Jarred Vanderbilt Discussion: The Vandalorian

Thank you if that’s it. Thought it was someone in a TV series.

 

who's us and them in this situation? i didn't choose message board teams. i chose an idea, as i've already explained.

That’s why I asked “what is the purpose of a post like this?” earlier, because it’s nothing positive IMO, it’s only seeking to divide further and call people out for simply having a valid opinion at the time. If I had to worry about every opinion I had coming back to be called into question or used to call me out later that sure wouldn’t be a fun way to converse. Maybe I’d expect that on a political forum or something where the norm is to argue and one up eachother, but again, I don’t see what purpose that serves here among fellow fans.[/quote]

again, divide whom? is random vitriol for the front office or individual players meant to unite people? you again asked the purpose, and maybe i didn't explain it before: it's so that i don't have to read bad opinions voiced forcefully just because things aren't going well in a given moment.

i think the bold is really where we disagree. a forum is about exchanging ideas which sometimes aren't the same. and no, all opinions aren't equally valid. and accountability for bad opinions is part of how discourse improves.

not sure what i'm allowed to do or not do in this case, but if disagreeing with opinions of others is the problem...it's going to keep happening.

because he has a pretty long history of basically making stuff up in order to be angry and help others be angry.

again, i didn't say you, i said anthony irwin. and i don't bag on irwin's information, i bag on his editorializing about it. again, so many examples of him just running with a narrative that may not be true (most of the time, turns out not to be) and using it to stoke fury. you ask me why, i ask that guy why? in his case, it just drives traffic and feeds his family, i guess. but since you're talking politics, he's kind of fox newsing it (ironically).

you don't have to defend yourself for posting anything. but you can't expect people not to voice disagreement or skepticism in response to it.

and none of this is about you, weezy. i've always enjoyed your presence on the site. i see that you don't enjoy mine, but i'm afraid i'm just sort of this way. i don't mind disagreement, and i sort of like arguing?

anyway, this thread is for discussing (arguing about?) vando. he is good, and we're better when he's available. him not being available for a year really hurt our on-court product. those are my arguments.

 

He got hurt late in the 4th. Was on the bench then went back to locker room. Hope nothing major he’s been key to our D lately

 

Ugggh. What part of him did he ding when he fell …. anyone see? Wrist, arm, ?

 

Tail bone

 

Oh s*** tail bone bruise possibly like kept AR out 7-8 games?

 

He walked off with limp noticed he sat on bench for a few plays. We called time out before it went to commercial he was talking to our trainer and when broadcast came back he wasn’t on the bench. Hope nothing serious. This guy is vital to the team. Otherwise maybe we should’ve traded dalton instead of max

 

do Vandelorian's have tailbones?

 

We were lucky trading Max much as I hate it rather than having to give up AR for freaking Luka Doncic.

 

His impact is not talked enough. He brings out team 2 levels up when he's out there. Please, please be healthy.

+52 in his last 5 games playing between 12 and 18 minutes. Just insane

 

yeah, it's off topic...but how do you not get reaves in that trade? i'd have totally forgiven it, too!

anyway, yes, we need vando available.