no offense but bynum is getting older and it won’t be a difference if we can trade him away and try jonny flynn who is alot better in playmaking skills than bynum…

the only thing about bynum is instant offense… quick possibly much quicker than flynn right now.. but who knows… until training camp starts?

im quite happy about getting terrence williams but roster is full and his attitude problems are not good to hear!

Under 3 I said, ” This suggests the injury did serious to the point of having bone on bone, degenerative changes, etc. He didn’t suffer any subsequent dislocations. So it appears that he didn’t get adequate rest or rehab was lacking or something to effect.” 

I meant to say: ” This suggests the injury was not serious to the point of having bone on bone, degenerative changes, etc. He didn’t suffer any subsequent dislocations. So it appears that he didn’t get adequate rest or rehab was lacking or something to effect.”  

Just a few things to consider about Jonny Flynn:
1. He was drafted and put in a position where the franchise was never really committed to him.  Evidence: Ricky Rubio hype.  Flynn admitted letting the hype get to him and was once quoted to say his rookie year felt like he played “82 road games”.

2. He played in a system that was not geared to draw out his talents as creator, facilitator, etc. Evidence: Triangle Offense.  Coach Rambis knew the offense had been successful, but it also was for situations where your personnel did not include a skilled point guard.

3. He suffered hip labral tear.  The hip labral is a ring like elastic like cartilidge around the hip socket.  His surgery was 7/2010.  He was released to play 10/2010.  This suggests the injury did serious to the point of having bone on bone, degenerative changes, etc.  He didn’t suffer any subsequent dislocations.  So it appears that he didn’t get adequate rest or rehab was lacking or something to effect.

I believe he can regain his explosiveness under the right guidance.  Also watching him in college he presented as driven player that rises to challenges, thus a high character warrior on the court.  I say this not to take anything away from Bynum (who I followed during his short stay in Arizona…to when he resurfaced at Georgia Tech…to checking the internet for him when he dropped off the map).

I like both players and I love the Pistons.  I hope the player that best suits what we are trying to do remains with the team.
   

It’s ‘great analysis’ that he said a front office you support so loyally has kept a player who is, according to RyanK, not talented enough to be in the NBA for four, going on five, seasons now? Honestly, if that were the case — which it isn’t, Bynum is clearly good enough to be in the NBA on most teams — wouldn’t that be an indictment of that front office? What competently run organization would keep someone who could easily be purged from the roster around for as long as he’s been around?

Makes no sense. Unless you are just agreeing with him because he disagreed with me. Which, in that case, your comment makes perfect sense. 

No. I didn’t say that.

“Either your a player or your not.”

A front office you generally think has done a very good job has kept him on the roster for four, going on five, seasons. So if he’s not a player, are you saying the front office has done a bad job evaluating talent and giving a roster spot to him?

“Either you injury prone or your not.”

I acknowledged throughout this thread that injuries and durability are a concern with him. Seriously. Go read. I’ve written it three or four times in various comments.

“You make and define yourself.”

I define myself as someone with the self-control to stop arguing with commenters who don’t listen to reason. And yet here I am, right back in arguments with commenters who don’t listen to reason. Some people just are what they are. As much as I’d like to define myself as something else, I am what I am. And Bynum is what he is.

“He couldnt be a lock up back pg?”

He’s pretty small. He does a reasonable job staying in front of guards (although he could do a little better job fighting over screens). The issue is height. Most guys he guards have a pretty easy time shooting over him. He could probably be more competitive defensively, but at the end of the day, guys are still going to get good looks against him.

“You keep talking bout his offensive game, but he gets KILLED on defense.”

He’s a role player. His role is to put pressure on a defense, speed the game up, get to the rim, draw contact and generally be an energy guy off the bench. Why do you expect role players to be complete players? The majority of guys in the NBA are not complete players. They do one or two things well, and they are used in roles that highlight their strengths and taken out of roles that expose their weaknesses.

“On offense he cant make better decisons because stuckey is in front of him?”

No one said this. I said that his offensive skillset and Stuckey’s offensive skillset are too similar. The Pistons have been too one-dimensional at the point guard spot. That’s not Stuckey’s fault or Bynum’s fault or Knight’s fault. Those guys all have skills they bring to the table. The issue has been their skills, particularly Bynum’s and Stuckey’s since they were the primary PGs before Knight’s arrival, are too similar. Teams can prepare to stop Stuckey and not have to adjust that strategy any when Bynum comes in because the scouting reports are the same — better in open court than halfcourt, like to get contact, like to get in the lane, can’t shoot well from perimeter.

Generally, if you have a starter who is good at a lot of things, and then a backup who is good at the one or two areas where the starter is weak, that makes it a lot more difficult for an opposing defense to guard you.

“I just dont get that line of thinking,”

I’m glad you don’t get it, because it is a line of thinking I didn’t advocate or endorse. It is a line of thinking you incorrectly attributed to me because you like to be argumentative and you dislike understanding things that others say when it doesn’t jibe with your pre-formed opinions.

“I know you will say that the pistons org did not use him right too many coaches, too many injuries etc. ”

No, I won’t say this. But I find it interesting that you do. Too many coaches, injuries, etc. is not an excuse for Bynum, but have you not used similar excuses for Stuckey? I know you’ve used the ‘too many coaches’ thing for Stuckey. And you use them for Knight — too young, no training camp, etc. So why are excuses OK for certain players and not others?

You don’t like Bynum’s game, and that’s fine. We all have players we like and don’t like watching more than others. But be real here. You’re not being an honest arguer. You are holding Bynum to standards you don’t hold others to because you happen to like certain other players more than you like Bynum.