u/GoblinTradingGuide

Kickers are arguably the second most important person on the team next to the QB. They put up more points than any other player on the team. The highest scoring football player in NFL history is a kicker.

Why do they get paid so little?

The season finale is just bad. I get that this show can be inconsistent at times but it’s so obvious that they cancelled this show and then just had to shoehorn a bunch of crap into the finale with the ten year time jump.

The time jump wouldn’t be that bad if everyone didn’t literally look THE EXACT SAME. They didn’t even try to make people look older…I guess Jim has a mustache??? Barbara’s hair is red??? That’s supposed to make me feel like ten years has passed?

It’s a shame that we didn’t get the full 6 or 7 seasons worth of content that was planned for originally.

This show basically just fell victim to being on basic cable at a time when cable is dying.

The worst part is that FOX won’t even license this show to a streaming service. I know so many DC fans that have never seen this show because it is basically unavailable to the entire United States unless you pirate it.

Oh well, this show was great while it lasted. Such a fun depiction of the Batman universe. Season 5 was just such a let down with the way it ended.

Hopefully Pennyworth is good. Gonna start it now.

I re-watched Game 4, and I mostly wanted to talk in detail about how The Spurs had an absolute tactical meltdown in in the last 6-7 minutes of the game.

In the last 6-7 minutes The Spurs were still up by around double digits when New York started tightening the game defensively. San Antonio opened that stretch with a Wembanyama post touch that got doubled immediately, leading to a kick-out three that was rushed and missed. The Knicks were willing to live with late-clock jumpers rather than let him operate cleanly inside.

On the next Spurs possession, they tried a guard pick-and-roll, but New York switched it cleanly and cut off the drive. The ball ended up in a late-clock isolation that produced a contested midrange shot and another miss, while the Knicks came down and scored in transition off a quick push after a long rebound.

After that, San Antonio had a key turnover on an entry pass that was read and deflected at the nail. That led directly to a Knicks layup in transition, trimming the lead quickly and forcing a Spurs timeout. At this point the game shifted from control to pressure possesions.

Coming out of the timeout, the Spurs ran a set to free a corner three shooter, but New York blew it up early by top-locking the initial action. The Spurs reset into a broken possession and settled for a difficult pull-up jumper with the shot clock under five seconds. Miss again, and the Knicks immediately responded with a composed half-court trip that ended in free throws after a drive forced help from the corner.

Next Spurs trip was another stalled possession. The Knicks switched everything, denied clean entry passes, and forced the ball back out to the perimeter multiple times. San Antonio eventually took a contested three early in the clock, which missed, and New York capitalized again with Brunson operating in isolation, getting downhill and finishing through contact.

The final swing possession came when the Spurs tried to re-establish Wembanyama on the block, but the Knicks sent a quick double and stripped the ball on the gather. That led to another Knicks fast break score, which effectively erased the remaining cushion.

From there, the Spurs were in full scramble mode, and the Knicks controlled tempo the rest of the way, forcing either rushed jumpers or empty possessions while bleeding clock on their end.

Now it's easy for an arm-chair coach like myself to point out these glaring problems, but how could have this meltdown been avoided by The Spurs?

I think the lack of true veteran leadership on the floor really contributed to this meltdown. Fox was supposed to be that guy, but he was playing injured and I believe he had lost all his confidence due to losing his jumper from the injury. Outside of that, Fox had only played seven playoff games before this season. He had literally one playoff series under his belt from 2023 where he lost against Golden State in 7 games. So, while Fox is 28 and older than the rest of teh starting core for the Spurs, he really didn't have that much playoff experience.

This makes me believe they should have tried to retain Chris Paul on a Veteran minimum contract.

A veteran point guard like Chris Paul would have helped the Spurs avoid that Game 4 collapse mainly by stabilizing decision-making, controlling tempo, and preventing the exact kinds of rushed, broken possessions that snowballed in the final minutes.

First, the Spurs’ biggest issue in that stretch was that their offense kept turning into early-clock panic or late-clock improvisation. Chris Paul’s value is that he naturally “kills chaos.” Instead of accepting a stalled possession that ends in a contested midrange jumper, he slows everything down, gets the team into a second or third action, and forces the defense to rotate multiple times. In a game where San Antonio kept settling after one failed action, that alone likely converts several empty possessions into at least decent shots or free throws.

Second, Paul is elite at reading defensive pressure before it becomes a turnover. In that collapse, a key swing point was live-ball mistakes and rushed entry passes when New York doubled Wembanyama. A veteran CP3 doesn’t just throw that pass into traffic. He either relocates the entry angle, hits the weakside trigger man, or resets into a different action entirely. That prevents the kind of transition runouts that flipped momentum in minutes.

Third, he would have improved clock and possession control late in the game. One of the Spurs’ core problems was that they treated tied-or-small-lead possessions like they needed immediate scoring. Paul historically forces teams to defend for the full clock, then punishes them at the end of the possession with a high-quality pick-and-roll or a mismatch hunt. That matters because even “non-scoring” possessions where you burn 20 seconds and get a good look are wins in playoff crunch time.

Fourth, Chris Paul is extremely good at getting organized out of timeouts and dead balls, which was another Spurs weakness in that stretch. Instead of broken set plays that got snuffed out early by switching and top-locking, he typically ensures spacing is correct, gets the first action initiated on time, and immediately counters defensive adjustments instead of reacting late.

Finally, there’s the psychological effect. Young teams tend to tighten up when a lead starts shrinking, which shows up as isolation basketball and avoidance of movement. Paul has historically functioned as a “pressure valve”—he slows the emotional tempo of the game as much as the physical one. That likely prevents the spiral where every possession becomes a quick, low-quality attempt followed by a fast break the other way.

So the core argument is simple: the Spurs didn’t just lose execution in Game 4, they lost possession control. A veteran point guard like Chris Paul doesn’t necessarily make every shot fall, but he drastically reduces the number of “empty, chaotic possessions” that turned a manageable late-game situation into a full momentum collaspe.

Is the Pennyworth show worth watching? Is that what I should watch after Gotham?

The reason I would say AJ Dybantsa has the highest ceiling is because he possesses the single most valuable archetype in modern basketball: a 6’9” elite athlete who moves like a guard, can create his own shot, and has the physical tools to defend multiple positions.

Players like this are the ones who become the faces of the league. If his handle tightens, his shooting becomes more consistent, and his decision-making catches up with his talent, there is a realistic pathway where he becomes a player who can be the number one option on a championship team.

There simply aren’t many humans on Earth with his combination of size, fluidity, explosiveness, and perimeter skill.

HOWEVER, I would argue Cameron Boozer is the safest pick and the most NBA-ready player because he already understands the game at a professional level. His footwork, patience, passing, positioning, rebounding instincts, and ability to manipulate defenders are years ahead of most players his age.

He doesn’t rely on overwhelming athletic advantages to dominate, which makes his game more likely to translate as the competition gets bigger and faster. You can watch him and almost immediately picture what he does on an NBA court.

The biggest difference between the two is that Dybantsa’s greatness is more dependent on what he becomes, while Boozer’s greatness is rooted in what he already is.

Dybantsa may have the ability to become the best player in the league because his physical profile gives him access to a level of two-way dominance that very few players ever reach. The downside is that those skills have to continue developing. Plenty of freak athletes have entered the NBA with superstar potential and never fully refined their games.

Boozer, on the other hand, feels almost impossible to fail. The question is less “Will he be good?” and more “How good can he become?” His ceiling might be slightly lower because he doesn’t have Dybantsa’s rare wing athleticism or shot-creation upside, but his floor is incredibly high. The worst realistic version of Boozer is still probably a very good NBA starter.

If I had the No. 1 pick and desperately needed a superstar, I would take Dybantsa because the chance of landing a top-five player in the NBA is worth the risk. If I were a playoff team adding one piece and wanted the player I am most confident will help me win for the next 15 years, I would take Boozer.

TLDR:

Dybansta is the bet on a future superhuman; Boozer is the bet on a future professional who already looks like one.

I think that Acuff could have serious 6th man of the year potential if we played him off the bench behind Garland.

It worked really well for The Thunder when they played Harden off the bench behind Westbrook.

I know that the Arrowverse has very mixed reviews and a lot of people don’t like, but I am interested in it.

I am a huge Batman fan, and have read a ton of the comics, collect the Deluxe Editions and Omnibuses.

I typically enjoy Batman media that other people don’t find that great. For instance I LOVED the Gotham tv show.

I am interested in doing a full watch through of the entire Arrowverse.

I am no stranger of doing watch throughs that are massive (I have watched all of the Star Trek content there is at least three times and that is about 250 hours longer than Arrowverse).

If I am a big Batman fan, do you think I will enjoy Arrowverse?

I am really looking for a complete list of all the Batman Omnis and Deluxe Editions. This includes Bat Family books as well.

I got really caught up in when I should read “Batman & Robin: Year One”, and then that’s when I found out that it contradicts “Robin: Year One”.

It then dawned on me that “what’s the point of caring about the reading order if writers are going to throw away entire story arcs?”

I’m basically just reading my Batman comics as I feel like it now and I highly recommend it.

Comic books are not as finely dialed in as TV shows, movies, or even some video games…just pick up the book, read it, and enjoy it.

I recently read the Snyder and Morrison omnibuses, and preferred Morrison’s writing and stories to Snyder’s, but I absolutely love Capullo’s art that goes along with Snyder’s stories.

Has Morrison ever worked with Capullo?

Title says it all. I really want to read this series, but the majority of my collection is deluxe editions and I really don’t want to purchase an “undersized” collection.

Take DC for instance.

I always see people talking about the canonicity of certain events and I don’t understand why anyone would care when the publisher literally just wipes everything out every twenty years or so and starts over.

Literally some of the best Batman comics ever aren’t canon. The Long Halloween comes to mind.

I was just curious because I see arguements for both, but I would really like to know what the actual numbers are as far how many support each format…