ImageImageImage

The Jarrett Culver Thread

Moderators: Domejandro, Calinks, Worm Guts

Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 53,225
And1: 10,343
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#261 » by Klomp » Wed Aug 7, 2019 5:03 pm

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Wolf Wiggum 41
Ballboy
Posts: 9
And1: 10
Joined: May 26, 2019
Location: Munich, Germany
   

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#262 » by Wolf Wiggum 41 » Wed Aug 7, 2019 7:24 pm

Sounds good. Can‘t wait to see him play in a Wolves‘ uniform.
mplsfonz23
Veteran
Posts: 2,798
And1: 870
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
 

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#263 » by mplsfonz23 » Wed Aug 7, 2019 7:40 pm

Means nothing!
Brandon Clarke was the best player at SL, we could have had him at #11 and still had very valuable asset in Saric.
Fire Rosas now! He has failed us.
SO_MONEY
Veteran
Posts: 2,500
And1: 325
Joined: Sep 11, 2009
         

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#264 » by SO_MONEY » Wed Aug 7, 2019 11:16 pm

mplsfonz23 wrote:Means nothing!
Brandon Clarke was the best player at SL, we could have had him at #11 and still had very valuable asset in Saric.
Fire Rosas now! He has failed us.
Meh.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Neeva
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,938
And1: 594
Joined: Jun 03, 2016

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#265 » by Neeva » Wed Aug 7, 2019 11:42 pm

mplsfonz23 wrote:Means nothing!
Brandon Clarke was the best player at SL, we could have had him at #11 and still had very valuable asset in Saric.
Fire Rosas now! He has failed us.

Is this sarcasm?
KGdaBom
Head Coach
Posts: 7,060
And1: 1,465
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#266 » by KGdaBom » Wed Aug 7, 2019 11:44 pm

Klomp wrote:
Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Those are very nice to hear. :D

Isn't Grgrich the guy on Parks and Rec that was always mistreated by everybody?
KGdaBom
Head Coach
Posts: 7,060
And1: 1,465
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#267 » by KGdaBom » Wed Aug 7, 2019 11:47 pm

King Ken wrote:
GopherIt! wrote:
King Ken wrote:Not a big fan, I been pretty down on him. I liken him to Evan Turner. But what I like is his passing potential as he is a great decision maker. Not that he is advanced but his decision making is legit. His biggest gift is his off the ball movement speed and feel. He looks like Reggie Miller in movement. I think that's something to build on honestly. Other than that, he's gonna take sometime.

His shooting development is his most critical need. It's the difference between a good #3/#4 option and a legit menace and multiple time all star and potential HOF. His floor is higher than Turner just due to his decision making and movement alone.


Gerson had a clear top five w Culver in that group.
We were fortunate the Hawks gm fell in love a role player at #4.

The right and ideal role player I might add. We could have chose the wrong one.

The Hawks had that choice. The Wolves didn't. Hopefully they both have long and meritorious NBA careers only Culvers a little better. :D
King Ken
General Manager
Posts: 7,776
And1: 4,542
Joined: Jul 01, 2014
   

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#268 » by King Ken » Thu Aug 8, 2019 2:32 pm

KGdaBom wrote:
King Ken wrote:
GopherIt! wrote:
Gerson had a clear top five w Culver in that group.
We were fortunate the Hawks gm fell in love a role player at #4.

The right and ideal role player I might add. We could have chose the wrong one.

The Hawks had that choice. The Wolves didn't. Hopefully they both have long and meritorious NBA careers only Culvers a little better. :D

Likewise but in Hunter's favor.
mplsfonz23
Veteran
Posts: 2,798
And1: 870
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
 

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#269 » by mplsfonz23 » Thu Aug 8, 2019 3:15 pm

Neeva wrote:
mplsfonz23 wrote:Means nothing!
Brandon Clarke was the best player at SL, we could have had him at #11 and still had very valuable asset in Saric.
Fire Rosas now! He has failed us.

Is this sarcasm?


:nod:
mplsfonz23
Veteran
Posts: 2,798
And1: 870
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
 

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#270 » by mplsfonz23 » Thu Aug 8, 2019 3:21 pm

SO_MONEY wrote:
mplsfonz23 wrote:Means nothing!
Brandon Clarke was the best player at SL, we could have had him at #11 and still had very valuable asset in Saric.
Fire Rosas now! He has failed us.
Meh.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


That's what I said about those guys anointing Clarke as the best player to come out of this draft.
Would Clarke have been the best if the top draftees would have played?
Maybe, probably not. But some act as if Rosas screwed the cow by trading up to get what is clearly a bust in JC, as opposed to staying at #11 and getting the future HOF'er in Clarke. (And keeping Saric and his valuable skills as an asset.)
KGdaBom
Head Coach
Posts: 7,060
And1: 1,465
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#271 » by KGdaBom » Thu Aug 8, 2019 5:26 pm

mplsfonz23 wrote:
SO_MONEY wrote:
mplsfonz23 wrote:Means nothing!
Brandon Clarke was the best player at SL, we could have had him at #11 and still had very valuable asset in Saric.
Fire Rosas now! He has failed us.
Meh.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


That's what I said about those guys anointing Clarke as the best player to come out of this draft.
Would Clarke have been the best if the top draftees would have played?
Maybe, probably not. But some act as if Rosas screwed the cow by trading up to get what is clearly a bust in JC, as opposed to staying at #11 and getting the future HOF'er in Clarke. (And keeping Saric and his valuable skills as an asset.)

I've never heard of anybody anointing Clarke as the best player coming from this draft. Most believe that to be Zion and a few think it's Ja. I was one who thought Clarke would likely be the best player at #11. Most of the people who wish we had stayed at #11 wanted that kid playing in France that I no longer remember his name. I without question prefer having Culver to Clarke. I haven't heard anybody that believes JC is clearly a bust, but some have questioned his 3 point shooting.
mplsfonz23
Veteran
Posts: 2,798
And1: 870
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
 

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#272 » by mplsfonz23 » Thu Aug 8, 2019 6:03 pm

KGdaBom wrote:
mplsfonz23 wrote:
SO_MONEY wrote:Meh.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


That's what I said about those guys anointing Clarke as the best player to come out of this draft.
Would Clarke have been the best if the top draftees would have played?
Maybe, probably not. But some act as if Rosas screwed the cow by trading up to get what is clearly a bust in JC, as opposed to staying at #11 and getting the future HOF'er in Clarke. (And keeping Saric and his valuable skills as an asset.)

I've never heard of anybody anointing Clarke as the best player coming from this draft. Most believe that to be Zion and a few think it's Ja. I was one who thought Clarke would likely be the best player at #11. Most of the people who wish we had stayed at #11 wanted that kid playing in France that I no longer remember his name. I without question prefer having Culver to Clarke. I haven't heard anybody that believes JC is clearly a bust, but some have questioned his 3 point shooting.


There are a few who think Rosas messed up by trading down and giving up Saric. They saw what Clarke was doing in SL and saw him as the better player even without watching Culver play. I don't want to look it up, but it's out there if someone wants to look hard enough.
Macwolf527
Sophomore
Posts: 189
And1: 123
Joined: Aug 14, 2017
       

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#273 » by Macwolf527 » Thu Aug 8, 2019 6:15 pm

KGdaBom wrote:
mplsfonz23 wrote:
SO_MONEY wrote:Meh.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


That's what I said about those guys anointing Clarke as the best player to come out of this draft.
Would Clarke have been the best if the top draftees would have played?
Maybe, probably not. But some act as if Rosas screwed the cow by trading up to get what is clearly a bust in JC, as opposed to staying at #11 and getting the future HOF'er in Clarke. (And keeping Saric and his valuable skills as an asset.)

I've never heard of anybody anointing Clarke as the best player coming from this draft. Most believe that to be Zion and a few think it's Ja. I was one who thought Clarke would likely be the best player at #11. Most of the people who wish we had stayed at #11 wanted that kid playing in France that I no longer remember his name. I without question prefer having Culver to Clarke. I haven't heard anybody that believes JC is clearly a bust, but some have questioned his 3 point shooting.


It was Culver's 3pt shooting that worried me a bit too, but that was tempered some once I learned he made some changes to his mechanics last year. I think most of the Clarke talk was based on his success in summer league. Like you, all I ever heard was the likelihood of him being the best pick at #11. I was NOT one of them. I liked about 5-6 guys outside of the top 10 ahead of him for the Timberwolves. I truly believe Culver will be a top player in this league. He has so many intangibles and he has a fire brewing in his belly. Lastly, he's a leader and you can never have enough of them.
KGdaBom
Head Coach
Posts: 7,060
And1: 1,465
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: The Jarrett Culver Thread 

Post#274 » by KGdaBom » Thu Aug 8, 2019 9:18 pm

mplsfonz23 wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:
mplsfonz23 wrote:
That's what I said about those guys anointing Clarke as the best player to come out of this draft.
Would Clarke have been the best if the top draftees would have played?
Maybe, probably not. But some act as if Rosas screwed the cow by trading up to get what is clearly a bust in JC, as opposed to staying at #11 and getting the future HOF'er in Clarke. (And keeping Saric and his valuable skills as an asset.)

I've never heard of anybody anointing Clarke as the best player coming from this draft. Most believe that to be Zion and a few think it's Ja. I was one who thought Clarke would likely be the best player at #11. Most of the people who wish we had stayed at #11 wanted that kid playing in France that I no longer remember his name. I without question prefer having Culver to Clarke. I haven't heard anybody that believes JC is clearly a bust, but some have questioned his 3 point shooting.


There are a few who think Rosas messed up by trading down and giving up Saric. They saw what Clarke was doing in SL and saw him as the better player even without watching Culver play. I don't want to look it up, but it's out there if someone wants to look hard enough.

I think you were using a bit of hyperbole in your prior post. Yes everything you say in this post is true. Clarke and NAW are two players that looked so good in SL. Plus there is the Kid playing in France that so many liked. It is certainly debatable whether trading Saric to move up to 6 was the right move considering the talent that went 11 and later. Time will tell if it was the right move. I think it was and I hope it was.

Return to Minnesota Timberwolves