BS... above the rim is is a nice way of saying a guy's a great athlete with limited skills. If above the rim meant something the Hawks would be a great team. Funny how the playoff teams are dominated by skilled teams right now.
Are Brand and Cassell above the rim?
Are Parker/Duncan/Manu above the rim?
Is Nash? Marion is for sure, but Nash + Raja Bell > Kobe + anyone he tried to pass too
Is Jason Kidd? Shaq? Vince and Wade might be, but its what they do BELOW the rim that makes them great

I call bullsh!t

Yes, the rules certainly cater more towards elusive perimeter players more now than in the past. I wonder how Gilbert and Tony Parker would play 10 years ago when guys like Derrick Harper were allowed to always have a hand on you and hit you constantly?

Still... the above rim stuff is all secondary to skill. Look at how Camby has gone from a guy who was just above the rim to a complete player, who's a great rebounder and has a solid jumper. We could go on all day with this. I still see skill first and size second ruling the NBA. The teams that play the best TEAM ball on BOTH sides of the court are best right now.

Posted by Allanfan20:

How many points per game did Darko get in Detroit?? Please don't give me the Wallace and McDyess thing. He wasn't ready in Detroit. And look at him now. He's about to become a shotblocking monster in Orlando and they are going to become a dynamic backcourt. Bynum is a greater physical specimen and has showed some real good signs in limited time. For those who say he's nothing b/c of his 1.7 ppg are extremely narrow minded, the way I see it.

There is a huge difference vying for time on a Championship versus a borderline playoff team...

Fish what has happen to you. You become a very bitter man? I couldn't post my chill pill pic anymore.

[Edited by - pharzeone on 05-10-2006 3:29 PM]

Posted by BRIGGS:

Bynum is going to be a really good player in this league--right now he is a boy--but he showed nice signs of things he will be able to do as his body and experience mature in the next few years. How many 18 year olds in this world can put up 16 points in a Q in the NBA? How many can block 4 shots in 8 minutes? When this kid gets MAN strength and finishes growing out--hes going to be a LOAD and a half to deal with in the low post. To be judge and jury on him at 18 is inane.

to be fair, those 16pts came against the Knicks in utter garbage time in a 40pt loss.

I think Bynum is going to be quite good. anyone writing him off after one year, fresh out of high school, playing on one of the glamor teams in the league is crazy. I do think it will take him 3 more years though.

Posted by fishmike:

Posted by Pharzeone:

I already mentioned this, they refuse to accept it. Wallace and Sabonis constantly praised O'Neal's development right off the back. O'Neal was frustrated. That's why the O'Neal example is one of the worst ones you can use because those were control stats while Bynum flat out earned his 1.6 ppg. NOt only that, O'Neal moved ahead of Cliff Robinson on the Blazers depth chart per his play while Bynum moved back behind Turiaf. The challenge is to get in front of Kwame Brown, as I stated for the heir apparent that shouldn't even be an issue.

One year I could accept this.. maybe even 2 years, but for 4 years? 4 freakin years you ride pine. Zach Randolph was good enough in practice to get Sheed pushed into playing SF, and that was after 2 years. I'm sorry, but if Jermain Oneil was the great player you guys make him out to be he's in the rotation before 4 years.

Hey Fish, are you OK? Jermaine O'Neal is an all-star averaging 20 and 10. What great player are we making him out to be that millions of people haven't already agreed to? However many years he played behind someone, its obvious at this point that those reports were accurate. How can you dispute that when this guy is a perennial All-Star? Especially in the context of defending a prospect who has done nothing? Sometimes you guys go too far man!

Posted by fishmike:

What we do know is this:
Got into GREAT shape and has stayed in great shape despite no playing time
Has shown a real mean streak
Works hard
very intellegent
was recruited by JC, one of the best talent evaluators in basketball
a physical speciman

i like checklists:

                            bynum             curry
Got into GREAT shape and 
has stayed in great shape     X 
despite no playing time

shown a real mean streak      X

Works hard                    X

very intellegent              X

was recruited by JC           X

a physical speciman           X

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by fishmike:

What we do know is this:
Got into GREAT shape and has stayed in great shape despite no playing time
Has shown a real mean streak
Works hard
very intellegent
was recruited by JC, one of the best talent evaluators in basketball
a physical speciman

i like checklists:

                            bynum             curry
Got into GREAT shape and 
has stayed in great shape     X 
despite no playing time

shown a real mean streak      X

Works hard                    X

very intellegent              X

was recruited by JC           X

a physical speciman           X

Do you guys call that shove of Shaq a 'mean streak'? I need a little carity on Bynum's mean streak because apparently I missed it.

So this guys is smart and mean? Wow!

And what exactly do you mean he is a physical specimen?

Posted by Pharzeone:
Fish, why do you continue to use O'Neal. Why are you trying to disrespect Rasheed Wallace because that's the guy O'Neal had to beat out. What you have a problem with Rasheed? Bynum has Kwame Brown and Chris Mihm in front of him. But despite this he lost ground to Turiaf. Based on all your reasoning you mentioned by question is wtf happen this season then?? Phil Jackson was pleading for someone to come along and bump Kwame out of the lineup. Tell me how do you think 2 first round picks and a player may not be enough to get Bynum?? Which is the real issue here. Especially after the LA times already reported that the Lakers wanted to trade him twice and were rejected twice.

because this is about evaluating an 18 year old thats been in the league for a year, and I'm saying guys that are writing him off as a role player or this or that are just nuts.

Oneil is a good example, because at 18 he, like Bynum was NOT ready for the NBA. Now there is this notion that he WAS ready, but didnt get time because he was behind Wallace. Again, I call BS. He didnt get time because he wasnt a good basketball player. He rode pine for 4 years and was traded for a guy that plays the same postion. Than a year later Zach Randolph beat out Wallace and they moved him to the 3. Is Zach such a better player than Jermaine, that he could beat out Sheed, but Jermaine couldnt? Or maybe, just maybe was Oneil a lousy ball player and just not ready to take over those minutes?

FYI: 7'0, 275 and no body fat is a physical speciman. Maybe you havent seen him lately. FYI: he doesnt even turn 19 for another 5 months. Curry has NEVER gotten himself into that kind of shape

Jermaine Oneil is a perfectly legit example to use to see how silly it is to define a player at age 18. We have already seen Bynum do one thing that Curry hasnt, and thats manage his weight.

I think half you guys dont like him because Briggs was gushing for him. F** Briggs. How about Jim Calhoun? How about our savior and great GM who plainly said they did everything they could to draft Bynum but couldnt move up, and only choose Frye because they knew he could contribute right away?

Does anyone remember the game where Bynum made a joke of Curry? For a guy "stuck" behind Kwame Brown he sure did abuse our starting center.

At the time of the trade Dunleavy said this was hard for him because he knows just how good O'Neil is right now and knows that he will only get better. Rasheed Wallace said O'Neil could start right now but we are so deep. Rasheed says he pushes him everyday in practice. I mean come on. Dunleavy at times played Sabonis, Rasheed and O'Neil at the same time just to get O'Neil on the floor. It is just a horrible comparison. A better example is the guy who Bynum is playing behind right now. That's funny how you skip over that.

Oh btw, Bonn is a 100% right, Thomas said that Frye was the best big man in the draft including the likes Bogut. I don't know where this garbage is coming that he only drafted Frye over Bynum only because he contribute right away. That guy has never drafted like that, he always took who he thought would be the best talent. I watched Lakers games throughout the year, and I am telling you he didn't separate himself at all from any other rookie. He did his in too small of spurts. Which still leaves me back to my question why do you think he is worth more than 2 1st round picks at this point in his career, where you don't even know if he can duplicate what Curry has.

Posted by Allanfan20:

Isiah definitely did say one of the reasons they took Frye was b/c he could contribute right away, and after being forced to answer the "Would you take him over Bogut?" question, he said yes. Gotto take everything Isiah says with a grain of salt.

Either way, if Isiah got Frye simply b/c he could contribute faster than Bynum, it failed, b/c look at our record.

Again, I say, I am Channing's #1 fan/supporter. I spread no hate for the guy. Just constructive criticism.

hmm.. Bynum, 1.6 ppg and 1.7 rpg. No votes on the NBA All Rookie Team. Playing for a coach who doesn't mind playing rookies no matter how old if you can play.

Channing Frye 12.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg. Voted on NBA all Rookie Team. 3rd runner up for ROY. Forced a coach who doesn't like to play rookies to play him and start him.

First things first for Bynum. Channing ain't his goal right now. Mission for Bynum, get better than Mihm, then maybe challenge Kwame sometime down the road. Convince Jackson that you are more than some hype dream.

Posted by Pharzeone:

At the time of the trade Dunleavy said this was hard for him because he knows just how good O'Neil is right now and knows that he will only get better. Rasheed Wallace said O'Neil could start right now but we are so deep. Rasheed says he pushes him everyday in practice. I mean come on. Dunleavy at times played Sabonis, Rasheed and O'Neil at the same time just to get O'Neil on the floor. It is just a horrible comparison. A better example is the guy who Bynum is playing behind right now. That's funny how you skip over that.

Oh btw, Bonn is a 100% right, Thomas said that Frye was the best big man in the draft including the likes Bogut. I don't know where this garbage is coming that he only drafted Frye over Bynum only because he contribute right away. That guy has never drafted like that, he always took who he thought would be the best talent. I watched Lakers games throughout the year, and I am telling you he didn't separate himself at all from any other rookie. He did his in too small of spurts. Which still leaves me back to my question why do you think he is worth more than 2 1st round picks at this point in his career, where you don't even know if he can duplicate what Curry has.

again... those comments after he was with the team for 4 years. And for all your information which I dont dispute, why why why if Oneil was as good as they thought did they trade him for Dale Davis? What was Dale Davis going to bring that Oneil wasnt? Then you have Zach Randolph. Same situation as Oneil was in, same players essentially. Yet he was good enough to push Wallace to play the SF so they could get Zach minutes. This was in year 2.

Young players, especially bigs are always getting stuck behind inferior veterans. Its just the way of the league. Is Jackie Butler set to be a career 5/3 role player? Geeze with Jerome James and Fat Eddie you would think he could crack that rotation no?

You gotta be patient evaluating youth. Teams that arent get burned time and time again.