mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Iverson was a unique talent. MRain is right. Had Iverson come up in today's nba he probably would've gotten more out of his talent. But during that time it took took Larry Brown building a team that catered to Iverson and did all the dirty work. It was enough to get them to the finals in a weak eastern conference. Coaches tried to get Iverson to maximize his talent but he was very stubborn and set in his ways. He could've been great. Could've won a few rings like Isiah did it he just fleshed out his game

well said ... aside from the Isiah comment He was overrated a bit as well but not nearly like Iverson.

Your point is correct. All those players would have had much better numbers had they known which numbers are important. It is so interesting how much more efficient the new Isiah is compared to the old Isiah. Its not a a coincidence since the game has changes so much. Isiah was a terrible 3 point shooter. He could not get away with that in todays game which thrives on 3 point efficiency.

Don't agree about Isiah. You look at today's NBA game and you can find examples of guys who have thrived while being below average three point shooters, Michael Westbrook being the best example. Heck, Chris Paul managed to have stellar seasons while shooting badly from three. The game has changed, but I think the great players would find a way to thrive. In order to play effectively, you have to be smart enough to avoid your weakness. Isiah was a weak three point shooter, but you didn't see him bombing away from there. Iverson is a different case. I think he would've been more effective if he took less threes and attacked the basket more.

aside from having solid assist numbers, the rest of his game was underwhelming. He was also on a great team so it got masked a bit.

How would you compare him to john stockton?

Isaiah put up tremendous numbers on some mediocre Detroit teams. It's hard to compare Isaiah and Stockton because they played the position so differently. I rank Stockton higher in my all-time rankings, but there's a part of me questions how muchbofbStockton's success was due to Sloan's system.

Its really not close. Have you compared the stats? They are mind boggling. And stockton did it so quietly and without flare.

Stockton's shooting percentages are better, but that goes back to the different roles they played on their respective teams. Isaiah was his teams primary scoring option while Stockton had the luxury of being able to pick and choose his shots. Imagine if Isaiah had post presence like Karl Malone on his team?

Dumars was pretty good, actually better than Isiah.

You can say the same for Nash who had Stat but we all know how that really worked. Stockton made Malone. Isiah would not have been able to make Malone what he was. Isiah liked to show off too much.

Joe Dumars doesn't even agree with that statement.

cause he is a dummy. Just look at his moves as GM

He did win a championship lol I would trade Dumars tenure for the past decade of the Knicks any day of the week. That says more about horrible the Knicks have been than anything else.The problem is that we've had evidence of STAT and Nash performing without each other. I can't say the same about Stockton and Malone. I have seen PGs and forwards thrive in Utah and fall off elsewhere. That's just an observation. Nothing damning. I would still pick Stockton over Isaiah. I just don't believe that margin is huge. Also, I can't get on Isaiah too mucbnh for showing off. The 80s was a different time and teams had to do anything they could to bring fans in the seats. I believe that level of showmanship was encouraged. Magic was showy, but that didn't stop worthy, kareem and byron Scott from scoring.

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Iverson was a unique talent. MRain is right. Had Iverson come up in today's nba he probably would've gotten more out of his talent. But during that time it took took Larry Brown building a team that catered to Iverson and did all the dirty work. It was enough to get them to the finals in a weak eastern conference. Coaches tried to get Iverson to maximize his talent but he was very stubborn and set in his ways. He could've been great. Could've won a few rings like Isiah did it he just fleshed out his game

well said ... aside from the Isiah comment He was overrated a bit as well but not nearly like Iverson.

Your point is correct. All those players would have had much better numbers had they known which numbers are important. It is so interesting how much more efficient the new Isiah is compared to the old Isiah. Its not a a coincidence since the game has changes so much. Isiah was a terrible 3 point shooter. He could not get away with that in todays game which thrives on 3 point efficiency.

Don't agree about Isiah. You look at today's NBA game and you can find examples of guys who have thrived while being below average three point shooters, Michael Westbrook being the best example. Heck, Chris Paul managed to have stellar seasons while shooting badly from three. The game has changed, but I think the great players would find a way to thrive. In order to play effectively, you have to be smart enough to avoid your weakness. Isiah was a weak three point shooter, but you didn't see him bombing away from there. Iverson is a different case. I think he would've been more effective if he took less threes and attacked the basket more.

aside from having solid assist numbers, the rest of his game was underwhelming. He was also on a great team so it got masked a bit.

How would you compare him to john stockton?

Isaiah put up tremendous numbers on some mediocre Detroit teams. It's hard to compare Isaiah and Stockton because they played the position so differently. I rank Stockton higher in my all-time rankings, but there's a part of me questions how muchbofbStockton's success was due to Sloan's system.

Its really not close. Have you compared the stats? They are mind boggling. And stockton did it so quietly and without flare.

Stockton's shooting percentages are better, but that goes back to the different roles they played on their respective teams. Isaiah was his teams primary scoring option while Stockton had the luxury of being able to pick and choose his shots. Imagine if Isaiah had post presence like Karl Malone on his team?

Dumars was pretty good, actually better than Isiah.

You can say the same for Nash who had Stat but we all know how that really worked. Stockton made Malone. Isiah would not have been able to make Malone what he was. Isiah liked to show off too much.

Joe Dumars doesn't even agree with that statement.

cause he is a dummy. Just look at his moves as GM

He did win a championship lol I would trade Dumars tenure for the past decade of the Knicks any day of the week. That says more about horrible the Knicks have been than anything else.The problem is that we've had evidence of STAT and Nash performing without each other. I can't say the same about Stockton and Malone. I have seen PGs and forwards thrive in Utah and fall off elsewhere. That's just an observation. Nothing damning. I would still pick Stockton over Isaiah. I just don't believe that margin is huge. Also, I can't get on Isaiah too mucbnh for showing off. The 80s was a different time and teams had to do anything they could to bring fans in the seats. I believe that level of showmanship was encouraged. Magic was showy, but that didn't stop worthy, kareem and byron Scott from scoring.

Stat never really did it without Nash. He had .5 of a season but at a far less efficient level.

Stockton was a much better player than Isiah (and so was Nash) and to be fair, he did not have a Malone IMHO, that would still not gotten him close to Stockton (who I think was one of the best players of all time)

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:Sullinger was also over weight. OK4 seems to be carry good weight but just needs to get in shape. Also, I doubt Sullinger had a TS near 70% and for all the talk about Towns rebounding OK4 TRB% is 18.6 the same as Towns. OK4 also has a higher ast% and a lower to% at a much higher usg.

Both kids have areas of their games to improve. OK4 needs to get used to carrying his weight and become a better team defender. Towns needs to work on his offense. I don't know who is better or will become better. Maybe they both blossom then again they could both be busts.

Sullinger was a damn good college player and OK4 is obviously better but the eerie resemblance is there.

So lets assume that OK4 is going to be a better pro than sullinger. GREAT

Btw, just checked.

Towns WS40 is .295!!
J OK(4)WS50 is .285
Sullingers was .282

Towns has a higher Ast%, A MUCH HIGHER BLOCK%, same REB% but Towns also needs to share his rebounds with the other towers. Towns will also become a better rebounder when he builds out his frame and be able to fight for better position.

And Towns challenges and changes many more shots that are not on the sheet. He is a MUCH better FT shooter which is extremely important in the NBA, and has shooing range with huge stretch potential which OK4 does not really have.

I would much rather have a potential ADavis then a potential AJefferson.

Honestly the length of Kentucky helps those weak side blks. Players have a hard time seeing and force up a lot of bad shots. I would much rather have the future Bynum than the next Hilton Armstrong/josh boone/Channing Frye.

Really? We are usually on the same page but not with this.

To me its:

I'd rather have the next shooting camby then the next Sullinger or at best Al Jefferson.

Aside from being able to shoot, what does he have in common with Frye? Don't see it at all.

I am not a big college bball fan and maybe you are and have better insight than I do though.

I am not exactly a fan of college ball in the macro sense but more so micro. I am a UF fan so I follow their bbal team and so that kind of make me follow other teams as well.

We are at a disagreement mainly because I think your prediction are accurate. I am not really against your prediction or anyone's else but am against people trying to be definitive in their view when history shows us there are rarely any sure things when it comes to the draft.

I see two players with different skill sets, strengths, and weaknesses. Now some of their skills overlap and some don't it is more about how they grow going forward and no one knows where or what type of player they will be going forward. I like both players. I will say I like players coming out of UK over Duke recently.

I just picked Frye because they have similar body types and fluidity.

Not sure I exactly follow ... of course none of them are sure things. Probably not even 50 pct to be too much above average.

UK does produce better players and I think that his body has NBA upside while OK4 seems to be the type that is not truly suited to todays NBA. One thing that I do love that he does is the way he can palm the ball on passes and drives. That is quite valuble.

Towns' defense and outside shooting seems to have a huge upside. while OK4 slow post game is kinda old school and less valuable.

Towns really does remind me of camby on defense

Also, man Caliperi reach goes back a long time. We need a Duncan/Camby match with Okafor/Towns. Also, as a freshamn playing slightly >22min. Camby avg 6.6 blks per 40 (3.6 blks a game0. That's insane. Poor Duncan played 30mins and avg only 5 blks per 40(3.8).

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/marcus-camby-1.html

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/tim-duncan-1.html

so far

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/karl-anthony-towns-1.html

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/jahlil-okafor-1.html

yellowboy90 wrote:I don't want to get quote crazy so let me ask you this would anyone take Andrew Bynum with more passing skills. Also, I have bad memeories of Camby on defense so maybe that is throwing me off when comparing Towns to Camby. I am not talking about old Camby either. I remember a young gambler that would chase blks and rebounds.

Also, man Caliperi reach goes back a long time. We need a Duncan/Camby match with Okafor/Towns. Also, as a freshamn playing slightly >22min. Camby avg 6.6 blks per 40 (3.6 blks a game0. That's insane. Poor Duncan played 30mins and avg only 5 blks per 40(3.8).

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/marcus-camby-1.html

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/tim-duncan-1.html

so far

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/karl-anthony-towns-1.html

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/jahlil-okafor-1.html

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I don't want to get quote crazy so let me ask you this would anyone take Andrew Bynum with more passing skills. Also, I have bad memeories of Camby on defense so maybe that is throwing me off when comparing Towns to Camby. I am not talking about old Camby either. I remember a young gambler that would chase blks and rebounds.

Also, man Caliperi reach goes back a long time. We need a Duncan/Camby match with Okafor/Towns. Also, as a freshamn playing slightly >22min. Camby avg 6.6 blks per 40 (3.6 blks a game0. That's insane. Poor Duncan played 30mins and avg only 5 blks per 40(3.8).

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/marcus-camby-1.html

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/tim-duncan-1.html

so far

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/karl-anthony-towns-1.html

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/jahlil-okafor-1.html

you lost me here ... completely

what are you trying to say/ask?

Also, I forgot that Calipari was the coach at Umass. I will never forget when John Chaney stormed is press conference and wanted to beat him up.

I'm asking you if he turned out to be a better passing Bynum would you take it. I know you see back to basket players as old school and antiquated but would you take another Bynum. Keep in mind Bynum never reached his prime.

The other stuff is ramblings from you mentioning Camby in comparison to Towns and how others have compared OK4 to Duncan.

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I don't want to get quote crazy so let me ask you this would anyone take Andrew Bynum with more passing skills. Also, I have bad memeories of Camby on defense so maybe that is throwing me off when comparing Towns to Camby. I am not talking about old Camby either. I remember a young gambler that would chase blks and rebounds.

Also, man Caliperi reach goes back a long time. We need a Duncan/Camby match with Okafor/Towns. Also, as a freshamn playing slightly >22min. Camby avg 6.6 blks per 40 (3.6 blks a game0. That's insane. Poor Duncan played 30mins and avg only 5 blks per 40(3.8).

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/marcus-camby-1.html

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/tim-duncan-1.html

so far

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/karl-anthony-towns-1.html

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/jahlil-okafor-1.html

you lost me here ... completely

what are you trying to say/ask?

Also, I forgot that Calipari was the coach at Umass. I will never forget when John Chaney stormed is press conference and wanted to beat him up.

I'm asking you if he turned out to be a better passing Bynum would you take it. I know you see back to basket players as old school and antiquated but would you take another Bynum. Keep in mind Bynum never reached his prime.

The other stuff is ramblings from you mentioning Camby in comparison to Towns and how others have compared OK4 to Duncan.

Good Bynum or Bad Bynum?

Of course I would take good Bynum. Good Bynum was ridiculously good. I don't see OK4 being nearly as good as Good Bynum. He just seems a little too slow and not enough lift.

I love the upside that towns has. He needs to get a bit stronger in the legs though so that he does not get pushed off the block.

And, towns is actually an excellent passer. He sees the floor really well for a freshman. OK4 does pass really nicely out of the post.

Who knows. Its obviously not doomsday if we dont win the lottery. OK4 is not the clear number one that people think he is.

And if Towns continues to improve and have a good tourny and Duke continues to get worse, this will flip REALLY fast. It can actually happen in a few more games.