Al Harrington losing minutes

Talk about anything general in the NBA here.

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, 32


Starting Lineup
Posts: 688
» Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:21 am
I wish I didn't have to start a thread for this. oh well


"Analysis: Harrington has lost minutes to Tim Thomas the last few games and prior to Thomas' surge, he was losing minutes to Gallinari. It shouldn't be too much of a concern because the Knicks see so many more possessions than other teams, but it is something to keep an eye on."
User avatar

Franchise Player
Posts: 7481
» Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:31 am
Rehren1296 wrote:I wish I didn't have to start a thread for this. oh well


LOL.............you didnt have to you know.

On Al, well, they have replaced Chandler in the starting line-up with him.........so that says something.

Although I read somewhere that they have realised now that the ball just moves more and better when Al isnt playing...........jesus, we could have told them that.

All Star
Posts: 3310
» Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:04 am
bigstrads wrote:
Rehren1296 wrote:I wish I didn't have to start a thread for this. oh well


LOL.............you didnt have to you know.

On Al, well, they have replaced Chandler in the starting line-up with him.........so that says something.

Although I read somewhere that they have realised now that the ball just moves more and better when Al isnt playing...........jesus, we could have told them that.


but if we told them that...they probably wouldnt have taken him :wink:
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 18315
» Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:37 pm
E-Man wrote:
bigstrads wrote:
Rehren1296 wrote:I wish I didn't have to start a thread for this. oh well


LOL.............you didnt have to you know.

On Al, well, they have replaced Chandler in the starting line-up with him.........so that says something.

Although I read somewhere that they have realised now that the ball just moves more and better when Al isnt playing...........jesus, we could have told them that.


but if we told them that...they probably wouldnt have taken him :wink:


And we wouldn't have taken Crapford. Still can't see the bad side. :wink:
User avatar

All Star
Posts: 2860
» Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:56 pm
dude crawford has been way more useful than Harrington.

20 points, 5 assists, 2.7 rebs per contest for our new shooting guard

vs. (on a team he is happy on mind you)

19pts, 1.4 assissts, and 6 rebs per game for their new power forward
User avatar

All Star
Posts: 1757
» Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:04 pm
TMC wrote:
E-Man wrote:
bigstrads wrote:
Rehren1296 wrote:I wish I didn't have to start a thread for this. oh well


LOL.............you didnt have to you know.

On Al, well, they have replaced Chandler in the starting line-up with him.........so that says something.

Although I read somewhere that they have realised now that the ball just moves more and better when Al isnt playing...........jesus, we could have told them that.


but if we told them that...they probably wouldnt have taken him :wink:


And we wouldn't have taken Crapford. Still can't see the bad side. :wink:


Did Crawford go on an overseas vacation and just ruin all the women in all foreign lands? This seems to be the only rational explanation for the hatred towards him on the board.

All Star
Posts: 2320
» Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:24 pm
"Always" Next wrote:
TMC wrote:
E-Man wrote:
bigstrads wrote:
Rehren1296 wrote:I wish I didn't have to start a thread for this. oh well


LOL.............you didnt have to you know.

On Al, well, they have replaced Chandler in the starting line-up with him.........so that says something.

Although I read somewhere that they have realised now that the ball just moves more and better when Al isnt playing...........jesus, we could have told them that.


but if we told them that...they probably wouldnt have taken him :wink:


And we wouldn't have taken Crapford. Still can't see the bad side. :wink:


Did Crawford go on an overseas vacation and just ruin all the women in all foreign lands? This seems to be the only rational explanation for the hatred towards him on the board.


as if he could :mrgreen:
User avatar

Franchise Player
Posts: 9163
» Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:50 pm
Actually, D'Antoni is bringing down all the vets minutes to cater the younger players. Guys like Gallinari, Chandler are going see more court time. Harrington losing minutes doesn't mean anything negative. It's just D'Antoni wants to give the young guys a chance to develop.
User avatar

All Star
Posts: 3242
» Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:58 pm
Gallinari looks like he can really play. And my god D'Antoni gushes about him in interviews

Role Player
Posts: 288
» Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:22 pm
xbay wrote:Actually, D'Antoni is bringing down all the vets minutes to cater the younger players. Guys like Gallinari, Chandler are going see more court time. Harrington losing minutes doesn't mean anything negative. It's just D'Antoni wants to give the young guys a chance to develop.


Wow what a foreign concept to the Warriors.
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 21907
» Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:20 pm
TMC wrote:
E-Man wrote:
bigstrads wrote:
Rehren1296 wrote:I wish I didn't have to start a thread for this. oh well


LOL.............you didnt have to you know.

On Al, well, they have replaced Chandler in the starting line-up with him.........so that says something.

Although I read somewhere that they have realised now that the ball just moves more and better when Al isnt playing...........jesus, we could have told them that.


but if we told them that...they probably wouldnt have taken him :wink:


And we wouldn't have taken Crapford. Still can't see the bad side. :wink:



And wouldn't have a logjam at guard position. Harrington, if he had not decided to not play, would be the starting PF and actually get a fair amount of court time, unlike Randolph and BWright
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:14 pm
Yeah, because Al Harrington would have (a) made a huge difference and (b) been a big part of our longterm plans. ::lol: :wink:

At least Crawford is productive, he's a closer, plays within himself, and doesn't whine about accepting a foriegn role for the good of the team. Crawford was downright chipper when asked about playing point guard. You'd have never known it was something he's unfamiliar with. He even claimed it was his natural position back in middle school or some BS. Ask Harrington the same question about playing center and see how merry his attitude is. The guy has always been locker room cancer on a bad team. Atlanta knew it. Indiana saw it. And, briefly, Golden State glimpsed it this season. "Oooh, my back hurts." "Coach doesn't play me enough." "I'm not just an outsider shooter, I want more looks." "I don't like coming off the bench." "I don't want to play center." The sheer amount of things Al Harrington complained about in merely 2 seasons of Golden State service is absurd. He's a premadonna if I've ever seen one. A baby. Someone who will smile and joke when everything's sunshine and roses, but abandons ship when things are glum.

I'm not here to wage another 10-page with the haters regarding the skills of Jamal Crawford, but are we REALLY going to start claiming we were better off with the Harrington issue? That's spin-doctor history. Al was faking an injury. He quit on the team. That's the worst offense in all of organized sports (unless the victims are maple-chugging Toronto Craptor fans, than it's okay). But I digress; even those of us who still hold something against Baron Davis wouldn't dream of claiming he did something as cowardly as quitting on his team. Al Harrington did. I can't believe you'd rather have a guy like that on your team over Jamal Crawford. Nice deduction there.

All Star
Posts: 3173
» Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:33 pm
Al Harrington not wanting to play for the warriors, can we blame the guy he was not used properly.

I hated the fact that he did quit on the team, but now that i look at it i dont blame him. He was used out of position, the role he was giving was not suited for him.

He doesn't seem to be doing too bad for himself in New York, am even suprised to see Knicks will be fighting for a playoff spot.
Last edited by warriorsstepup on Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:43 pm
CJ Watson

You have just read a complete list of Golden State Warriors who were NOT played out of position this year. Everyone else, at some point, has been. Kelenna and Maggette at the 4, Jackson, Crawford and Belinelli the 1, Brandan and AR at the 5... and the list goes on and on. Should they all quit on the team like Harrington? Would you not hold that against them either?

All Star
Posts: 3173
» Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:55 pm
32 wrote:CJ Watson

You have just read a complete list of Golden State Warriors who were NOT played out of position this year. Everyone else, at some point, has been. Kelenna and Maggette at the 4, Jackson, Crawford and Belinelli the 1, Brandan and AR at the 5... and the list goes on and on. Should they all quit on the team like Harrington? Would you not hold that against them either?


Sometimes you have to be selfish to a certain extent, if something continues to bother you, thats not of best interest, then you as a person can find something that better suits you.

I mean if Al was playing out of position temporarily then he can bare with it, but if he was playing for the warriors he would be stuck playing out of position majority of the time. I can understand why he got fed up with it, plus dealing with Nellie on a daily bases probably did not help either.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest