.
Pelicans Report
 
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 128

Thread: Pelicans will regret not drafting...

  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Eman5805 View Post
    I feel like this is someone who posted here regularly in the past. This unnecessarily aggressive style of posting is so familiar l.


    I have looked at the trade. Garland to me is a star and better than the trade.

    Let’s look at Garland in the entire scope of how basketball has evolved.

    15-25 Years ago, there were Darius’ around the league but they couldn’t shoot like this kid. If they shot like Darius, they were more Craig Hodges than Kenny Anderson’s. Limited offensive ball handling and creative ability. If they were crafty like him, they weren’t pure shooters.

    What happened over time is that basketball players skillwise are just getting better and better. That’s why a Steph Curry kind of goes under the radar...GMs didn’t understand how fast the game was evolving to guys who can handle the rock AND shoot lights out. They thought Steph was going to be more closer to Craig Hodges than a superstar MVP.

    Pull up Jimmer’s game tapes. Kerry Kittles. Ben Mclamore. In hindsight, they were/are tween shooting guards who unfortunately didn’t and don’t have the size. If only they were 6-2/3, fast, crafty with the handle, AND pure shooters: Oh wait...that’s Darius Garland.

    Now going back in the history of the league, watch what Darius can do with the ball...his shiftiness. His ability to get to anywhere on the floor. His confidence in one on one scenarios where his ability to be crafty with the handle and still find the rhythm to shoot a straight line telephone booth shot is probably him and maybe 1 or 2 other guys EVER in the history of the league. These guys are evolving! These aren’t your Stephon Marburys entering the league anymore. These are young Chris Paul crafty guys saying “I want to be a pure shooter”.

    Steph showed you what’s going on Griffin. Trae showed you what’s happening out here Griffin.

    It was a bad move imo to trade the pick and not draft Darius. His floor at worse is Seth Curry. Darius makes Seth look like watching paint dry.

    Darius is a star. You Don’t pass on stars in the draft just to get cap space to land Bogdon or Mirotic.

  2. #102
    Dude, seriously are you this kid’s cousin or something? You’re hype is off the charts! Give it a rest already.

    And as long as you’re looking at game tape, dust off the VHS cassette for another smallish SEC point guard, Chris Jackson. Jackson, unlike Garland, actually played a couple of seasons in the league, winning SEC player of the year and First team All American both of his seasons at LSU. Both his shooting and ball handling where off the charts. He could break anyone down off the dribble. His crossover move was insane. As a freshman, he hung 53 on Florida. Two weeks later he scored 55 on Ole Miss, hitting ten (10!) three pointers. Denver took him with the number 3 overall pick in the draft, a sure fire NBA star. Except he wasn’t. He was 2nd team All rookie and never really showed more than flashes of his brilliant college form as a pro. In six years he was out of the league.

    You don’t know. You just don’t. So don’t keep insisting you do.

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Wowowowow View Post
    I have looked at the trade. Garland to me is a star and better than the trade.
    …..
    Darius is a star. You Don’t pass on stars in the draft just to get cap space to land Bogdon or Mirotic.

  4. #104
    Some are too far gone ...there is nothing you can do for them.
    Last edited by Pels4Life; 06-22-2019 at 07:16 PM.

  5. #105

  6. #106
    The Franchise IVAN_NOH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Barcelona, Spain.
    Posts
    1,051
    Maybe one Day people will realize the actual Nba is about shooters, no guys like jaxson, they are from an ancient nba of shaq, hakeem, duncan...

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by IVAN_NOH View Post
    Maybe one Day people will realize the actual Nba is about shooters, no guys like jaxson, they are from an ancient nba of shaq, hakeem, duncan...
    Jaxson was a guard before he hit his massive growth spurt. He can shoot the ball and has the potential to eventually stretch his range out to 3. He was just so good around the rim offensively that he didn't need to take jumpers in college.

  8. #108
    I wanted us to pick up a stretch big. But after watching this guy's film I really think his defensive/athletic play will really compliment our offense. However, I think in order to make it work well we do need us a sniper that will be more efficient then any stretch would be.

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by new city champ View Post
    Dude, seriously are you this kid’s cousin or something? You’re hype is off the charts! Give it a rest already.

    And as long as you’re looking at game tape, dust off the VHS cassette for another smallish SEC point guard, Chris Jackson. Jackson, unlike Garland, actually played a couple of seasons in the league, winning SEC player of the year and First team All American both of his seasons at LSU. Both his shooting and ball handling where off the charts. He could break anyone down off the dribble. His crossover move was insane. As a freshman, he hung 53 on Florida. Two weeks later he scored 55 on Ole Miss, hitting ten (10!) three pointers. Denver took him with the number 3 overall pick in the draft, a sure fire NBA star. Except he wasn’t. He was 2nd team All rookie and never really showed more than flashes of his brilliant college form as a pro. In six years he was out of the league.

    You don’t know. You just don’t. So don’t keep insisting you do.
    That’s how I know I’m being greeted with uncertain how can I say it, “omg this guy might be right but SHUT UP!” buyers remorse.

    This is going to knock you on your heels:

    ASK ANYONE...ANYONE in connection to the league, ASK ANYONE WHO KNOWS BASKETBALL...Chris Jackson, better known as Mahmoud Abdul Rauf WAS A PROBLEM. Watch his games against Jordan! Understand he was probably so ahead of his time that he is exactly what I’m talking about.

    He was Blackballed! He was steadily on its way to kind of exposing the league at the time how much it needed to improve as far as just flat out skillset is concerned. Then realize, Chris still wasn’t as good of a shooter as Darius on the strength that players are just better now skillwise. They spend ALL day in a gym because the money is falling out the air and it’s the best career choice for a player who so happens to have the right risk to reward DNA because their fathers played in the league!!

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Wowowowow View Post

    Pull up Jimmer’s game tapes. Kerry Kittles. Ben Mclamore. In hindsight, they were/are tween shooting guards who unfortunately didn’t and don’t have the size. If only they were 6-2/3, fast, crafty with the handle, AND pure shooters: Oh wait...that’s Darius Garland.

    Steph showed you what’s going on Griffin. Trae showed you what’s happening out here Griffin.
    .
    We are at the point where he is bragging that Garland is undersized. ''If ONLY they were.... six two.'' Jeeeeeesus Christ.

    Also, neither Steph nor Trae are really good examples for your point. Why? Well, neither of them were just shooters with no other real skills. Both are very good passers, especially Trae who is already a fantastic, top tier passer in the entire league, and both showed that at a college level. Garland did not: he was a very poor passer in college, and didn't really seem to be interested in doing it at all. Of course that could change with coaching, and Cleveland actually has a very pass-first coach at the minute so maybe that will work out, but it's hardly something he's shown real skill in at this point.

    Secondly, isn't part of my entire point that I've said multiple times that actually, Garland looks like he's going to get ripped to pieces on defense? Again, Trae and Steph aren't exactly the best examples to give here, because they actually SUPPORT my point, not yours. Both of them are poor defenders. Steph Curry gets covered for because he plays with Klay Thompson and Draymond Green, who are both top level defenders. Garland will be playing with the defensive genius of Tristan Thompson and Kevin Love, and he's about to get fried because of it. Trae is also a horrible defender. Literally one of the worst in the league on that side of the floor.
    Basketball.

  11. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    We are at the point where he is bragging that Garland is undersized. ''If ONLY they were.... six two.'' Jeeeeeesus Christ.

    Also, neither Steph nor Trae are really good examples for your point. Why? Well, neither of them were just shooters with no other real skills. Both are very good passers, especially Trae who is already a fantastic, top tier passer in the entire league, and both showed that at a college level. Garland did not: he was a very poor passer in college, and didn't really seem to be interested in doing it at all. Of course that could change with coaching, and Cleveland actually has a very pass-first coach at the minute so maybe that will work out, but it's hardly something he's shown real skill in at this point.

    Secondly, isn't part of my entire point that I've said multiple times that actually, Garland looks like he's going to get ripped to pieces on defense? Again, Trae and Steph aren't exactly the best examples to give here, because they actually SUPPORT my point, not yours. Both of them are poor defenders. Steph Curry gets covered for because he plays with Klay Thompson and Draymond Green, who are both top level defenders. Garland will be playing with the defensive genius of Tristan Thompson and Kevin Love, and he's about to get fried because of it. Trae is also a horrible defender. Literally one of the worst in the league on that side of the floor.
    And you’re still running with this outdated assumption that 6-3 is undersized when In all actuality....it’s best to be either undersized with a sure fire skillset and talent or oversized with a sure fire skillset and talent. It’s the guys who are tweeners or the average height that are being greeted with “you don’t belong here kid” verdicts.

    If Darius was 6-5, he would likely not be as shifty. These guys being 6-2/3 and shifty, they have a better chance because they would create a mismatch somewhere out there. I’m of the belief that Zion being “undersized” is what makes him Zion. He’s a walking mismatch. In today’s game, give me undersized with a sure fire skill set bc of your quickness versus 6-4/5...because your window of success has to be Michael Jordan/Kobe Bryant/DWade good or you won’t create mismatches out there.

  12. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by Wowowowow View Post
    And you’re still running with this outdated assumption that 6-3 is undersized when In all actuality....it’s best to be either undersized with a sure fire skillset and talent or oversized with a sure fire skillset and talent. It’s the guys who are tweeners or the average height that are being greeted with “you don’t belong here kid” verdicts.

    If Darius was 6-5, he would likely not be as shifty. These guys being 6-2/3 and shifty, they have a better chance because they would create a mismatch somewhere out there. I’m of the belief that Zion being “undersized” is what makes him Zion. He’s a walking mismatch. In today’s game, give me undersized with a sure fire skill set bc of your quickness versus 6-4/5...because your window of success has to be Michael Jordan/Kobe Bryant/DWade good or you won’t create mismatches out there.
    First of all, Darius is not 6'3. So stop with this ''assumption that 6'3 is undersized'' thing. He's not 6'3, so just stop it.

    Secondly, what are you TALKING about that tweeners are getting ''you don't belong here'' verdicts? The league is absolutely stuffed to the brim right now with tweeners who would have been marginalised or forced to play big ten years ago, but who are being embraced by the relatively small-ball, positionless nature of modern basketball.

    Zion isn't that undersized.

    I also like how you completely ducked the point about Trae and Steph as passers, and also completely avoided discussing the defense, when passing and defense are two criticisms I've had of Garland the entire time.

  13. #113
    A Soulful Sports Fan Contributor Eman5805's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    29,859
    Quote Originally Posted by IVAN_NOH View Post
    Maybe one Day people will realize the actual Nba is about shooters, no guys like jaxson, they are from an ancient nba of shaq, hakeem, duncan...
    If Jaxson was going to be THE franchise cornerstone, I'd agree. But given that he's an exceptional talent and we wanted to have an athletic, floor running big who can defend and finish inside...I don't get what all this is even coming from.

    I mean, do you think we're going to not be an up tempo team that wants to get out in transition? You need guys like Jaxson now too. Not like we'll be slowing things down and expecting 20 points from Jaxson on post ups.

    We have Okafor and probably will sign a big who can score traditionally in the post.

    Many different roles for many different teams and situations. And he's a 74% shooter from the stripe. That isn't common. And as for the attention seeker, maybe Garland is a star. Doesn't matter. Because we got a bigger one. We are afforded the luxury of making a high risk high reward player. Because I trust our new front office more than some guy with a keyboard and an opinion.

    And this is coming from someone who isn't exactly gungho about taking Hayes in the first place. But I can see the obvious reasons why.

  14. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by Eman5805 View Post
    And as for the attention seeker, maybe Garland is a star. Doesn't matter. Because we got a bigger one. We are afforded the luxury of making a high risk high reward player.
    This is something I couldn't agree with more.

    If we only had one pick and it was #4, then I'd agree: even if I'm not too hot on his defense or passing, Garland would have been a superior choice to Hayes. With one pick, one choice, on a team losing its superstar, you need to try and draft a superstar. Personally, I would still have preferred Culver over Garland, but Garland would have made complete sense still.

    When you have multiple picks, and one of them is clear best player in the draft, then that need for a superstar on every pick is lower. You don't need to necessarily try and hit home runs, instead you can pick guys who you like as people and as prospects to develop for the future. That's what Griff did. We have already drafted a star, and he is the best star in the entire draft. Zion is such a superior prospect to RJ, or Culver, or Garland that it's not even funny. Once you have that, you can afford to take a luxury play with your other picks if you want to.

  15. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by IVAN_NOH View Post
    Maybe one Day people will realize the actual Nba is about shooters, no guys like jaxson, they are from an ancient nba of shaq, hakeem, duncan...
    The NBA is NOT all about shooting. It's just one desirable aspect of many. Over this Golden St era run, they have been among the best on defense, rebounding, pace, and assists. With the defense and rebounding often overlooked.

  16. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    First of all, Darius is not 6'3. So stop with this ''assumption that 6'3 is undersized'' thing. He's not 6'3, so just stop it.

    Secondly, what are you TALKING about that tweeners are getting ''you don't belong here'' verdicts? The league is absolutely stuffed to the brim right now with tweeners who would have been marginalised or forced to play big ten years ago, but who are being embraced by the relatively small-ball, positionless nature of modern basketball.

    Zion isn't that undersized.

    I also like how you completely ducked the point about Trae and Steph as passers, and also completely avoided discussing the defense, when passing and defense are two criticisms I've had of Garland the entire time.
    Then you know more than I know. He’s 6-3. They list him as 6-3 and until you can confirm or prove that he’s not, I’m going with facts.

    I’m not ducking anything. I think you are blowing those things up to the degree you need to make the argument because they are the obvious flaws of choice. I happen to think Darius isn’t as terrible at those things as you are making them. If he was flat out terrible, he wouldn’t be regarded as a high projected draft choice. The jury is still out. My opinion is that they won’t be that big of a deal that you sit the guy or where he won’t be a star. Darius is closer to Kyrie Irving in that regard.

    Again, this may just be another guinea pig topic, right under optimum shooting form, that can be put to the test to see if those 2 things keep a talent from being an allstar in this league.

  17. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    This is something I couldn't agree with more.

    If we only had one pick and it was #4, then I'd agree: even if I'm not too hot on his defense or passing, Garland would have been a superior choice to Hayes. With one pick, one choice, on a team losing its superstar, you need to try and draft a superstar. Personally, I would still have preferred Culver over Garland, but Garland would have made complete sense still.

    When you have multiple picks, and one of them is clear best player in the draft, then that need for a superstar on every pick is lower. You don't need to necessarily try and hit home runs, instead you can pick guys who you like as people and as prospects to develop for the future. That's what Griff did. We have already drafted a star, and he is the best star in the entire draft. Zion is such a superior prospect to RJ, or Culver, or Garland that it's not even funny. Once you have that, you can afford to take a luxury play with your other picks if you want to.
    This is passing the buck and has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic.

    If that’s how people have to rationalize what in my opinion was a bad decision...congrats to Griffin and other GMs in the league who can make a bad decisions and get the benefit of the doubt.

    The purpose of this thread was simply to say the 4th pick shouldn’t be marginalized as a throwaway pick if you have a chance to get a star.

  18. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by Wowowowow View Post
    Then you know more than I know.
    That does seem to be the case, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wowowowow View Post
    Then you know more than I know. He’s 6-3. They list him as 6-3 and until you can confirm or prove that he’s not, I’m going with facts.

    I’m not ducking anything. I think you are blowing those things up to the degree you need to make the argument because they are the obvious flaws of choice. I happen to think Darius isn’t as terrible at those things as you are making them. If he was flat out terrible, he wouldn’t be regarded as a high projected draft choice. The jury is still out. My opinion is that they won’t be that big of a deal that you sit the guy or where he won’t be a star. Darius is closer to Kyrie Irving in that regard.

    Again, this may just be another guinea pig topic, right under optimum shooting form, that can be put to the test to see if those 2 things keep a talent from being an allstar in this league.
    You're going with listed height Gotcha. Call me back when Kevin Love is 6'10, when Allen Iverson is 6'0, and when KD is 6'9.

    I'm not blowing anything up. In college, Garland averaged 2.6 assists and 3.0 turnovers per game. That's an AST/TO ratio of 0.86. That is not very good. Lead guards typically need an AST/TO ratio of at least 2, and preferably higher. For comparison, the worst AST/TO ratio Curry had in his three years of college was 1.0, which is still poor but is better than Garland's. By the time Curry left college, his AST/TO ratio was 2.33, which is much better. This is an example of where going back to college helped Curry: he was able to improve his game without being thrown into the deep end of the NBA so that when he came out, his handle had tightened up and his passing was better.

    Trae Young, who you also compare him to, had an AST/TO ratio of 1.7 in college, and averaged literally more than three times as many assists per game. The feel and promise as a playmaker is just not the same.

    I've said about 40 times at this point that his sub-optimal shooting form is not going to stop him from being a good shooter, so it's not something that's going to wash out with statistics: it's an aesthetic and training issue. Your inability to grasp this is either a sign that you're not capable of reading and understanding the point, or that you're purposefully misunderstanding it for the sake of petty argument. Either way, that's pretty disappointing.

  19. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Wowowowow View Post
    This is passing the buck and has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic.

    If that’s how people have to rationalize what in my opinion was a bad decision...congrats to Griffin and other GMs in the league who can make a bad decisions and get the benefit of the doubt.

    The purpose of this thread was simply to say the 4th pick shouldn’t be marginalized as a throwaway pick if you have a chance to get a star.
    Look i understand where you coming from. But I'm sure if you follow basketball you know sometimes these high picks dont work out...sometimes the low picks do. Believe it or not you could be wrong or maybe this guy will be the next MJ. At the end of this conversation, you will be where you started.

  20. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    That does seem to be the case, yes.



    You're going with listed height Gotcha. Call me back when Kevin Love is 6'10, when Allen Iverson is 6'0, and when KD is 6'9.

    I'm not blowing anything up. In college, Garland averaged 2.6 assists and 3.0 turnovers per game. That's an AST/TO ratio of 0.86. That is not very good. Lead guards typically need an AST/TO ratio of at least 2, and preferably higher. For comparison, the worst AST/TO ratio Curry had in his three years of college was 1.0, which is still poor but is better than Garland's. By the time Curry left college, his AST/TO ratio was 2.33, which is much better. This is an example of where going back to college helped Curry: he was able to improve his game without being thrown into the deep end of the NBA so that when he came out, his handle had tightened up and his passing was better.

    Trae Young, who you also compare him to, had an AST/TO ratio of 1.7 in college, and averaged literally more than three times as many assists per game. The feel and promise as a playmaker is just not the same.

    I've said about 40 times at this point that his sub-optimal shooting form is not going to stop him from being a good shooter, so it's not something that's going to wash out with statistics: it's an aesthetic and training issue. Your inability to grasp this is either a sign that you're not capable of reading and understanding the point, or that you're purposefully misunderstanding it for the sake of petty argument. Either way, that's pretty disappointing.
    I guess it’s the case for now...until Darius becomes a star and then my how the walls will crumble, eh?

    No, I’m just making an argument built on facts and not finding instagram picture lighting angles to help me believe I’m right. I know they aren’t all 100% accurate. I’m telling you, it means nothing. Especially when nothing but a mugshot or a picture of him walking out a gas stations entrance can prove his height.

    Dude...it’s not just college that can make these players better. I could make the argument that Steph, just playing more, getting older, becoming more mature fixed a lot of those issues.

    The funny thing is watching your inconsistency jump through hoops because I’ve seen you argue in an alternative world this same point to give young big men who foul the benefit of the doubt, yet to feel like you’re right on this you can’t for young point guards. There’s different ways to skin a cat. Is it college? Is it maturity? The answer could go either way.

  21. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Pels4Life View Post
    Look i understand where you coming from. But I'm sure if you follow basketball you know sometimes these high picks dont work out...sometimes the low picks do. Believe it or not you could be wrong or maybe this guy will be the next MJ. At the end of this conversation, you will be where you started.
    The entire point of arguing a position before hand can come to that conclusion. It’s not life or death. I’m making a firm case for Griffin fumbling the pick before I have proof on a conversational message board.

    If anything comes out of it, it at the very least gives a good case on drafts beyond this one.

  22. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Wowowowow View Post
    The funny thing is watching your inconsistency jump through hoops because I’ve seen you argue in an alternative world this same point to give young big men who foul the benefit of the doubt, yet to feel like you’re right on this you can’t for young point guards. There’s different ways to skin a cat. Is it college? Is it maturity? The answer could go either way.
    Hey that's weird, you weren't on the board three weeks ago or whatever, when we were having the big men who foul discussion. Interesting.

    In any case, it's not the same. The fouling is a by-product of inexperienced defense. It comes hand in hand with being a good defensive player who does not yet have the discipline to know when to take the risk and commit to the block or steal, and when to merely contest. It generally goes away, or at least reduces, with time and coaching: with experience.

    Turnovers are not the by-product of inexperienced passing. There are plenty of players in the league who are very, very experienced but who still turn it over at a high rate. There are two real types of turnover, whenever a pass is thrown. There are the turnovers which result from making difficult passes and not quite nailing it, and there are turnovers which result from making silly passes that fail to read the defense.

    Someone like Lebron, who is very experienced, still has a relatively high number of turnovers despite being a fantastic passer. Why? Because he regularly attempts and makes difficult passes which thread needles, fly cross court, come from no-look moves, hit moving players, etc. Yet he still averages an overall positive AST/TO ratio because his passing IQ is so good that more often than not, it works.

    Garland is not in the same boat as someone like Lebron, Doncic, Bird, Nash, Rondo, etc. He turns the ball over a lot because he makes silly passes which do not read the defense properly. Could this improve? Of course it could. Garland is what, 19 years old? But in general, feel is difficult to coach and more often than not, you either have it or you don't. Garland has it for himself, but he doesn't have team-feel, at least at this point in his career. The turnovers he makes are not a product of inexperienced passing, they are a product of lazy and disinterested passing. Maybe he improves in this with coaching, it's definitely possible, but I don't think it's particularly likely. Usually in order to learn, you have to be willing and interested, and he seems to be neither.

  23. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    Hey that's weird, you weren't on the board three weeks ago or whatever, when we were having the big men who foul discussion. Interesting.

    In any case, it's not the same. The fouling is a by-product of inexperienced defense. It comes hand in hand with being a good defensive player who does not yet have the discipline to know when to take the risk and commit to the block or steal, and when to merely contest. It generally goes away, or at least reduces, with time and coaching: with experience.

    Turnovers are not the by-product of inexperienced passing. There are plenty of players in the league who are very, very experienced but who still turn it over at a high rate. There are two real types of turnover, whenever a pass is thrown. There are the turnovers which result from making difficult passes and not quite nailing it, and there are turnovers which result from making silly passes that fail to read the defense.

    Someone like Lebron, who is very experienced, still has a relatively high number of turnovers despite being a fantastic passer. Why? Because he regularly attempts and makes difficult passes which thread needles, fly cross court, come from no-look moves, hit moving players, etc. Yet he still averages an overall positive AST/TO ratio because his passing IQ is so good that more often than not, it works.

    Garland is not in the same boat as someone like Lebron, Doncic, Bird, Nash, Rondo, etc. He turns the ball over a lot because he makes silly passes which do not read the defense properly. Could this improve? Of course it could. Garland is what, 19 years old? But in general, feel is difficult to coach and more often than not, you either have it or you don't. Garland has it for himself, but he doesn't have team-feel, at least at this point in his career. The turnovers he makes are not a product of inexperienced passing, they are a product of lazy and disinterested passing. Maybe he improves in this with coaching, it's definitely possible, but I don't think it's particularly likely. Usually in order to learn, you have to be willing and interested, and he seems to be neither.
    Great. We are back to square one - it could go either way.

    The basis of this entire conversation is that I believe either:

    1. He will be so good at shooting, shotmaking, creating that despite him not being elite level (Lebron, Kidd, Magic) at passing or elite level in defense....he will still be so good at his strengths that he becomes a star anyway.

    2. He will improve on those things on top of just being an out of this world shotmaking shooter...which will certainly make him a star anyway

    VERSUS

    Your opinion that it’s unlikely.

    At the end of the day, all I’m arguing is that the Pelicans will regret not drafting him because he’s such a star that he becomes a “why didn’t Pelicans draft him” thread in the future.

    That’s all I’m arguing. You’re on the unlikely side. I’m on the likely side. Let it play out.

  24. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Wowowowow View Post
    Great. We are back to square one - it could go either way.

    The basis of this entire conversation is that I believe either:

    1. He will be so good at shooting, shotmaking, creating that despite him not being at an even passable level (Lebron, Kidd, Magic) at passing or close to an acceptable level in defense....he will still be so good at his strengths that he becomes a star anyway.

    2. He will improve on those things on top of just being an out of this world shotmaking shooter...which will certainly make him a star anyway

    VERSUS

    Your opinion that it’s unlikely.

    At the end of the day, all I’m arguing is that the Pelicans will regret not drafting him because he’s such a star that he becomes a “why didn’t Pelicans draft him” thread in the future.

    That’s all I’m arguing. You’re on the unlikely side. I’m on the likely side. Let it play out.
    If it's such a non-thing, why come on the board and start up a thread basically dedicated to the idea that it was a big error? Why not wait for it to happen or not happen, or at least bring it up in a less confrontational way? You literally began life as a poster on this board with ''THIS FRONT OFFICE MADE A GRAVE MISTAKE, AND I AM RIGHT AND THEY ARE WRONG!!!!'', like what's the point?

    Just seems like a weird way to go about things if you didn't want to start an argument.

  25. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    If it's such a non-thing, why come on the board and start up a thread basically dedicated to the idea that it was a big error? Why not wait for it to happen or not happen, or at least bring it up in a less confrontational way? You literally began life as a poster on this board with ''THIS FRONT OFFICE MADE A GRAVE MISTAKE, AND I AM RIGHT AND THEY ARE WRONG!!!!'', like what's the point?

    Just seems like a weird way to go about things if you didn't want to start an argument.
    Because that’s emotional. Take the emotions that you think I have out of it and realize I’m making a business argument and I’m showing enough respect to the intellect and the analytical side of this board to make this thread BEFORE it happens and not be the guy in the bar making the case after it happens. Throw that guy out the bar.

    I never dissed anyone here. I strongly believe Griffin is sketchy.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •