Page 1 of 2

WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2009 6:45 pm
by Krapinsky
http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wireta ... p_50_list/

This list is a little absurd.

Elton Brand? Michael Redd? Richard Jefferson? Baron Davis? Arenas?

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2009 6:48 pm
by dunkonu21
I agree that list is nuts. I can't see Artest, Boozer, Battier, Horford or McGrady above Al Jefferson.

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2009 7:14 pm
by Calinks
Over current Al yea. Healthy Al no.

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2009 7:23 pm
by Foye
Why is TMac even on this list? He's injuried for a season now.

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2009 8:13 pm
by RD&KG2
Exactly, I read the list and I figured it was just based off of this season but if Tmac is on there this list it T-WACK.... zing.

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2009 8:15 pm
by RD&KG2
and O.J. Mayo made it...

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2009 8:29 pm
by Devilzsidewalk
its a bad ranking, (Villanueva? Battier? yea right...) but I don't really mind. I hate seeing any kind of accolades for poor performance

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2009 8:34 pm
by Krapinsky
I'd take Love over a few of those players as well.

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2009 8:43 pm
by big3_8_19_21
Do they honestly believe that current day Shaq is the 16th best player in the league? Is that some kind of joke?

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2009 9:14 pm
by TMo519
Wow, that is a really poor list, seriously. And yeah, if we're ignoring injuries and all that, Big Al should undoubtedly be on that list.

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2009 9:33 pm
by panth181
"50 greatest players in the NBA today"

Hmm...

Does this mean most accomplished active players, or does it mean if the season was one game and it took place tomorrow, this is who you pick?

If it is the latter, I don't think Kobe should be #1.

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:00 pm
by Krapinsky
panth181 wrote:"50 greatest players in the NBA today"

Hmm...

Does this mean most accomplished active players, or does it mean if the season was one game and it took place tomorrow, this is who you pick?

If it is the latter, I don't think Kobe should be #1.


I think it means the latter -- the best players of the present day. If the former, how could Horford or Mayo make the list?

I think Kobe is still #1 regardless.

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:03 pm
by john2jer
panth181 wrote:"50 greatest players in the NBA today"

Hmm...

Does this mean most accomplished active players, or does it mean if the season was one game and it took place tomorrow, this is who you pick?

If it is the latter, I don't think Kobe should be #1.


That's where the list gets confusing. If they're talking about right now, this season, then how does T-Mac make the list? If they're talking in recent history, or talent level, how is Al Jefferson not on the list at all. Not entirely sure of the definition of their list. No Warriors, Kings, or Bobcats? Stephen Jackson, Monta Ellis, Gerald Wallace, or Kevin Martin?

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:08 pm
by lobishome
Dwight Howard #4 and Pau Gasol #17? :lol: WTF smoke this man?

In the playoffs, Howard shot in play 39 times and 0 points :lol:

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:19 pm
by Krapinsky
lobishome wrote:Dwight Howard #4 and Pau Gasol #17? :lol: WTF smoke this man?

In the playoffs, Howard shot in play 39 times and 0 points :lol:


You're freakin crazy man :lol:

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:30 pm
by lobishome
    Pau Gasol defending Dwight Howard was expected to be a huge advantage for the bigger, stronger Howard, but Gasol's defense of Howard was masterful. The Lakers provided Gasol with significant help, and their defensive scheme was hugely successful in frustrating Howard, but Gasol deserves a lot of credit for his defense on Howard. According to ESPN DB, Dwight Howard was held to 4-10 shooting when guarded one-on-one by Gasol (Gasol, meanwhile, was 9-19 when guarded one-on-one by Howard). In Game 5, Gasol was the primary defender on Howard for in 38 possessions – in those 38 possessions, Howard didn't make a single field goal, and went to the line only once, where he went 1-2, for a grand total of one points on 38 possessions with Gasol as his primary defender.

:naaa:

:rofl:

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2009 11:35 pm
by Krapinsky
lobishome wrote:
    Pau Gasol defending Dwight Howard was expected to be a huge advantage for the bigger, stronger Howard, but Gasol's defense of Howard was masterful. The Lakers provided Gasol with significant help, and their defensive scheme was hugely successful in frustrating Howard, but Gasol deserves a lot of credit for his defense on Howard. According to ESPN DB, Dwight Howard was held to 4-10 shooting when guarded one-on-one by Gasol (Gasol, meanwhile, was 9-19 when guarded one-on-one by Howard). In Game 5, Gasol was the primary defender on Howard for in 38 possessions – in those 38 possessions, Howard didn't make a single field goal, and went to the line only once, where he went 1-2, for a grand total of one points on 38 possessions with Gasol as his primary defender.

:naaa:

:rofl:


I was just referring to you, generally. You're freaking crazy man. :lol:

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Fri Dec 4, 2009 1:08 am
by Calinks
:rofl: lobishome is one of the funnies posters around. I love it. Even your profile is crazy, I hope you don't leave anytime soon.

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Fri Dec 4, 2009 1:44 am
by Varejao17
Are you kiddin' me? Battier? Villanueva? Mayo? Brand? Redd? None of them are better than Big Al...

Re: WT: No Wolves in NBA's top 50

Posted: Fri Dec 4, 2009 2:27 am
by moss_is_1
That is the worst list I've seen. Al Jefferson should at least be top 30.