Say hello to your #1 pick in the 2008 NBA Draft....

[hard49]

I think he means defensive anchor.

[The_Pope]

-= original quote snipped =-



Some people just take the whole big over small thing and don't know how to apply it, so they just use it as a blanket statement. People are talking about Amare, yet there are a handful of PG's I would take over Amare. Chris Paul and Deron Williams are 2 of them, and I believe Rose has the ability and skill set to be even better than Williams or Paul. Add to that that Beasley is smaller and less dominate than Amare, and you can see why plenty of people would take Rose.

Milwaukee took Bogut over Williams and Paul because of conventional wisdom. Milwaukee traded TJ Ford for Charlie Villanueva because of conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom is not a foolproof exact science.

A. I doubt Beasley is much smaller than Amare
B. How the hell is Beasley "less dominant" than Amare?

[skones]

-= original quote snipped =-


A. I doubt Beasley is much smaller than Amare
B. How the hell is Beasley "less dominant" than Amare?

Beasley is around 6'8 without shoes, maybe even half an inch less seeing as how he measured 6'9 with shoes last summer. I really don't believe he's grown an inch since last summer. Amare is 6'10 in shoes.

As far as dominance goes, Amare is MUCH MUCH stronger physically which is huge when it comes to knocking inside, playing defense (which he's horrible at anyway), and going up for rebounds.

[skones]

Like Brand, he needed Cassell and Spreewell to come in and take the pressure off of him in his only playoff run.

This is not a knock on KG really, few players fall in the franchise big man category IMO.

Although agree with you that Beasley isn't that type of big man, I disagree with the sentiment that KG was not. Duncan has ALWAYS had better help than KG both on the court and on the bench.

[The_Pope]

-= original quote snipped =-



Beasley is around 6'8 without shoes, maybe even half an inch less seeing as how he measured 6'9 with shoes last summer. I really don't believe he's grown an inch since last summer. Amare is 6'10 in shoes.

As far as dominance goes, Amare is MUCH MUCH stronger physically which is huge when it comes to knocking inside, playing defense (which he's horrible at anyway), and going up for rebounds.

I strongly disagree on the point of strength, Beasley looks very very strong. When you put up 25 and 12 over a season, I don't see how you can question someone's "dominance".

[skones]

-= original quote snipped =-


I strongly disagree on the point of strength, Beasley looks very very strong. When you put up 25 and 12 over a season, I don't see how you can question someone's "dominance".

Error

EDIT: Stoudemire is probably around 250-255 whereas Beasley looks to be closer to somewhere between 230-240. I GUARANTEE you that Stoudemire is much stronger at this point.

[BigSlam]

-= original quote snipped =-
Error

EDIT: Stoudemire is probably around 250-255 whereas Beasley looks to be closer to somewhere between 230-240. I GUARANTEE you that Stoudemire is much stronger at this point.

Of course he does. He's been in the NBA for 5 years on an NBA weight program. Check out Beasley's rig in 5 years time after he has had NBA conditioning and compare then.

Keep in mind that Amare came into the league around 240lbs - only 5 or so more than Beasley.

[The_Pope]

Weight does not equal strength. Also Beasley is 19 and is highly likely to gain weight when put on an NBA fitness program.

[The_Pope]

Amare was 6'8 1/2 without shoes and weighed 233 at the pre-draft camp. So Beasley is physically comparable (less athletic), but infinitely more skilled at the same stage.

[Ruzious]

-= original quote snipped =-



You seem to not understand the difference between a franchise big man and a scoring tweener. Beasley is an undersized scoring PF, he is not Howard, Duncan, Shaq...

Again, I was NOT talking about Beasley. I was talking about Amare - as that was the hypothetical we were talking about.

Again, I don't think Beasley is Amare.

[Ruzious]

-= original quote snipped =-



There is a difference between very good big men and franchise bigs. Dwight Howard, Shaq in his prime, Duncan are franchise big men. KG, Amare, Yao are very good big men. There is a difference. The first group anchors their team no both ends of the floor and effect the game outside the box score. The second group puts up good numbers but is not the same kind of force.

This is where I do disagree with you, and I don't think you can misunderstand me this time.

KG and Yao are franchise big men - without a doubt, imo. To put Dwight Howard in a higher category than KG is ridiculous. KG is one of the all-time great all-around players.

Is Amare in that class? No, but he's a dominant big man, and when starting a team or drafting, you always take the player who looks like a dominant big man over the player who looks like he'll be a top PG. The only exception would be for a Magic Johnson or an Isaiah Thomas. Andrew Bogut was picked ahead of Paul (and Deron Johnson), and Paul was clearly a better PG prospect than Bogut was a center prospect. That's typical.

[Ruzious]

I said Dwight was becoming one. KG has always been a very good, very skilled big man. But he is not a franchise anchor. He disappeared in the 4th quarter for years and has never been a great defender. Very very good player, but IMO he is more of a rich man's Amare than anything. It is hard to quantify this sort of thing, but I have never believed KG to be a franchise anchor big man, and his track record seems to prove it. Like Brand, he needed Cassell and Spreewell to come in and take the pressure off of him in his only playoff run.

This is not a knock on KG really, few players fall in the franchise big man category IMO.

Your judgment is really lacking here.

[Ruzious]

-= original quote snipped =-



Error

EDIT: Stoudemire is probably around 250-255 whereas Beasley looks to be closer to somewhere between 230-240. I GUARANTEE you that Stoudemire is much stronger at this point.

This is 1... thing I agree with you. I don't know what Stoudamire's exact size was, but he was much stronger than Beasley at the same age. And he used that strength extremely well at a very young age. He attacked the basket as physically as any rookie - especially for a kid coming out of HS - I've seen. To contrast, Kwame Brown (not to mention Chandler and Curry) - a year or so before - was bigger, but he had no idea how to use his size and power.

Ironically, Stoudamire is much more skilled than he was when he came into the NBA - when he was just a duniking machine. And people seem to take it as a sign of weakness that he can now use finesse moves.

[skones]

-= original quote snipped =-


Is Amare in that class? No, but he's a dominant big man, and when starting a team or drafting, you always take the player who looks like a dominant big man over the player who looks like he'll be a top PG. The only exception would be for a Magic Johnson or an Isaiah Thomas. Andrew Bogut was picked ahead of Paul (and Deron Johnson), and Paul was clearly a better PG prospect than Bogut was a center prospect. That's typical.

I Disagree with pretty much this entire post. Bogut was a very very good center prospect. The guy averaged 20 and 12 on great percentages his sophomore year. Many thought he'd come in and go 15-17 and 10 his rookie season. Unfortunately that wasn't the case.

Point guard is the most important position on the floor in my opinion. That's the guy who's going to be running the show. An elite point guard is much more valuable than a good offensive big man. For example, Jason Kidd was the most important piece to the puzzle on New Jersey for years. Nash is more valuable to the Suns than Amare. Williams is more valuable to the Jazz than Boozer. Paul is more valuable than his big men in Chandler and West. Elite point guards take teams to the next level. You take away the point guards from those teams, replace them with a serviceable guy and those teams go from title contenders to teams that are being bounced in the first round of the playoffs.

[Cammo101]

If KG was a franchise big man then he would not have floundered for 10 years until giving up and begging onto an all star team so he did not have to carry his team. KG is a very good player who puts up very good numbers. But, he is no franchise big man.

Howard is on it and KG and Yao are not because he impacts the game far beyond the box score in a way the KG and Yao do not. Which is why their teams do just as well without them as with them.

[The_Pope]

If KG was a franchise big man then he would not have floundered for 10 years until giving up and begging onto an all star team so he did not have to carry his team. KG is a very good player who puts up very good numbers. But, he is no franchise big man.

Howard is on it and KG and Yao are not because he impacts the game far beyond the box score in a way the KG and Yao do not. Which is why their teams do just as well without them as with them.

This is absolute nonsense. If anything, KG impacts the game beyond the boxscore far more than Howard. Look at this season, he's having one of his worst statistical seasons, yet he's made the Celtics the best team in the league with his defense and intensity.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

The whole big guys winning championship thing is absurd. In this decade, its mainly been 2 dominant big men that led their teams to titles. One has had a dominant wing player to help him out (Shaq and Wade/Kobe) The other had a great guards (Duncan and Parker/Manu). Then the decade before that it was pretty much a dominant SG/SF combo that won all of them, same combo though. The other two thrown in were dominant bigmen, but it was the same big man. Then there were two dominant PGs winning championships in the 80's.

So theres, what 6 players who were championship players in the past 20-25 years?. Three were big men, two were PGs, One was a SG. All of them had elite supporting casts (most often a wing or PG).

Basically, we can say that once Duncan declines, there will be a handful of guys who will win championships for the next decade. One of them is probably Lebron. So there will be one ofher dominant championship player, and a couple guys who will be the elite supporters. The rest of those guys may or may not already be in the league.

[ponder276]

I said Dwight was becoming one. KG has always been a very good, very skilled big man. But he is not a franchise anchor. He disappeared in the 4th quarter for years and has never been a great defender. Very very good player, but IMO he is more of a rich man's Amare than anything. It is hard to quantify this sort of thing, but I have never believed KG to be a franchise anchor big man, and his track record seems to prove it. Like Brand, he needed Cassell and Spreewell to come in and take the pressure off of him in his only playoff run.

This is not a knock on KG really, few players fall in the franchise big man category IMO.

---------------------------------------

If KG was a franchise big man then he would not have floundered for 10 years until giving up and begging onto an all star team so he did not have to carry his team. KG is a very good player who puts up very good numbers. But, he is no franchise big man.

Howard is on it and KG and Yao are not because he impacts the game far beyond the box score in a way the KG and Yao do not. Which is why their teams do just as well without them as with them.

KG's teams do just as well without him? He doesn't play defense? Ridiculous.
He is not a defensive anchor BECAUSE HE IS A PF, NOT A CENTER. He is one of the best man-defenders at the PF position, period, and plays solid team defense as well (in terms of rotating, doubling, getting in the passing lanes, etc.). And while he isn't a Shaq-like anchor, his career of average of 1.6 bpg is pretty good for a PF as well.
KG may not be clutch, but he hugely impacts the results of games. Have you seen the transformation the Celtics made this year? Worst team in the league to the best team in the league. And don't site the other additions to the team - they got Ray Allen, Big Baby and James Posey, but those gains are pretty much canceled out by the loss of Al Jefferson, Wally, West and Gomes. Garnett improved this team by about 40 wins more or less by himself, I can't see how you can say he doesn't help teams win . . .

Also, you seem to be implying that Dwight blows KG out of the water defensively. From a purely stats point of view, in 03/04 KG put up 13.9 rpg, 2.2 bpg and 1.5 spg, very comparable to the 14.4 rpg, 2.3 bpg and 0.9 spg Dwight is putting up this year. And stats really do not tell the whole story on d - KG, throughout his career, has been a much better man defender than Dwight is now.

[Ruzious]

If KG was a franchise big man then he would not have floundered for 10 years until giving up and begging onto an all star team so he did not have to carry his team. KG is a very good player who puts up very good numbers. But, he is no franchise big man.

Howard is on it and KG and Yao are not because he impacts the game far beyond the box score in a way the KG and Yao do not. Which is why their teams do just as well without them as with them.

You're normally very perceptive, but that's just absurd. KG has not been just a very good player. He's been one of the top 1 handul of players in the Association for about a decade - every year. But no player can win by himself, and when the best teammate he's had is arguably Sam Cassell... that's laughable help.

One non-sports magazine did a list of the most successful GMs in all of sports - based primarily on winning percentages. The top GM in basketball according to their criteria - Kevin McHale. Kevin McHale...

There's one reason.

Yao - when he's healthy - has become a legitimately dominant player - regardless of Houston's winning streak after he got injured.

Howard is an amazing talent and a helluva player, but he's got obvious weaknesses. He's got a perfect situation this year, because the 2 best long distance shooting forwards in the NBA are playing next to him - drawing opponents 25 feet from the basket. So teams have to pick their poison.

[Ruzious]

-= original quote snipped =-



I Disagree with pretty much this entire post. Bogut was a very very good center prospect. The guy averaged 20 and 12 on great percentages his sophomore year. Many thought he'd come in and go 15-17 and 10 his rookie season. Unfortunately that wasn't the case.

So, you're going to look me in the eye and say that Paul was not as good a PG prospect as Bogut was a center prospect? Seriously?

Point guard is the most important position on the floor in my opinion. That's the guy who's going to be running the show. An elite point guard is much more valuable than a good offensive big man. For example, Jason Kidd was the most important piece to the puzzle on New Jersey for years. Nash is more valuable to the Suns than Amare. Williams is more valuable to the Jazz than Boozer. Paul is more valuable than his big men in Chandler and West. Elite point guards take teams to the next level. You take away the point guards from those teams, replace them with a serviceable guy and those teams go from title contenders to teams that are being bounced in the first round of the playoffs.

What happened to Dallas when they lost Nash for... nothing?

Some teams do have a PG as their MVP. So? Some don't. I agree that Paul and Williams are the MVPs on their teams. The point is - if you're a GM, you always give more value to the dominant big - unless we're talking a Magic or Isaiah. That's not just my opinion - GMs throughout history have simply made that choice.