I' made a joke about Felton, a player that I (a) don't think is very good and (b) went to UNC so I like mocking him. There's nothing deeper there. If that's an agenda, okay.
Everything else is agenda-free. I'm not trying to agenda-ize MCW. Subjectmattr said he wouldn't take him, and since he's a Knick fan, that's where my mind went. And he HAS played his best ball down the stretch with Southerland' filling it up. That's just where my mind went when I thought of MCW as a Knick.
The reason why agendas are ruining the board is because now everyone assumes everything is some hard-line agenda at some invisible poker table. No one can say they just like or don't like a player anymore. Opinions can't evolve-- it's a race for the first agenda. Which is odd.
I've been hyping McGary as a pro since the tourney based on his recent play helping him live up to potential... But I wasn't high beforehand, because he wasnt playing at this level. Does that mean I have a McGary agenda? Or that I'm a bandwagoner? Or what?
It's gotten weird. I agree.
>In trying to work your Felton agenda into the mix (which was >your initial stated rationale for bringing him up), you a) >assumed subjctmattr was talking about the Knicks specifically >and that he wouldn't take C-W if he somehow fell to the 24th >pick, which is a far cry from his current stock which now >moving up to late lottery, b) constructed a world in which >MC-W would be the only other PG option for the Knicks besides >Felton, and C) you claimed that 'Cuse had "a roster of >three-point shooters". > >Of course, when it comes to your own opinion, you throw in >caveats like you need to see who else is available and you >change your comment to Southerland's hot streak helping >Carter-Williams's game, ignoring the fact that the reason >Southerland's hot streak is so important is because 'Cuse >doesn't have a roster filled with three point shooters and >relies heavily on two guys. > >This is why agendas ruin this board and you acknowledging your >agenda doesn't make it any less annoying.