Originally Posted by
Pelicanidae
I'm kind of stuck in a difficult position because on the one hand, I like Brogdon and I think he's a good player and I do think he would help this team, but on the other hand I feel like the discourse surrounding how good he actually is tends towards the hyperbolic.
He's good. Is he multiple firsts and big expirings (an attractive asset) good? Idk
Maybe he is and I'm just being conservative on it, I'm not sure. He's efficient on offense, definitely, but I would describe him as ''steady'' more than a star or a borderline-star, and I think a lot of the talk about how good he is defensively is overblown. He's fine on defense but the way some people talk about him you'd think he was an All Defense guy or something.
Perhaps you think it's more acceptable if you think that Ingram definitely is that 2nd Guy on an elite team, cause then you only have to be looking for someone who is steady, whereas if you think we're still short on that top tier talent the cost of a Brogdon stops being quite as good value?