What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

2007 NBA DRAFT - ODEN and PORTLAND CRIPPLED (1 Viewer)

This is what you're not understanding. When I say "grade out equally" I mean that they grade out equally TAKING THEIR POSITIONS AND THE RARITY OF THEIR POSITIONS INTO CONSIDERATION.
You cant possibly think that they grade out equally if you take their positions into consideration. A stud Center only comes around every couple years, while you can get a stud forward just about every year.
:lmao: Why not? Kevin Durant grades out higher than Roy Hibbert right? Is Hibbert not a center? I understand that "centers are more valuable because they win championships." That doesn't mean that every center grades out better than every guard.
What does Roy Hibbert have to do with this? We are talking about Greg Oden.Asssani, if it makes you feel any better, if Oden were not in this draft, Durant would be the #1 pick. Are you okay now?
He said that I "can't possibly" think they grade out equally when I take positions into consideration. I don't think thats true. How can you guys not see a POSSIBILITY where NBA scouts take a closer look at two players and change their minds? It happens all the time! A year ago, didn't most people think Brady Quinn was gonna be the #1 pick. Doesn't he play the most important position?

I just don't see how you guys don't think its possible that private workouts, interviews, etc. will change anything.

Jefferson, i'm not even arguing for Durant in this thread. I'm simply saying that its POSSIBLE that they grade out evenly(even when taking positions into consideration). And I'm saying that Durant fits better with teh current Blazers team. Thats it!
OK, hypothetical question: if you were starting a franchise.. would you take Duncan in his prime.. or Kevin Garnett? You have no others players on your team.
Duncan. I love both of them though and both would be in my top 10 if I were starting a team(only including players in my lifetime). In fact heres my list of players I would take if I were starting a team:
So, if Oden's upside is a Duncan-like impact and Durants upside is Garnett (as many have proclaimed).....dont you take Oden, regardless if you have a Zach Randolph or Aldridge on your squad??Call me crazy, but I see Durant being Carmelo Anthony with better range and less back to basket ability. A great scorer, decent rebounder in the league... but not someone who is going to guarantee you possible runs at a championship.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Dude, you're getting what I'm saying confused. What I'm saying is that imagine after further scouting, you no longer think that Oden's upside is better than Durant's. After further scouting, you think they are exactly equal.

Nowhere in this thread did I intend to even talk about which player is better or who has more upside. All I was ever saying was that if they were COMPLETELY EQUAL than Durant is the better fit.
I get what you are saying, I just disagree ! You dont ask any questions in this spot. As a GM, you take the potential once in a decade center and you go to bed.
I really don't think you do understand what I'm saying- your last sentence proves it, as you're thinking that Oden has greater potential due to him being a center. I'm asking you to assume that you no longer believe that may true(as it is POSSIBLE that Portland could after further scouting).
 
I would say you don't seem to understand the value of a dominant center.
That is the best and easiest way to put it.
For the last time,I'm not saying that they shouldn't take Oden. I'm not saying that a dominant center isn't valuable. I'm just saying that hes not a perfect fit because they'll have to make some trades to fit him in.
why do they "have" to trade anybody? since when does an NBA team = just the starting lineup?why don't you think an NBA team can make good use of a rotation with Randolph, Aldridge, and Oden?

Starting Randolph and Oden with Aldridge backing up both looks like a pretty sweet setup to me. Plenty of minutes to go around too.
$1000 bet, right now:If the Blazers draft Oden, before the season starts I will be able to find at least 5 reputable sports writers that mention the Blazers having thoughts of trading Randolph.
Im sure that's correct but entertaining trade offers is a far cry from the mandatory trade that you were referencing earlier.
Agreed.But if Oden was a "perfect fit" then why would a perfect fit cause a team to suddenly start looking to trade one of it's players? Should a "perfect fit" come in and compliment everyone and not require any trades?
Who cares if its a perfect fit.They need a dominant center like Greg Oden can be, that's priority #1. If they shop one of their other guys for a small forward, that's life, they still filled a need that not many other teams can.

It would be nice if everything always worked out symmetrically but how often does that happen.

 
The road to an NBA title goes thru Tim Duncan now, and for the foreseeable future. Oden could change that. Durant does not.

Oden is the absolute no-brainer Assani - I think you're the one who's drinking the ESPN kool-aid if you really think Durant is nearly the prospect Oden is. Oden played last year with one hand and still almost won an NCAA title.

 
if you were running the Blazers, who would you take?
Not sure right now. Probably Oden though. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm arguing here though.
well, I think you probably got a little too hung up on the phrase "perfect fit". he's a good enough fit that it's not a mistake to take him there.
You're right that I'm probably too hung up on it. But as soon as Portland won I saw 3 or more posters talk about him being a perfect fit and how they're definitely going to take him because of it.I spoke up and correct them. In my opinion, Oden was a big favorite to go #1 overall before the lottery. He still is the favorite, but Portland getting the #1 has decreased(albeit very very slightly) his chanes because Durant is a better fit. Then you guys went crazy on a bunch of tangents and put words in my mouth that I never said.

Heres an example: If the Houston Rockets right now could add David Robinson(in his prime) to their current team, would they do it? Absolutely! But would it be a "perfect fit"? Not at all. So if they could add Robinson or a similar player at another position like say John Stockton, then I think they would take the latter because he fits their team more. Of course if you think Robinson is a lot better than Stockton then you'd take him, but hes not as they're close(please don't debate this, it was just an example. If you really think Robinson was way more valuable than Stockton then please just plug in two different players that you think are very close to being even).

Now again, I understand that Randolph isn't as good as Yao Ming, so its not as bad of a fit as my example. But the general point still applies.

 
JettPowers said:
If they could trade Randolph for 75 cents on the dollar, they would have done it in a heartbeat.
I believe they'd do it without getting any players back just to get out from under it. Horrid contract.
 
I would say you don't seem to understand the value of a dominant center.
That is the best and easiest way to put it.
For the last time,I'm not saying that they shouldn't take Oden. I'm not saying that a dominant center isn't valuable. I'm just saying that hes not a perfect fit because they'll have to make some trades to fit him in.
why do they "have" to trade anybody? since when does an NBA team = just the starting lineup?why don't you think an NBA team can make good use of a rotation with Randolph, Aldridge, and Oden?

Starting Randolph and Oden with Aldridge backing up both looks like a pretty sweet setup to me. Plenty of minutes to go around too.
$1000 bet, right now:If the Blazers draft Oden, before the season starts I will be able to find at least 5 reputable sports writers that mention the Blazers having thoughts of trading Randolph.
Im sure that's correct but entertaining trade offers is a far cry from the mandatory trade that you were referencing earlier.
Agreed.But if Oden was a "perfect fit" then why would a perfect fit cause a team to suddenly start looking to trade one of it's players? Should a "perfect fit" come in and compliment everyone and not require any trades?
Who cares if its a perfect fit.They need a dominant center like Greg Oden can be, that's priority #1. If they shop one of their other guys for a small forward, that's life, they still filled a need that not many other teams can.

It would be nice if everything always worked out symmetrically but how often does that happen.
I didn't really care that much. ITs just that 3 different people said it was, and I didn't agree, so I posted about it. Then you all went off on me. I agree that its not a big deal and that if they have Oden ranked higher than Durant then they should take Oden regardless of how well he fits.
 
if you were running the Blazers, who would you take?
Not sure right now. Probably Oden though. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm arguing here though.
well, I think you probably got a little too hung up on the phrase "perfect fit". he's a good enough fit that it's not a mistake to take him there.
You're right that I'm probably too hung up on it. But as soon as Portland won I saw 3 or more posters talk about him being a perfect fit and how they're definitely going to take him because of it.I spoke up and correct them.
You're definition of perfect fit is entirely too narrow and not at all useful for anybody. I'm not sure why you felt the need to spend 5 pages pressing this point upon everyone.
 
well, I think you probably got a little too hung up on the phrase "perfect fit". he's a good enough fit that it's not a mistake to take him there.
You're right that I'm probably too hung up on it. But as soon as Portland won I saw 3 or more posters talk about him being a perfect fit and how they're definitely going to take him because of it.I spoke up and correct them. In my opinion, Oden was a big favorite to go #1 overall before the lottery. He still is the favorite, but Portland getting the #1 has decreased(albeit very very slightly) his chanes because Durant is a better fit. Then you guys went crazy on a bunch of tangents and put words in my mouth that I never said.Heres an example: If the Houston Rockets right now could add David Robinson(in his prime) to their current team, would they do it? Absolutely! But would it be a "perfect fit"? Not at all. So if they could add Robinson or a similar player at another position like say John Stockton, then I think they would take the latter because he fits their team more. Of course if you think Robinson is a lot better than Stockton then you'd take him, but hes not as they're close(please don't debate this, it was just an example. If you really think Robinson was way more valuable than Stockton then please just plug in two different players that you think are very close to being even).Now again, I understand that Randolph isn't as good as Yao Ming, so its not as bad of a fit as my example. But the general point still applies.
I'm sure there were some people who said that Duncan was a great fit in San Antonio even if they already had Robinson b/c it would allow him to play PF. I'm sure people would feel the same if Toronto had a shot at Oden b/c it would let them play Bosh at PF. Same thing applies to Portland, IMO. Adding Oden allows them to keep Aldridge at his more natural PF spot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The road to an NBA title goes thru Tim Duncan now, and for the foreseeable future. Oden could change that. Durant does not.

Oden is the absolute no-brainer Assani - I think you're the one who's drinking the ESPN kool-aid if you really think Durant is nearly the prospect Oden is. Oden played last year with one hand and still almost won an NCAA title.
You don't know the bolded part at all. Durant could be the next Jordan. I really don't see why you dismiss this possibility. You guys do realize that there are dominant guards like Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kobe, etc. that win championships just as much as centers, right? And I definitely disagree that its a no brainer. These guys are both stud prospects. Question: Is Oden a bigger prospect than Lebron was?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's a "perfect fit" because of the two franchise pieces already in place. A versatile 4 who plays better facing the basket, and a potentially dominant scorer at SG. Those three can win championships. You don't win championships with Zach Randolph starting at the 4.

Oden makes Aldridge AND Roy better, and their presence opens things up for Oden. It is a PERFECT fit, regardless of whether the Blazers end up benching/trading Randolph.

 
You guys do realize that there are dominant guards like Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kobe, etc. that win championships just as much as centers, right?
Kobe hasn't won a thing without Shaq. Magic had Kareem. Bird wasn't a guard and also had McHale and Parrish. You think Wade wins a ring without Shaq?Jordan is the exception. There could be another Jordan, but results are pretty clear that dominant interior players give you a better chance to win a title.
 
well, I think you probably got a little too hung up on the phrase "perfect fit". he's a good enough fit that it's not a mistake to take him there.
You're right that I'm probably too hung up on it. But as soon as Portland won I saw 3 or more posters talk about him being a perfect fit and how they're definitely going to take him because of it.I spoke up and correct them. In my opinion, Oden was a big favorite to go #1 overall before the lottery. He still is the favorite, but Portland getting the #1 has decreased(albeit very very slightly) his chanes because Durant is a better fit. Then you guys went crazy on a bunch of tangents and put words in my mouth that I never said.

Heres an example: If the Houston Rockets right now could add David Robinson(in his prime) to their current team, would they do it? Absolutely! But would it be a "perfect fit"? Not at all. So if they could add Robinson or a similar player at another position like say John Stockton, then I think they would take the latter because he fits their team more. Of course if you think Robinson is a lot better than Stockton then you'd take him, but hes not as they're close(please don't debate this, it was just an example. If you really think Robinson was way more valuable than Stockton then please just plug in two different players that you think are very close to being even).

Now again, I understand that Randolph isn't as good as Yao Ming, so its not as bad of a fit as my example. But the general point still applies.
I'm sure there were some people who said that Duncan was a great fit in San Antonio even if they already had Robinson b/c it would allow him to play PF. I'm sure people would feel the same if Toronto had a shot at Oden b/c it would let them play Bosh at PF. Same thing applies to Portland, IMO. Adding Oden allows them to keep Aldridge at his more natural PF spot.
:clap: :thanks: :thumbup: :eek: :clap: Best post in this argument - hands down. Nice job Rud.

 
The road to an NBA title goes thru Tim Duncan now, and for the foreseeable future. Oden could change that. Durant does not.

Oden is the absolute no-brainer Assani - I think you're the one who's drinking the ESPN kool-aid if you really think Durant is nearly the prospect Oden is. Oden played last year with one hand and still almost won an NCAA title.
You don't know the bolded part at all. Durant could be the next Jordan. I really don't see why you dismiss this possibility. You guys do realize that there are dominant guards like Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kobe, etc. that win championships just as much as centers, right? And I definitely disagree that its a no brainer. These guys are both stud prospects. Question: Is Oden a bigger prospect than Lebron was?
He's LeBron's equal as a prospect, IMO. Probably the best HS prospect of my lifetime. I don't ever remember a freshman center as good as Oden.
 
Tommy, I understand that Oden is great but I really think you're undervaluing Durant a bit.

Kansas Coach Bill Self was asked if hes ever seen a freshman as good as Durant:

"Not only freshman, but I've never seen another college player as good as him. Michael(Jordan), as a collegiate, wasn't as talented or as dominate. The only player that even comes close to him I think would've been Bird."

Heres Bill Simmons on Durant:

But along with his 15 (and counting) ready-for-the NBA moves, his underrated passing (the biggest shocker for me), the shotblocking ability (watch how many times he swats somebody from behind), his 25-foot range (legitimate), his Freddie Krueger arms and everything else, the one quality that sets Durant apart from everyone else in college is his decision making -- not the decisions themselves but how quickly he makes them. This guy knows exactly what he's doing at all times and never hesitates even for a split-second. Look for this the next time you watch Texas play. It's the rarest of qualities for a scorer.

Dickie V compared his scoring prowess to Bob McAdoo, but Durant has more range on his jumper, longer arms and more athletic ability (McAdoo got his 30 every night on jumpers and pull-up drives when that's only part of KD's arsenal). The more I'm thinking about it, we haven't seen anyone approaching Durant before -- seriously, a 6-9 shooting guard with a 7-5 wingspan who's still growing??? -- so we probably shouldn't play the "he reminds me of …" game with him. Maybe you can see pieces of various guys in his overall game, like KG (body type), McAdoo (scoring ability), T-Mac (ability to get to the rim with either hand), Plastic Man (the long arms), Hakeem (the ludicrous falling-out-of-bounds fallaway), Wade (competitiveness) and even C-Webb (the innate passing gene). But those are just pieces. He's an original prototype. It's like seeing the first Model-T car or the first Apple computer.

Anyway, when Chad Ford wrote that Oden had more upside than Durant last week, we had a lively e-mail exchange about it, with my basic point being, "Look, Oden has a chance to be one of the best five centers ever ... Durant has a chance to be one of the best FIVE PLAYERS ever" and Chad qualifying his point by discussing overall impact on a team (if you draft Oden, you're more likely to win a title because franchise centers invariably win titles … well, unless they're Patrick Ewing). We could go round and round on this, and over the next few months, we probably will. All I know is that MJ was the last guy since Wilt to crack 37 a game in the pros … and Kevin Durant will be joining him in 5-6 years if he stays healthy. That's not even hyperbole. I don't see anyone stopping him. But will his rebounding/shotblocking catch up to the rest of his game? And will his teams ultimately win? Those are the looming questions.

 
if you were running the Blazers, who would you take?
Not sure right now. Probably Oden though. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm arguing here though.
well, I think you probably got a little too hung up on the phrase "perfect fit". he's a good enough fit that it's not a mistake to take him there.
You're right that I'm probably too hung up on it. But as soon as Portland won I saw 3 or more posters talk about him being a perfect fit and how they're definitely going to take him because of it.I spoke up and correct them.
You're definition of perfect fit is entirely too narrow and not at all useful for anybody. I'm not sure why you felt the need to spend 5 pages pressing this point upon everyone.
I didn't spend 5 pages pressing it. I said it once and I was instantly bombarded with people bringing up completely other issues like the value of a center. And I don't understand how my definition of a perfect fit could possibly be too narrow. By very definition couldn't one's definition of it only be too broad?

 
You guys do realize that there are dominant guards like Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kobe, etc. that win championships just as much as centers, right?
Kobe hasn't won a thing without Shaq. Magic had Kareem. Bird wasn't a guard and also had McHale and Parrish. You think Wade wins a ring without Shaq?Jordan is the exception. There could be another Jordan, but results are pretty clear that dominant interior players give you a better chance to win a title.
Jordan won w/o a dominant post presence, but he had a better SF than Bird, Magic, or Kobe ever played with.
 
well, I think you probably got a little too hung up on the phrase "perfect fit". he's a good enough fit that it's not a mistake to take him there.
You're right that I'm probably too hung up on it. But as soon as Portland won I saw 3 or more posters talk about him being a perfect fit and how they're definitely going to take him because of it.I spoke up and correct them. In my opinion, Oden was a big favorite to go #1 overall before the lottery. He still is the favorite, but Portland getting the #1 has decreased(albeit very very slightly) his chanes because Durant is a better fit. Then you guys went crazy on a bunch of tangents and put words in my mouth that I never said.Heres an example: If the Houston Rockets right now could add David Robinson(in his prime) to their current team, would they do it? Absolutely! But would it be a "perfect fit"? Not at all. So if they could add Robinson or a similar player at another position like say John Stockton, then I think they would take the latter because he fits their team more. Of course if you think Robinson is a lot better than Stockton then you'd take him, but hes not as they're close(please don't debate this, it was just an example. If you really think Robinson was way more valuable than Stockton then please just plug in two different players that you think are very close to being even).Now again, I understand that Randolph isn't as good as Yao Ming, so its not as bad of a fit as my example. But the general point still applies.
I'm sure there were some people who said that Duncan was a great fit in San Antonio even if they already had Robinson b/c it would allow him to play PF. I'm sure people would feel the same if Toronto had a shot at Oden b/c it would let them play Bosh at PF. Same thing applies to Portland, IMO. Adding Oden allows them to keep Aldridge at his more natural PF spot.
I agree that they could definitely find a way to make it work. I'm not saying otherwise.
 
if you were running the Blazers, who would you take?
Not sure right now. Probably Oden though. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm arguing here though.
well, I think you probably got a little too hung up on the phrase "perfect fit". he's a good enough fit that it's not a mistake to take him there.
You're right that I'm probably too hung up on it. But as soon as Portland won I saw 3 or more posters talk about him being a perfect fit and how they're definitely going to take him because of it.I spoke up and correct them.
You're definition of perfect fit is entirely too narrow and not at all useful for anybody. I'm not sure why you felt the need to spend 5 pages pressing this point upon everyone.
And I don't understand how my definition of a perfect fit could possibly be too narrow. By very definition couldn't one's definition of it only be too broad?
Seriously do you just like arguing?
 
I think it's a "perfect fit" because of the two franchise pieces already in place. A versatile 4 who plays better facing the basket, and a potentially dominant scorer at SG. Those three can win championships. You don't win championships with Zach Randolph starting at the 4.Oden makes Aldridge AND Roy better, and their presence opens things up for Oden. It is a PERFECT fit, regardless of whether the Blazers end up benching/trading Randolph.
Do me a favor and look up the word "perfect" in your dictionary. Then look up "good." Perhaps you might want to switch out "perfect" for "good" in your post after looking those up.
 
You guys do realize that there are dominant guards like Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kobe, etc. that win championships just as much as centers, right?
Kobe hasn't won a thing without Shaq. Magic had Kareem. Bird wasn't a guard and also had McHale and Parrish. You think Wade wins a ring without Shaq?Jordan is the exception. There could be another Jordan, but results are pretty clear that dominant interior players give you a better chance to win a title.
Shaq hasn't won a thing without Kobe and Wade....i really really dislike how you just look at things from one perspective when you argue, man. Its frustrating.Magic was the superstar player, not KAJ. Bird was a SF- thats a perimeter position. If you're not going to count that, then technically Duncan isn't a center.I'd be more than interested in looking at the current era(lets say 1980-present) and taking a look at each championship team. We could just take their best player(or split it when its really close like Kobe/Shaq) and see if there are more perimeter players or big men on the list. Of we could do any study you propose. But throwing out 1/2 of the argument and ignoring the other 1/2 like you are gets us nowhere.
 
You guys do realize that there are dominant guards like Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kobe, etc. that win championships just as much as centers, right?
Kobe hasn't won a thing without Shaq. Magic had Kareem. Bird wasn't a guard and also had McHale and Parrish. You think Wade wins a ring without Shaq?Jordan is the exception. There could be another Jordan, but results are pretty clear that dominant interior players give you a better chance to win a title.
Jordan won w/o a dominant post presence, but he had a better SF than Bird, Magic, or Kobe ever played with.
Bird played SF, so that makes no sense.
 
ps>assani

Nobody agrees with you here. Someone said something to the extent of "if all else is equal, you take the center."

You disagreed, then chimed in with "if they grade out equally including taking the fact that he's a center into account, you draft for need." Newsflash: If they grade out equally including taking the fact that he's a center into account, all else is not equal.

Please, you're not going to convince anyone that you're right. Can we stop with this stupid line of conversation now and get back to talking about the fact that THE SONICS HAVE THE #2 PICK IN THE DRAFT!!!!

By the way, I do think that Portland should take Durant. glllllllll
I agree with him. :banned:
 
well, I think you probably got a little too hung up on the phrase "perfect fit". he's a good enough fit that it's not a mistake to take him there.
You're right that I'm probably too hung up on it. But as soon as Portland won I saw 3 or more posters talk about him being a perfect fit and how they're definitely going to take him because of it.I spoke up and correct them. In my opinion, Oden was a big favorite to go #1 overall before the lottery. He still is the favorite, but Portland getting the #1 has decreased(albeit very very slightly) his chanes because Durant is a better fit. Then you guys went crazy on a bunch of tangents and put words in my mouth that I never said.

Heres an example: If the Houston Rockets right now could add David Robinson(in his prime) to their current team, would they do it? Absolutely! But would it be a "perfect fit"? Not at all. So if they could add Robinson or a similar player at another position like say John Stockton, then I think they would take the latter because he fits their team more. Of course if you think Robinson is a lot better than Stockton then you'd take him, but hes not as they're close(please don't debate this, it was just an example. If you really think Robinson was way more valuable than Stockton then please just plug in two different players that you think are very close to being even).

Now again, I understand that Randolph isn't as good as Yao Ming, so its not as bad of a fit as my example. But the general point still applies.
I'm sure there were some people who said that Duncan was a great fit in San Antonio even if they already had Robinson b/c it would allow him to play PF. I'm sure people would feel the same if Toronto had a shot at Oden b/c it would let them play Bosh at PF. Same thing applies to Portland, IMO. Adding Oden allows them to keep Aldridge at his more natural PF spot.
:clap: :thanks: :hifive: :banned: :clap: Best post in this argument - hands down. Nice job Rud.
FWIW my thoughts had little to do with Aldridge. It has a lot more to do with Randolph.Randolph is a quality player. Yet he is overpaid. Therefore they probably won't get much at all in return for him. And therefore drafting a player that would force their hand to trade him would not be a perfect fit. If theres another player who is just as good(and I'm not saying there is) at another position then they should take him.

 
The road to an NBA title goes thru Tim Duncan now, and for the foreseeable future. Oden could change that. Durant does not.

Oden is the absolute no-brainer Assani - I think you're the one who's drinking the ESPN kool-aid if you really think Durant is nearly the prospect Oden is. Oden played last year with one hand and still almost won an NCAA title.
You don't know the bolded part at all. Durant could be the next Jordan. I really don't see why you dismiss this possibility. You guys do realize that there are dominant guards like Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kobe, etc. that win championships just as much as centers, right? And I definitely disagree that its a no brainer. These guys are both stud prospects. Question: Is Oden a bigger prospect than Lebron was?
He's LeBron's equal as a prospect, IMO. Probably the best HS prospect of my lifetime. I don't ever remember a freshman center as good as Oden.
Ok, and you realize that Lebron is a perimeter player right?So you're admitting that it is possible for a perimeter player to grade out as high as Oden?

So what if NBA scouts look at Durant and determine that hes a better prospect than Lebron was?

 
You guys do realize that there are dominant guards like Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kobe, etc. that win championships just as much as centers, right?
Kobe hasn't won a thing without Shaq. Magic had Kareem. Bird wasn't a guard and also had McHale and Parrish. You think Wade wins a ring without Shaq?Jordan is the exception. There could be another Jordan, but results are pretty clear that dominant interior players give you a better chance to win a title.
Shaq hasn't won a thing without Kobe and Wade....i really really dislike how you just look at things from one perspective when you argue, man. Its frustrating.Magic was the superstar player, not KAJ. Bird was a SF- thats a perimeter position. If you're not going to count that, then technically Duncan isn't a center.

I'd be more than interested in looking at the current era(lets say 1980-present) and taking a look at each championship team. We could just take their best player(or split it when its really close like Kobe/Shaq) and see if there are more perimeter players or big men on the list. Of we could do any study you propose. But throwing out 1/2 of the argument and ignoring the other 1/2 like you are gets us nowhere.
Both were superstars.
 
if you were running the Blazers, who would you take?
Not sure right now. Probably Oden though. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm arguing here though.
well, I think you probably got a little too hung up on the phrase "perfect fit". he's a good enough fit that it's not a mistake to take him there.
You're right that I'm probably too hung up on it. But as soon as Portland won I saw 3 or more posters talk about him being a perfect fit and how they're definitely going to take him because of it.I spoke up and correct them.
You're definition of perfect fit is entirely too narrow and not at all useful for anybody. I'm not sure why you felt the need to spend 5 pages pressing this point upon everyone.
And I don't understand how my definition of a perfect fit could possibly be too narrow. By very definition couldn't one's definition of it only be too broad?
Seriously do you just like arguing?
I'm just frustrated man. I made one innocent little statment many posts ago where I corrected a bunch of people who said that it was a perfect fit. Then about 10 people jumped down my throat and accused me of saying things that I never said or intended to say. I kept trying to tell them what I was really saying and it took a very long time for me to get my point across.
 
My wish list for the Milwaukee Bucks...

School - Position (1-5) - Player - Comments

Out of reach...

1) Ohio ST 5 Greg Oden #1 pick Right Assini? :banned:

2) Texas 3 Kevin Durant #2 pick

Top options I hope fall to #6...

3) Ohio ST 1 Mike Conley - The Bucks could really, really use an elite PG. This guy is just sick off the dribble. Defenders can't stay in front of him and he already is accustomed to playing with bigs and on the big stage.

4) Florida 4 Al Horford - This guy is the next Horace Grant. The Bucks could use a player who's willing to do all the little things necessary to win.

After the top 4 I'm torn...

5) Florida 2/1 Corey Brewer - Great, great defense but can he knock down the longer NBA trey? If only he played the point more...

6) China 4 Yi Jianlian - He's more Dirk than Yao...I'm down with that. Is he really what the Bucks need though?

7) Florida 4/5 Joakim Noah - Great team 1st guy but is he big enough to bang in the trenches? Could be a nice combo with Bogut...or a complete disaster.

8) Kansas 5 Julian Wright - Upside is there and he has that long NBA type body. Upside is there but how long would we wait for it to show on the court?

9) North Carolina 4 Brandan Wright - A notch below Julian (the other) Wright imo but they are very similar. However, I expect Brandan Wright will get much more love than Julian by NBA scouts and could go before the Bucks even pick.

10) Washington 5 Spencer Hawes - Back to the basket game is nice but is he another stiff?

Not a fan of...

- G'Town 5 Roy Hibbert - Big-time NBA stiff in the making. He's way too slow to be a success at the next level. I bet his stock drops as the draft gets closer.

- G'Town 3 Jeff Green - He was a solid college player but he'll be nothing special in the NBA imo. SF are easy to come by and he disappeared in the Final Four game.

- Florida ST 3/4 Al Thornton - He's a tweener in the NBA and I just see him having more matchup problems than he presents.

Brandan Wright will get much more love than I'm giving him here and could easily be the Bucks pick at #6. Thoughts?

 
Shaq hasn't won a thing without Kobe and Wade....i really really dislike how you just look at things from one perspective when you argue, man. Its frustrating.
the point is that every non-Jordan championship team in recent history had a dominant interior player.Kobe and Wade both won rings...but what was the common demoninator? they both played with the most dominant Center in the league.I'm not looking at things from one perspective. If you try and look at the main reason teams win championships, it almost always comes down to interior play. Phoenix isn't going to win a title with Nash and Marion but the presence of Stoudemire gives them a shot. San Antonio doesn't win any of their 3 rings without Duncan. Do you think they win a title with Garnett instead of Duncan and the same surrounding talent?
 
ps>assaniNobody agrees with you here. Someone said something to the extent of "if all else is equal, you take the center."You disagreed, then chimed in with "if they grade out equally including taking the fact that he's a center into account, you draft for need." Newsflash: If they grade out equally including taking the fact that he's a center into account, all else is not equal.
Ok, let me explain this one more time....Suppose that you rank players on a 1-1000 scale. And suppose that since you believe centers are more valuable that being a center adds 25 points to your grade of a player. Now suppose that you score Oden a 950 and Durant a 975 after evaluating them. You add in the 25 and they're even. Now who do you take?Imo you now draft for need.Thats what I'm trying to say. But then I had a bunch of people yell at me "No you have to take the center because they're more valuable!!"....then I tried to point out that I meant that they graded out equally when you have already taken that into consideration.
 
Tommy, I understand that Oden is great but I really think you're undervaluing Durant a bit.Kansas Coach Bill Self was asked if hes ever seen a freshman as good as Durant:"Not only freshman, but I've never seen another college player as good as him. Michael(Jordan), as a collegiate, wasn't as talented or as dominate. The only player that even comes close to him I think would've been Bird." Heres Bill Simmons on Durant:But along with his 15 (and counting) ready-for-the NBA moves, his underrated passing (the biggest shocker for me), the shotblocking ability (watch how many times he swats somebody from behind), his 25-foot range (legitimate), his Freddie Krueger arms and everything else, the one quality that sets Durant apart from everyone else in college is his decision making -- not the decisions themselves but how quickly he makes them. This guy knows exactly what he's doing at all times and never hesitates even for a split-second. Look for this the next time you watch Texas play. It's the rarest of qualities for a scorer.Dickie V compared his scoring prowess to Bob McAdoo, but Durant has more range on his jumper, longer arms and more athletic ability (McAdoo got his 30 every night on jumpers and pull-up drives when that's only part of KD's arsenal). The more I'm thinking about it, we haven't seen anyone approaching Durant before -- seriously, a 6-9 shooting guard with a 7-5 wingspan who's still growing??? -- so we probably shouldn't play the "he reminds me of …" game with him. Maybe you can see pieces of various guys in his overall game, like KG (body type), McAdoo (scoring ability), T-Mac (ability to get to the rim with either hand), Plastic Man (the long arms), Hakeem (the ludicrous falling-out-of-bounds fallaway), Wade (competitiveness) and even C-Webb (the innate passing gene). But those are just pieces. He's an original prototype. It's like seeing the first Model-T car or the first Apple computer.Anyway, when Chad Ford wrote that Oden had more upside than Durant last week, we had a lively e-mail exchange about it, with my basic point being, "Look, Oden has a chance to be one of the best five centers ever ... Durant has a chance to be one of the best FIVE PLAYERS ever" and Chad qualifying his point by discussing overall impact on a team (if you draft Oden, you're more likely to win a title because franchise centers invariably win titles … well, unless they're Patrick Ewing). We could go round and round on this, and over the next few months, we probably will. All I know is that MJ was the last guy since Wilt to crack 37 a game in the pros … and Kevin Durant will be joining him in 5-6 years if he stays healthy. That's not even hyperbole. I don't see anyone stopping him. But will his rebounding/shotblocking catch up to the rest of his game? And will his teams ultimately win? Those are the looming questions.
Durant has a LOT of work to do on his body before he averages 30 ppg. And even if he does, he'll still never be the defender Oden is. That's why Oden is the no-brainer, he has absolutely zero chance of busting because he'll be all NBA Defensively as soon as next year. The guy absolutely dominates the paint.
 
My wish list for the Milwaukee Bucks...5) Florida 2/1 Corey Brewer - Great, great defense but can he knock down the longer NBA trey? If only he played the point more...
this seems like a good fit to me. Front court of Bogut, Villanueva, and Brewer with Redd and Mo Williams in the backcourt.
 
You guys do realize that there are dominant guards like Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kobe, etc. that win championships just as much as centers, right?
Kobe hasn't won a thing without Shaq. Magic had Kareem. Bird wasn't a guard and also had McHale and Parrish. You think Wade wins a ring without Shaq?Jordan is the exception. There could be another Jordan, but results are pretty clear that dominant interior players give you a better chance to win a title.
Shaq hasn't won a thing without Kobe and Wade....i really really dislike how you just look at things from one perspective when you argue, man. Its frustrating.Magic was the superstar player, not KAJ. Bird was a SF- thats a perimeter position. If you're not going to count that, then technically Duncan isn't a center.

I'd be more than interested in looking at the current era(lets say 1980-present) and taking a look at each championship team. We could just take their best player(or split it when its really close like Kobe/Shaq) and see if there are more perimeter players or big men on the list. Of we could do any study you propose. But throwing out 1/2 of the argument and ignoring the other 1/2 like you are gets us nowhere.
Both were superstars.
Perhaps in their first 3 titles. In their last two, KAJ didn't even make any of the All NBA teams, while Magic was 1st team both years(and league MVP one of hte years).
 
Here is a question...has either Durant or Oden made the mistake of signing with a shoe company other than NIKE already? He who balls in Portland and has a Nike contract will be king.

 
ps>assaniNobody agrees with you here. Someone said something to the extent of "if all else is equal, you take the center."You disagreed, then chimed in with "if they grade out equally including taking the fact that he's a center into account, you draft for need." Newsflash: If they grade out equally including taking the fact that he's a center into account, all else is not equal.
Ok, let me explain this one more time....Suppose that you rank players on a 1-1000 scale. And suppose that since you believe centers are more valuable that being a center adds 25 points to your grade of a player. Now suppose that you score Oden a 950 and Durant a 975 after evaluating them. You add in the 25 and they're even. Now who do you take?Imo you now draft for need.Thats what I'm trying to say. But then I had a bunch of people yell at me "No you have to take the center because they're more valuable!!"....then I tried to point out that I meant that they graded out equally when you have already taken that into consideration.
Count me in as someone who disagrees with you, but wasn't "yelling". I'm too faded to raise my voice right now. And Jordin Sparks just gave me goosebumps.
 
My wish list for the Milwaukee Bucks...5) Florida 2/1 Corey Brewer - Great, great defense but can he knock down the longer NBA trey? If only he played the point more...
this seems like a good fit to me. Front court of Bogut, Villanueva, and Brewer with Redd and Mo Williams in the backcourt.
His defense is nails, but in the NBA will he be able to handle the point? I'm not positive if his ball skills are good enough to be a PG alongside a SG who doesn't really handle the rock. ???
 
This sets Celtics basketball back another 10 years.1986 - Len Bias1997 - Tim Duncan2007 - Oden/DurantSeriously, NO ONE in New England gives a #### about basketball anymore. Seriously.
The breaks have certainly not gone the Celtics way since the end of the Bird era(I am including the unfortunate death of Len Bias in that).
 
My wish list for the Milwaukee Bucks...5) Florida 2/1 Corey Brewer - Great, great defense but can he knock down the longer NBA trey? If only he played the point more...
this seems like a good fit to me. Front court of Bogut, Villanueva, and Brewer with Redd and Mo Williams in the backcourt.
His defense is nails, but in the NBA will he be able to handle the point? I'm not positive if his ball skills are good enough to be a PG alongside a SG who doesn't really handle the rock. ???
PG? I thought he was a SF. He's 6'9".Tayshaun Prince part II, IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My wish list for the Milwaukee Bucks...5) Florida 2/1 Corey Brewer - Great, great defense but can he knock down the longer NBA trey? If only he played the point more...
this seems like a good fit to me. Front court of Bogut, Villanueva, and Brewer with Redd and Mo Williams in the backcourt.
His defense is nails, but in the NBA will he be able to handle the point? I'm not positive if his ball skills are good enough to be a PG alongside a SG who doesn't really handle the rock. ???
PG? I thought he was a SF/SG type. He's 6'8".Tayshaun Prince part II.
That reads odd...my bad. I have him as a shooting guard in the NBA. Do teams project him to be more of a 2/3 than a 2/1?
 
JettPowers said:
I hate basketball but I'm real happy that the two biggest tankers got screwed tonight. Question, why don't they show the actual drawing of ping pong balls on live tv, like your state lottery??
Because the new lottery system is too complicated and convoluted. They draw a sequence of 4 lottery balls (out of 14) to determine the 1st pick. Each team is assigned a certain amount of 4-digit combinations (e.g., 1-4-9-14), and the numbers drawn are compared to the combinations assigned to the teams.Boston had the most combinations (250), while the Clippers had the fewest (5). Portland had 53 combinations. Seattle had 88.So, let's say they drew 1-2-3-4 and that number just happened to be assigned to Portland. Portland gets the #1 pick. Then they draw 4-6-9-14 and that number is assigned to Seattle.But unless you knew all of your team's combinations ahead of time, it would mean nothing to you if you saw "1-2-3-4" get selected. So the NBA decided that it was more dramatic to unveil the picks after they've been selected.
:loco: :own3d: :lmao: :lmao: Wow, what the hell is that all about?! Thanks for the info, I thought they still drew ping pong balls with the team logos on it. Is this supposed to help the odds of the worst team getting the number 1 pick? Or is this just the NBA's assinine way of doing things? Just wondering why they make it so complicated.
 
Shaq hasn't won a thing without Kobe and Wade....i really really dislike how you just look at things from one perspective when you argue, man. Its frustrating.
the point is that every non-Jordan championship team in recent history had a dominant interior player.Kobe and Wade both won rings...but what was the common demoninator? they both played with the most dominant Center in the league.

I'm not looking at things from one perspective. If you try and look at the main reason teams win championships, it almost always comes down to interior play. Phoenix isn't going to win a title with Nash and Marion but the presence of Stoudemire gives them a shot. San Antonio doesn't win any of their 3 rings without Duncan. Do you think they win a title with Garnett instead of Duncan and the same surrounding talent?
You are most definitely looking at things from one perspective. You're ignoring the fact that nearly every team also had a dominant perimeter player! If we define "dominant" as a guy that we think will one day be in the all of fame:

I'll answer "yes" or "no"...first I'll list the big man, then the perimeter player

2005-06 NBA Miami Heat yes/yes

2004-05 NBA San Antonio Spurs yes/no

2003-04 NBA Detroit Pistons no/no

2002-03 NBA San Antonio Spurs yes/no

2001-02 NBA Los Angeles Lakers yes/yes

2000-01 NBA Los Angeles Lakers yes/yes

1999-00 NBA Los Angeles Lakers yes/yes

1998-99 NBA San Antonio Spurs yes/no

1997-98 NBA Chicago Bulls no/yes

1996-97 NBA Chicago Bulls no/yes

1995-96 NBA Chicago Bulls no/yes

1994-95 NBA Houston Rockets yes/yes

1993-94 NBA Houston Rockets yes/no

1992-93 NBA Chicago Bulls no/yes

1991-92 NBA Chicago Bulls no/yes

1990-91 NBA Chicago Bulls no/yes

1989-90 NBA Detroit Pistons no/yes

1988-89 NBA Detroit Pistons no/yes

1987-88 NBA Los Angeles Lakers yes/yes

1986-87 NBA Los Angeles Lakers yes/yes

1985-86 NBA Boston Celtics yes/yes

1984-85 NBA Los Angeles Lakers yes/yes

1983-84 NBA Boston Celtics yes/yes

1982-83 NBA Philadelphia 76ers yes/yes

1981-82 NBA Los Angeles Lakers yes/yes

1980-81 NBA Boston Celtics yes/yes

17/26 championship teams had a dominant inside player, while 22/26 championship teams had a dominant perimeter player.

Or lets try this: Lets list the best player for each team and say whether he was a perimeter player or post player? To avoid controversy if its close at all as to who is better I'll simply say "tie".

P= perimeter

B= big man

T= tie

2005-06 NBA Miami Heat P

2004-05 NBA San Antonio Spurs B

2003-04 NBA Detroit Pistons P

2002-03 NBA San Antonio Spurs B

2001-02 NBA Los Angeles Lakers T

2000-01 NBA Los Angeles Lakers T

1999-00 NBA Los Angeles Lakers T

1998-99 NBA San Antonio Spurs B

1997-98 NBA Chicago Bulls P

1996-97 NBA Chicago Bulls P

1995-96 NBA Chicago Bulls P

1994-95 NBA Houston Rockets B

1993-94 NBA Houston Rockets B

1992-93 NBA Chicago Bulls P

1991-92 NBA Chicago Bulls P

1990-91 NBA Chicago Bulls P

1989-90 NBA Detroit Pistons P

1988-89 NBA Detroit Pistons P

1987-88 NBA Los Angeles Lakers P

1986-87 NBA Los Angeles Lakers P

1985-86 NBA Boston Celtics P

1984-85 NBA Los Angeles Lakers P

1983-84 NBA Boston Celtics P

1982-83 NBA Philadelphia 76ers T

1981-82 NBA Los Angeles Lakers T

1980-81 NBA Boston Celtics P

Thats a total of 16 perimeter players, 5 big men, and 5 ties. Hell, you can go ahead and count all of the ties as wins for the big men and you still wouldn't have as many.

Alright theres two of my attempts to come up with a fair way to evaluate it. If you can think of another way to do it, then please let me know and I'll be glad to give it a shot.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tommy, I understand that Oden is great but I really think you're undervaluing Durant a bit.Kansas Coach Bill Self was asked if hes ever seen a freshman as good as Durant:"Not only freshman, but I've never seen another college player as good as him. Michael(Jordan), as a collegiate, wasn't as talented or as dominate. The only player that even comes close to him I think would've been Bird." Heres Bill Simmons on Durant:But along with his 15 (and counting) ready-for-the NBA moves, his underrated passing (the biggest shocker for me), the shotblocking ability (watch how many times he swats somebody from behind), his 25-foot range (legitimate), his Freddie Krueger arms and everything else, the one quality that sets Durant apart from everyone else in college is his decision making -- not the decisions themselves but how quickly he makes them. This guy knows exactly what he's doing at all times and never hesitates even for a split-second. Look for this the next time you watch Texas play. It's the rarest of qualities for a scorer.Dickie V compared his scoring prowess to Bob McAdoo, but Durant has more range on his jumper, longer arms and more athletic ability (McAdoo got his 30 every night on jumpers and pull-up drives when that's only part of KD's arsenal). The more I'm thinking about it, we haven't seen anyone approaching Durant before -- seriously, a 6-9 shooting guard with a 7-5 wingspan who's still growing??? -- so we probably shouldn't play the "he reminds me of …" game with him. Maybe you can see pieces of various guys in his overall game, like KG (body type), McAdoo (scoring ability), T-Mac (ability to get to the rim with either hand), Plastic Man (the long arms), Hakeem (the ludicrous falling-out-of-bounds fallaway), Wade (competitiveness) and even C-Webb (the innate passing gene). But those are just pieces. He's an original prototype. It's like seeing the first Model-T car or the first Apple computer.Anyway, when Chad Ford wrote that Oden had more upside than Durant last week, we had a lively e-mail exchange about it, with my basic point being, "Look, Oden has a chance to be one of the best five centers ever ... Durant has a chance to be one of the best FIVE PLAYERS ever" and Chad qualifying his point by discussing overall impact on a team (if you draft Oden, you're more likely to win a title because franchise centers invariably win titles … well, unless they're Patrick Ewing). We could go round and round on this, and over the next few months, we probably will. All I know is that MJ was the last guy since Wilt to crack 37 a game in the pros … and Kevin Durant will be joining him in 5-6 years if he stays healthy. That's not even hyperbole. I don't see anyone stopping him. But will his rebounding/shotblocking catch up to the rest of his game? And will his teams ultimately win? Those are the looming questions.
Durant has a LOT of work to do on his body before he averages 30 ppg. And even if he does, he'll still never be the defender Oden is. That's why Oden is the no-brainer, he has absolutely zero chance of busting because he'll be all NBA Defensively as soon as next year. The guy absolutely dominates the paint.
I agree with you that Oden has a much higher downside.
 
ps>assaniNobody agrees with you here. Someone said something to the extent of "if all else is equal, you take the center."You disagreed, then chimed in with "if they grade out equally including taking the fact that he's a center into account, you draft for need." Newsflash: If they grade out equally including taking the fact that he's a center into account, all else is not equal.
Ok, let me explain this one more time....Suppose that you rank players on a 1-1000 scale. And suppose that since you believe centers are more valuable that being a center adds 25 points to your grade of a player. Now suppose that you score Oden a 950 and Durant a 975 after evaluating them. You add in the 25 and they're even. Now who do you take?Imo you now draft for need.Thats what I'm trying to say. But then I had a bunch of people yell at me "No you have to take the center because they're more valuable!!"....then I tried to point out that I meant that they graded out equally when you have already taken that into consideration.
Count me in as someone who disagrees with you, but wasn't "yelling". I'm too faded to raise my voice right now. And Jordin Sparks just gave me goosebumps.
But what do you disagree with me over? I think we agree that Oden is better from what we know right now. I think we agree that its possible for a guard to be ranked higher than a center. I think we agree that Oden is not a perfect fit in Portland because they'd ikely have to trade away a guy and not get full value for him if they drafted him.
 
I am sad my Celtics did not get the #1 or #2. Like I posted previously, the breaks have not gone their way in the last 20 years.

I think this is more proof that the lottery is not rigged.

I don't know who is the better player b/w Oden & Durant. I am not an NBA GM, just a fan. However, there have been many successful teams that played with two good low post players, including Kareem/Worthy for the Lakers, McHale/Parish for the Celtics, and Robinson/Duncan for the Spurs.

Both Portland and Seattle were big winners tonight. Congrats to both franchises and good luck.

 
My wish list for the Milwaukee Bucks...5) Florida 2/1 Corey Brewer - Great, great defense but can he knock down the longer NBA trey? If only he played the point more...
this seems like a good fit to me. Front court of Bogut, Villanueva, and Brewer with Redd and Mo Williams in the backcourt.
His defense is nails, but in the NBA will he be able to handle the point? I'm not positive if his ball skills are good enough to be a PG alongside a SG who doesn't really handle the rock. ???
PG? I thought he was a SF/SG type. He's 6'8".Tayshaun Prince part II.
That reads odd...my bad. I have him as a shooting guard in the NBA. Do teams project him to be more of a 2/3 than a 2/1?
I have no idea what the experts say, but that's where I would expect him to fit in best. He just reminds me so much of Prince, but I think he can even become a better shooter.
 
My wish list for the Milwaukee Bucks...5) Florida 2/1 Corey Brewer - Great, great defense but can he knock down the longer NBA trey? If only he played the point more...
this seems like a good fit to me. Front court of Bogut, Villanueva, and Brewer with Redd and Mo Williams in the backcourt.
His defense is nails, but in the NBA will he be able to handle the point? I'm not positive if his ball skills are good enough to be a PG alongside a SG who doesn't really handle the rock. ???
No. Corey Brewer has absolutely zero chance of ever being a PG on the NBA level. Even in college his ball handling was suspect...along with his outside shot, thats his biggest weakness right now.
 
My wish list for the Milwaukee Bucks......8) Kansas 5 Julian Wright - Upside is there and he has that long NBA type body. Upside is there but how long would we wait for it to show on the court?9) North Carolina 4 Brandan Wright - A notch below Julian (the other) Wright imo but they are very similar. However, I expect Brandan Wright will get much more love than Julian by NBA scouts and could go before the Bucks even pick....
Is this crazy talk?Brandan Wright seems to generate a lot of positive words...or is Julian just being underrated right now?
 
My wish list for the Milwaukee Bucks...

5) Florida 2/1 Corey Brewer - Great, great defense but can he knock down the longer NBA trey? If only he played the point more...
this seems like a good fit to me. Front court of Bogut, Villanueva, and Brewer with Redd and Mo Williams in the backcourt.
His defense is nails, but in the NBA will he be able to handle the point? I'm not positive if his ball skills are good enough to be a PG alongside a SG who doesn't really handle the rock. ???
PG? I thought he was a SF/SG type. He's 6'8".Tayshaun Prince part II.
That reads odd...my bad. I have him as a shooting guard in the NBA. Do teams project him to be more of a 2/3 than a 2/1?
I have no idea what the experts say, but that's where I would expect him to fit in best. He just reminds me so much of Prince, but I think he can even become a better shooter.
Very much disagree here. While its certainly possible that he can improve, Prince shoots a higher percentage from NBA 3 against NBA defenders than Brewer did in college. Hes also a better foul shooter. Brewer is quicker and more athletic. Prince is longer. Shooting is close, but as I said I see no reasonable evidence that points towards Brewer being better.
 
JettPowers said:
ps>assani

Nobody agrees with you here. Someone said something to the extent of "if all else is equal, you take the center."

You disagreed, then chimed in with "if they grade out equally including taking the fact that he's a center into account, you draft for need." Newsflash: If they grade out equally including taking the fact that he's a center into account, all else is not equal.
Ok, let me explain this one more time....Suppose that you rank players on a 1-1000 scale. And suppose that since you believe centers are more valuable that being a center adds 25 points to your grade of a player.

Now suppose that you score Oden a 950 and Durant a 975 after evaluating them. You add in the 25 and they're even. Now who do you take?

Imo you now draft for need.

Thats what I'm trying to say. But then I had a bunch of people yell at me "No you have to take the center because they're more valuable!!"....then I tried to point out that I meant that they graded out equally when you have already taken that into consideration.
This is where the Blazers got in trouble in 1984. They desperately needed a center. They already had an All-Star guard (Jim Paxson), an All-Star small forward (Kiki Vandeweghe), and an up-and-coming slasher who could play 2 & 3 (Clyde Drexler). They saw no need to draft another mid-sized scorer......like Michael Jordan.When it comes to superstar players, you throw "need" out the window.
I agree completely with you. I was only saying if you had them ranked exactly evenly. Trust me- I couldn't agree more with your last sentence though, and I actually think its more of the Oden-supporters who are ignoring that as they'll "always take the center since centers are more rare."
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top