Embiid Noel & Russell vs Okafor Randle & Clarkson vs Towns Wiggins & Levine

[NO-KG-AI]

The Lakers suddenly have more young building blocks than I thought they would have over a year ago... but yea, they're still behind the other two IMO. If Philly dropped one more spot, we'd probably have more of a discussion, but then again I'm pretty high on Towns and Russell, and I like Okafor too.

I like The Wolves core the most in this case, then Philly, then LA. I'd be happy with any of the 3 as a fan, but that's the clear order for me.

[HeartBreakKid]

saric is going to dominate europe next year,i think he'll never be as good embiid but he could surpass noel if his jumper becomes deadly

That's pushing it. I would be shocked if Saric is even close to Embiid. Settle down. I like Saric but come on.

im saying he could surpass noel not embiid, he has no shot of surpassing embiid barring injuries. But if noel never ends up maturing offensively and saric does then yeah he would surpass noel since offense is valued more then defense these days

look at these superstars/stars:

curry
griffin
harden
kyrie
love

they are all offensive studs but don't back it up defensively.

That doesn't make any sense. Listing stars who are offensive players doesn't mean that Saric has the offensive potential to be better player than Nerlens Noel.

[jirojan]

the way i see it the lakers are third..but not by a crazy amout...the clear #1 has to be minny though (lavine sucks, so i will swamp him in with rubio instead)

[gswhoops]

I would say LA is a clear third. Clarkson strikes me as a classic "good numbers on a bad team" guy, and Randle is a tier below all the other big man prospects being discussed here (Embiid/Towns/Okafor/Noel). I think I'd give #1 to Philly by a hair.

[ak7]

I would say LA is a clear third. Clarkson strikes me as a classic "good numbers on a bad team" guy, and Randle is a tier below all the other big man prospects being discussed here (Embiid/Towns/Okafor/Noel). I think I'd give #1 to Philly by a hair.

Why is Randle a tier below? None of these guys has played a single meaningful minute in the NBA, yet Randle and Embiid are the ones who have gone through a year of NBA development to some degree.

[gswhoops]

I would say LA is a clear third. Clarkson strikes me as a classic "good numbers on a bad team" guy, and Randle is a tier below all the other big man prospects being discussed here (Embiid/Towns/Okafor/Noel). I think I'd give #1 to Philly by a hair.

Why is Randle a tier below? None of these guys has played a single meaningful minute in the NBA, yet Randle and Embiid are the ones who have gone through a year of NBA development to some degree.

I don't think he has the same upside as the rest of those guys, which to a certain extent is reflected in their relative (projected or actual) draft positions. He doesn't have great size or great athleticism (especially considering all of those guys have the size to play at least some C, while Randle is strictly limited to PF), and I think there are some serious questions about how his game will transfer to the next level.

[ak7]

I would say LA is a clear third. Clarkson strikes me as a classic "good numbers on a bad team" guy, and Randle is a tier below all the other big man prospects being discussed here (Embiid/Towns/Okafor/Noel). I think I'd give #1 to Philly by a hair.

Why is Randle a tier below? None of these guys has played a single meaningful minute in the NBA, yet Randle and Embiid are the ones who have gone through a year of NBA development to some degree.

I don't think he has the same upside as the rest of those guys, which to a certain extent is reflected in their relative (projected or actual) draft positions. He doesn't have great size or great athleticism (especially considering all of those guys have the size to play at least some C, while Randle is strictly limited to PF), and I think there are some serious questions about how his game will transfer to the next level.

I don't think versatility determines anything at this point, especially considering all 4 of these guys have limitations - Towns may be the only one who can play both PF and C (can't see a reason to ever play him at the 4 though). Also, Okafor is the furthest thing from having great athleticism - in fact outside of his rebounding issues, it's his biggest knock. Randle has been getting lots of developmental work geared towards possibly playing the 3 in a Lamar Odom role going forward. We'll see what happens.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the Lakers are taking the backseat to the other two "cores" here (because of Wiggins and Noel), but I don't think it's fair to label Randle in a tier below YET.

[rzzzzz]

Philly has been in the rebuild for a couple of years, and the Wolves were unbelievably fortunate the way that Love to Cleveland deal worked out. (And how long everybody stays there?) Laker fans are used to the best vets being attracted to the franchise. We'll see who they can sign after the draft. Though I wouldn't be surprised if next summer is when they'll have their best chance of really adding to a good young core.

[pruss25]

Why are we leaving the rest of the Wolves young players?

If that is the case, why are we leaving out Shabazz Muhammad and Gorgui Dieng?

No, in his OP he says.

who will have the best young group of players for the future

So either he doesn't consider Rubio, Bazz, or Dieng young? or he should have said which has the best trio of young players.

No, not based off of his question in the OP. Semantics are important otherwise we just leave off good players that are part of the future.

This is my point. Why are we leaving out certain players? We have Jordan Clarkson in this comparison and he is older than Shabazz Muhammad, and Tony Wroten is younger than him. Then we are leaving guys like Covington, Rubio, and Dieng. I don't get it.

Then why choose LaVine over Rubio or Muhammad. who are both young and better?

How did you come to this conclusion?

But nobody did come to that conclusion or even make any attempt to make that claim.

I'm not trying to debate if they are going to become All Stars, you tried to make it seem like Wolves fans were arguing that they were going to be All star players. If that was your criteria, you didn't list it. So, apparently their is a third type of person, one who just wants clarity on your logic your thread. Instead you just got defensive.

umm... no you didn't

2015 Draft Draft projections
2014 Draft Wiggins, Embiid, LaVine, Randle, Clarkson
2013 Draft Nerlens Noel, Shabazz Muhammad, Gorgui Dieng

So you left off two of Minnesota's youth, who was picked in the same draft as one of the players you listed and younger than one is younger than one of the other players you listed. It's not derailing if I'm pointing out the fault in the logic of your post. Stop being defensive.

1. Your OP never mentions your qualifications for the players you picked.
2. You later added that they have All Star potential in your opinion. I replied that Shabazz Muhammad is better than LaVine. I never claimed he has All Star potential. Then you decide to make the claim that Wolves fans were trying to make all their "starting lineup"(your words nobody elses) out to be potential all stars.
3. You also piggy back off of other people's idea's of what your criteria are (Youth and recent drafts). So I'm not alone here.
4. So since you pointed out youth and recent picks as part of the criteria, I pointed out the flaws in that criteria.
5. You can keep saying I'm derailing your thread, but the fact is that you didn't list a clear criteria, which is why I asked, and when you did list your criteria, I pointed out the flaws in it. So, yes you are being defensive.

How isn't the why of the question important? This is how you respond when someone asks about the logic behind your hypothetical? And it's trolling when I use facts to show how your logic was flawed?

I haven't logged into Realgm in 5 years, but after reading your ridiculous, whiny, repetitive, childish, seemingly nonstop banter in this thread about something that is truly meaningless, it was enough to make me dig up my old username, reset my password, take the time to quote all of your idiotic posts, and then chime in to let you know that I am 100% convinced you are autistic. Which actually makes me hate you just a little bit less - knowing you have a mental disorder and all.

See you motherf*ckers in 2020.

[fattymcgee]

I haven't logged into Realgm in 5 years, but after reading your ridiculous, whiny, repetitive, childish, seemingly nonstop banter in this thread about something that is truly meaningless, it was enough to make me dig up my old username, reset my password, take the time to quote all of your idiotic posts, and then chime in to let you know that I am 100% convinced you are autistic. Which actually makes me hate you just a little bit less - knowing you have a mental disorder and all.

See you motherf*ckers in 2020.

Wolves fan here.

[joyeuxnoel]

lol he just got destroyed

[Mattya]

I haven't logged into Realgm in 5 years, but after reading your ridiculous, whiny, repetitive, childish, seemingly nonstop banter in this thread about something that is truly meaningless, it was enough to make me dig up my old username, reset my password, take the time to quote all of your idiotic posts, and then chime in to let you know that I am 100% convinced you are autistic. Which actually makes me hate you just a little bit less - knowing you have a mental disorder and all.

See you motherf*ckers in 2020.

Well glad I could bring you back, even if you actually have nothing to add to the discussion.

[misterrunon]

I would say LA is a clear third. Clarkson strikes me as a classic "good numbers on a bad team" guy, and Randle is a tier below all the other big man prospects being discussed here (Embiid/Towns/Okafor/Noel). I think I'd give #1 to Philly by a hair.

If Clarkson is a "good numbers on a bad team" guy, what does that make Wiggins or Lavine? Clarkson is a better third wheel than Lavine too.

For me, it's

1. Philly
2a. Lakers
2b. Minny

If it's Towns + Wiggins vs. Randle + Okafor, then Minny has the edge, but Clarkson > Lavine.

[MCDubbin]

this is basically a homer thread

[dham1974]

Why are we leaving the rest of the Wolves young players?

If that is the case, why are we leaving out Shabazz Muhammad and Gorgui Dieng?

No, in his OP he says.

who will have the best young group of players for the future

So either he doesn't consider Rubio, Bazz, or Dieng young? or he should have said which has the best trio of young players.

No, not based off of his question in the OP. Semantics are important otherwise we just leave off good players that are part of the future.

This is my point. Why are we leaving out certain players? We have Jordan Clarkson in this comparison and he is older than Shabazz Muhammad, and Tony Wroten is younger than him. Then we are leaving guys like Covington, Rubio, and Dieng. I don't get it.

Then why choose LaVine over Rubio or Muhammad. who are both young and better?

How did you come to this conclusion?

But nobody did come to that conclusion or even make any attempt to make that claim.

I'm not trying to debate if they are going to become All Stars, you tried to make it seem like Wolves fans were arguing that they were going to be All star players. If that was your criteria, you didn't list it. So, apparently their is a third type of person, one who just wants clarity on your logic your thread. Instead you just got defensive.

umm... no you didn't

2015 Draft Draft projections
2014 Draft Wiggins, Embiid, LaVine, Randle, Clarkson
2013 Draft Nerlens Noel, Shabazz Muhammad, Gorgui Dieng

So you left off two of Minnesota's youth, who was picked in the same draft as one of the players you listed and younger than one is younger than one of the other players you listed. It's not derailing if I'm pointing out the fault in the logic of your post. Stop being defensive.

1. Your OP never mentions your qualifications for the players you picked.
2. You later added that they have All Star potential in your opinion. I replied that Shabazz Muhammad is better than LaVine. I never claimed he has All Star potential. Then you decide to make the claim that Wolves fans were trying to make all their "starting lineup"(your words nobody elses) out to be potential all stars.
3. You also piggy back off of other people's idea's of what your criteria are (Youth and recent drafts). So I'm not alone here.
4. So since you pointed out youth and recent picks as part of the criteria, I pointed out the flaws in that criteria.
5. You can keep saying I'm derailing your thread, but the fact is that you didn't list a clear criteria, which is why I asked, and when you did list your criteria, I pointed out the flaws in it. So, yes you are being defensive.

How isn't the why of the question important? This is how you respond when someone asks about the logic behind your hypothetical? And it's trolling when I use facts to show how your logic was flawed?

I haven't logged into Realgm in 5 years, but after reading your ridiculous, whiny, repetitive, childish, seemingly nonstop banter in this thread about something that is truly meaningless, it was enough to make me dig up my old username, reset my password, take the time to quote all of your idiotic posts, and then chime in to let you know that I am 100% convinced you are autistic. Which actually makes me hate you just a little bit less - knowing you have a mental disorder and all.


See you motherf*ckers in 2020.

lol

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[LloydFree]

:o

lol he just got destroyed

Deserved for being silly.

[joyeuxnoel]

:o

lol he just got destroyed

Deserved for being silly.

The autism shot was a bit extreme but yeah I agree

[51X3RF4N]

I didn't read through all 8 pages of this thread, but I wanted to mention for Philly....

You've got to include Saric in the conversation.

He will be coming over in '16-'17, and joining potentially 4 1st round picks as rookies for the Sixers. So realistically, Embiid-Noel-Saric-Russell should be the debate here. Sure, you could add Rubio to the mix, and someone else from the Lakers too.

Sixers have potential big man trio of Embiid-Noel-Saric which is a scary combo.

Who would I take Okafor/Randle vs. Embiid/Noel/Saric? I'll take Philly in that all day.

[E-Balla]

I haven't logged into Realgm in 5 years, but after reading your ridiculous, whiny, repetitive, childish, seemingly nonstop banter in this thread about something that is truly meaningless, it was enough to make me dig up my old username, reset my password, take the time to quote all of your idiotic posts, and then chime in to let you know that I am 100% convinced you are autistic. Which actually makes me hate you just a little bit less - knowing you have a mental disorder and all.

See you motherf*ckers in 2020.

[HeartBreakKid]

Why are we leaving the rest of the Wolves young players?

If that is the case, why are we leaving out Shabazz Muhammad and Gorgui Dieng?

No, in his OP he says.

who will have the best young group of players for the future

So either he doesn't consider Rubio, Bazz, or Dieng young? or he should have said which has the best trio of young players.

No, not based off of his question in the OP. Semantics are important otherwise we just leave off good players that are part of the future.

This is my point. Why are we leaving out certain players? We have Jordan Clarkson in this comparison and he is older than Shabazz Muhammad, and Tony Wroten is younger than him. Then we are leaving guys like Covington, Rubio, and Dieng. I don't get it.

Then why choose LaVine over Rubio or Muhammad. who are both young and better?

How did you come to this conclusion?

But nobody did come to that conclusion or even make any attempt to make that claim.

I'm not trying to debate if they are going to become All Stars, you tried to make it seem like Wolves fans were arguing that they were going to be All star players. If that was your criteria, you didn't list it. So, apparently their is a third type of person, one who just wants clarity on your logic your thread. Instead you just got defensive.

umm... no you didn't

2015 Draft Draft projections
2014 Draft Wiggins, Embiid, LaVine, Randle, Clarkson
2013 Draft Nerlens Noel, Shabazz Muhammad, Gorgui Dieng

So you left off two of Minnesota's youth, who was picked in the same draft as one of the players you listed and younger than one is younger than one of the other players you listed. It's not derailing if I'm pointing out the fault in the logic of your post. Stop being defensive.

1. Your OP never mentions your qualifications for the players you picked.
2. You later added that they have All Star potential in your opinion. I replied that Shabazz Muhammad is better than LaVine. I never claimed he has All Star potential. Then you decide to make the claim that Wolves fans were trying to make all their "starting lineup"(your words nobody elses) out to be potential all stars.
3. You also piggy back off of other people's idea's of what your criteria are (Youth and recent drafts). So I'm not alone here.
4. So since you pointed out youth and recent picks as part of the criteria, I pointed out the flaws in that criteria.
5. You can keep saying I'm derailing your thread, but the fact is that you didn't list a clear criteria, which is why I asked, and when you did list your criteria, I pointed out the flaws in it. So, yes you are being defensive.

How isn't the why of the question important? This is how you respond when someone asks about the logic behind your hypothetical? And it's trolling when I use facts to show how your logic was flawed?

I haven't logged into Realgm in 5 years, but after reading your ridiculous, whiny, repetitive, childish, seemingly nonstop banter in this thread about something that is truly meaningless, it was enough to make me dig up my old username, reset my password, take the time to quote all of your idiotic posts, and then chime in to let you know that I am 100% convinced you are autistic. Which actually makes me hate you just a little bit less - knowing you have a mental disorder and all.

See you motherf*ckers in 2020.

God damn.