Originally Posted by
N.O.Bronco
You have no good arguments.
Half the time you are railing on Davis for people judging him on potential like in the thread where you claimed he isn't a franchise changer. The other half you are showing a complete ignorance of Davis as a player, calling him a Serge Ibaka clone and such and saying his potential is limited.
But then most of your arguments supporting Drummond over Davis rest on that very premise of potential. Or worse the "eye test." A completely unquantifiable metric. Because any combination of advanced stats, overall stats, expert opinions, other nba players, and current skillset Davis is the clear victor. Yet you continue to side with unverifiable stats as your metric while everyone else disagrees. In no enviorenemnt or situation be it legal or a formal debate or even a argument amongst friends, can a person receive any credence without supporting evidence
And when your only argument is the "eye test" and you have been so utterly wrong about Davis before why should your opinion have any value to even yourself? Considering you are the guy who has claimed Davis would struggle in the NBA, his game would not adjust from college, he wouldn't develop much of a offensive skill set outside of what he did in college, he would struggle to out on weight and his frame wouldn't take it without hurting his game drastically, you thought guys like Barnes, Robinson and both Jones would be more effective "stars" day one in the nba then Davis. He is a less skilled Anthony Randolph. I could go on and on. But when your past "eye tests" have been that bad, what makes you think you deserve any credibility in the present? Or at the very least don't deeply need to rethink how you evaluate players considering how poor you have been at it? Especially with Davis?