain will decide errthing
it should be a great game

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 09:46 pm: Edit

save us the embarrasment, the US needs to pack its bags Now and go home. i don't think they have a rats ass chance in hell. Its really too bad.

By Bobmarley (Bobmarley) on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 09:49 pm: Edit

Yeah, I hope these Team USA punks get their asses handed to em. I just really don't like Iverson.

I'm rooting for Argentina and Manu now.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 10:02 pm: Edit

Its not necessarily Iverson that I hate. i hate the entire attitude of USA Basketball. "Hey lets slap together a couple of semi-decent players, throw in some names that should sell merchandise (ie Carmelo Anthony WTF?!) and we'll rule the competition with a week of practice."

In all honesty, even considering that most of the superstars opted out, I could seriously make a better team than what the beauracrats at USABasketball have assembled.

By 1212 (1212) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:32 pm: Edit

theyll get gold now

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:45 pm: Edit

not necessarily, as they'll still have to face Lithuania and Argentina. Both are great teams, and Lithuania absolutely dominates on 3s.

Hopefully, Marbury will have more games like this and less of before where he averaged about 4 points a game.

i missed the final few minutes of the game ; somebody who saw the game please tell me why Spain's coach was crying like a baby and arguing with Brown. Did he claim a dirty timeout by the Americans?

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 03:04 pm: Edit

vancant they are getting gold. Playing devils advocate with every new game is getting old.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 03:10 pm: Edit

hehehe

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 02:57 pm: Edit

I frickin TOLD YOU SO.

USA will be playing for the bronze this year. Sad.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 03:13 pm: Edit

you didn't tell anyone anything. Picking the opposing team every single game does not justify that.

You were wrong more times than you were right..

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 03:24 pm: Edit

hehe...I told you USA would not win Gold this year. As in my original post, I predicted USA would get bronze. And again, most likely Lithuania is going for gold.

The only thing I was wrong about was Serbia and Montenegro.

Sadly, there could be quite a battle for bronze, and its not looking good for the USA.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 03:26 pm: Edit

just read my original post Steve. Almost everything I predicted has been/will probably be right, and YOU were saying "NO USA IS DEFINATELY GOING TO WIN GOLD."

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 04:08 am: Edit

It certainly has been an exciting olympics... let's conclude with some memorable quotes from you mr. "i told you so".....:::


"Revised Olympic results.

1. Lithuania
2. Serbia
3. Argentina
4. Spain
5. USA "


"yes, they "crushed" them. considering the margin was only 18 and Serbia didn't even have Peja, its somewhat concerning. "


"Turkey: My bets are on a close loss for the US. "

"r christs sake WTF is Marbury doing on the team! We need REAL GUARDS who can shoot and create opportunities, not some little showoff. "

"Which means the USA will be playing top ranked A Group Spain (5-0), which will result in an almost certain loss. "


Very interesting... whats next... some work on the Bush campaign perhaps?

By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 12:39 pm: Edit

haha, my point is you were WRONG to assume that America was going to get gold. and guess what, You were wrong.

Even though serbia was a shocker, and lithuania really shouldn't have fell, the end result was that America didn't get gold and you were wrong.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 12:41 pm: Edit

"no way, gold-usa. I'll take it a step further, they wont have a game closer than 20 points"


"We are coming in with a stronger team than in 2000, Lithuania is coming in with a weaker team (no Sabonis or Ilgauskas)"

" It doesn't really make a difference... NBA has been playing zone for a few seasons now... so the players are used to either (plus zone was huge in their college days)"


"Not a stellar performance by any means... but the fact remains that the US beat them by 12. It seems as if you are underrating the US way too much. Sure they are capable of playing a lot better... but the competition they will be facing sucks"


Haha steve, thats really interesting

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 03:30 pm: Edit

what is your point? Everything I said was correct with exception to the first statement..

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 10:20 am: Edit

lol what is my point???

My point is that you were so sure that America was going to get gold and you even accused me of playing devils-advocate and not knowing anything about US basketball, etc...


In the end, i was completely correct in knowing America would not get gold, right? RIght??

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 10:34 am: Edit

Yes Picking the opposing team every single game is playing devils advocate...according to you we were supposed to lose nearly every single game we played. Surprisingly, the games we actually did lose, you did not have the foresight to predict.

It is a trillion times easier to say "Team X" will not win gold than it is to say "Team Y" will win gold. You cannot understand that?

Neither of us predicted the winning team.

In the end, i was completely correct in knowing Lithuania would not get gold, right? RIght??

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 11:15 am: Edit

haha you simply won't admit you were wrong right steve. The sad part is you were so confident that america would get gold, and even after I stated that America would definately NOT get gold, you still had to accuse me of not even watching the games, not having faith in the Americans skill, etc...

The main point of your arguments, which was to try to prove to me that America would definately get gold, was wrong. Sorry steve.

btw, we did lose games that I said we would lose, such as Argentina and LIthuania in the prelims. You kept on stating the fact that America this time was a better team and wouldn't be eliminated from the gold medal.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 03:33 pm: Edit

A lot of people need a crash course in logic around here.

My prediction for gold: USA
Your prediction for gold: Lithuania

Who is wrong? Both of us.

I said USA would get gold therefore implying Lithuania would not win gold.

You said Lithuania would get gold therefore implying that USA would not win gold.

Ok now we are both a -1


That was the only prediction I made during the course of the olympics.

You however have made two other definite predictions (and no you never deinitely said we would lose to Lithuania and Argentina in the prelims... i Just reread the whole thread)

1. "Turkey: My bets are on a close loss for the US. "

2. "Which means the USA will be playing top ranked A Group Spain (5-0), which will result in an almost certain loss. "


Therefore you were wrong on three things, I was wrong on one.

So yes I was wrong.. but were you more wrong? Absoultely.

This is childish I'm done posting in this thread. Respond if you want I won't be reading..

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 03:37 pm: Edit

haha, you are done because you were so confident yet so wrong?? lol whatever, seeing that you've just lost.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 03:39 pm: Edit

and reread my OP steve, I said USA was screwed and would definately not win gold. That was my statement. My predictions for the final ranking was exactly that, Predictions. However, I knew USA could not get gold this year.

On the other hand, you were absolutely sure that USA would get gold, that was your decision.

Guess whos wrong steve.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 06:41 pm: Edit

btw steve, its funny how my predictions involving our players turned out to be remarkably true.


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page