Okafor or Towns? Which center is the better pick?

[bwgood77]

Oden averaged 16/10 and had a 33 PER with a Broken hand. He produced a ton.

Cool. Durant is good too.

You said proven production vs potential. Both Oden and Durant were proven production. I mean Greg killed Noah and Horford in his last career game with one hand.

Plus the reason he didn't pan out was freak injuries. If you were going to make the production vs potential argument pick someone like CP3 vs Marvin Williams.

Ok, yeah, that's a better example, and a good example of how stupid the Hawks were in that draft, especially when they needed a pg. I guess I picked Oden not because he didn't show potential, but he already showed plenty of injury concern.

[E-Balla]

Cool. Durant is good too.

You said proven production vs potential. Both Oden and Durant were proven production. I mean Greg killed Noah and Horford in his last career game with one hand.

Plus the reason he didn't pan out was freak injuries. If you were going to make the production vs potential argument pick someone like CP3 vs Marvin Williams.

Ok, yeah, that's a better example, and a good example of how stupid the Hawks were in that draft, especially when they needed a pg. I guess I picked Oden not because he didn't show potential, but he already showed plenty of injury concern.

Not really. Actually Durant was thought to be the injury prone one since outside of a broken hand (which is fluky) Greg was healthy and Durant was built awkwardly.

[bwgood77]

You said proven production vs potential. Both Oden and Durant were proven production. I mean Greg killed Noah and Horford in his last career game with one hand.

Plus the reason he didn't pan out was freak injuries. If you were going to make the production vs potential argument pick someone like CP3 vs Marvin Williams.

Ok, yeah, that's a better example, and a good example of how stupid the Hawks were in that draft, especially when they needed a pg. I guess I picked Oden not because he didn't show potential, but he already showed plenty of injury concern.

Not really. Actually Durant was thought to be the injury prone one since outside of a broken hand (which is fluky) Greg was healthy and Durant was built awkwardly.

ok

[Marcus]

You said proven production vs potential. Both Oden and Durant were proven production. I mean Greg killed Noah and Horford in his last career game with one hand.

Plus the reason he didn't pan out was freak injuries. If you were going to make the production vs potential argument pick someone like CP3 vs Marvin Williams.

Ok, yeah, that's a better example, and a good example of how stupid the Hawks were in that draft, especially when they needed a pg. I guess I picked Oden not because he didn't show potential, but he already showed plenty of injury concern.

Not really. Actually Durant was thought to be the injury prone one since outside of a broken hand (which is fluky) Greg was healthy and Durant was built awkwardly.

I thought there was concern with Oden having one leg longer than the other or something along those lines.

[noobcake]

All these revisionist history posters. Oden was a better prospect than Durant. Oden was dominant when he played. His career was derailed by injuries.

And Hawks were stupid for picking Marvin over CP/Deron? I thought most of these forums supports potential over skills.

I should probably dig up the hype posts about Cliff Alexander before the season made by a particular few individuals, you know who.

[Notanoob]

I'm with noobcake here, Oden was unstoppable in college and all of these people talking about how awful a pick he was are ignoring how good he was. Oden could have been the top C in the league right now with his health, a perfectly worthy guy to pick over Durant. Just because it didn't work out doesn't mean that it was a bad move at the time. It made plenty of sense to take Oden ahead of Durant at the time, everyone wasn't saying "Durant is going to be amazing, Oden is a sure bust", Oden was very highly thought of by just about everybody.

[RSCD3_]

Got this from the blog in EBALLA's sig or rootingforgoalith.wordpress

About Okafor's effectiveness in college

Down low he puts defenders in a coffin and he is so good Duke can have the 2nd best offense in the country (by both ORTG and Adjusted ORTG) while running 45% of their plays through him.

[HeartBreakKid]

Okafor plays next to 6"9 Amile Jefferson and 6"8 Semi Ojeleye....Marshall Plumlee LMAO.


None of those guys would make Kentucky's roster. Not one.

Karl Towns is a better overall basketball player. I'd like to see your evidence that negates that statement.



Karl Town now has "garbage man's offense".
Apparently to noobcake Karlito Towns has no skill offensively, no jumpshot, can't create his own shot, no spin moves, no baby hook shots, no turn arounds....nothing. He plays offense like Reggie Evans. Confirmed by NoobCake, official NBA scout. Offical TOP ELITE OP NBA scout. Good job noobcake. Lets close this thread up, noobcake nailed it. Karl Towns garbage man offense and Stephen Curry like defense.

lol massive backfire.

So you are saying, Kentucky is so stacked that half Duke's roster won't even make their roster. Playing on such stacked team, it is a wonder how Towns can't up 10 PPG with the defense so focused on all of Kentucky's amazing players. Also, care to explain why Towns plays 7th most minutes on the team and is the 4th option on offense (# shots taken). I would imagine that with his amazingly developed offensive game, he would be carrying more of the load...

Calipari trying to hurt his stock on purpose?

Also reading comprehension is important. In no way did I compare Curry's defense (which most Warriors fans would claim to be elite based on advanced stats. Are you disputing this?) to Towns. The analogy was used to emphasize the point that playing with a dominant post defender can make you better on defense that you are actually.

Erm...if Towns plays the 7th most minutes and takes the 4th most field goals, that would infer that he is most likely not a garbage man....garbage men take even less field goals than bench players usually. Using your standard, we could conclude that Anthony Davis was a garbage man when he played for his stacked Kentucky team as well - and that certainly was not the case. (Davis also was the "4th option" based on your criteria and Davis played 12 more minutes than Towns did)

[noobcake]

Okafor plays next to 6"9 Amile Jefferson and 6"8 Semi Ojeleye....Marshall Plumlee LMAO.


None of those guys would make Kentucky's roster. Not one.

Karl Towns is a better overall basketball player. I'd like to see your evidence that negates that statement.



Karl Town now has "garbage man's offense".
Apparently to noobcake Karlito Towns has no skill offensively, no jumpshot, can't create his own shot, no spin moves, no baby hook shots, no turn arounds....nothing. He plays offense like Reggie Evans. Confirmed by NoobCake, official NBA scout. Offical TOP ELITE OP NBA scout. Good job noobcake. Lets close this thread up, noobcake nailed it. Karl Towns garbage man offense and Stephen Curry like defense.

lol massive backfire.

So you are saying, Kentucky is so stacked that half Duke's roster won't even make their roster. Playing on such stacked team, it is a wonder how Towns can't up 10 PPG with the defense so focused on all of Kentucky's amazing players. Also, care to explain why Towns plays 7th most minutes on the team and is the 4th option on offense (# shots taken). I would imagine that with his amazingly developed offensive game, he would be carrying more of the load...

Calipari trying to hurt his stock on purpose?

Also reading comprehension is important. In no way did I compare Curry's defense (which most Warriors fans would claim to be elite based on advanced stats. Are you disputing this?) to Towns. The analogy was used to emphasize the point that playing with a dominant post defender can make you better on defense that you are actually.

Erm...if Towns plays the 7th most minutes and takes the 4th most field goals, that would infer that he is most likely not a garbage man....garbage men take even less field goals than bench players usually. Using your standard, we could conclude that Anthony Davis was a garbage man when he played for his stacked Kentucky team as well - and that certainly was not the case. (Davis also was the "4th option" based on your criteria and Davis played 12 more minutes than Towns did)

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word garbage man. Garbage man in the NBA context is a front court player who is not good enough offensively to be the focal point of an offense. Davis was the focus of Kentucky's offense

You obviously don't watch basketball if you think Towns' role in Kentucky offense was comparable to Davis. Hint: Davis scored the most point on that 2011-2012 Kentucky team: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sch ... /2012.html

They are not even in the same stratosphere. Davis dominated college, was consensus NPOY and became consensus #1 pick.

It also seems that logic is not your strong suit. There is no coherent logic within your statement that "if Towns plays the 7th most minutes and takes the 4th most field goals, that would infer that he is most likely not a garbage"

[HeartBreakKid]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word garbage man. Garbage man in the NBA context is a front court player who is not good enough offensively to be the focal point of an offense. Davis was the focus of Kentucky's offense

That isn't what a garbage man is...a garbage man is someone who plays with hustle and tends to get his points on put backs and easy buckets - a blue collar player (hence garbage man). If you think that is not what a garbage man is, then why do you think they are called "garbage" men. People who can create their own shot aren't called garbage men - hell people who even can stretch the floor and spot up like Serge Ibaka are not even called garbage men.

Other than that, Towns may not be THE focal of his offense, but he is a complimentary piece to the offense. He still contributes quite a bit considering he comes off the bench on the offensive end. It makes no sense to call him a garbage man. Do you consider players like Enes Kanter to be garbage men..?

You obviously don't watch basketball if you think Towns' role in Kentucky offense was comparable to Davis. Hint: Davis scored the most point on that 2011-2012 Kentucky team: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sch ... /2012.html

You obviously have poor reading if you think I said that. Also, it is laughable that you would cite Davis lead his team in scoring, as if that is prolific knowledge that is blowing people's minds.

They are not even in the same stratosphere. Davis dominated college, was consensus NPOY and became consensus #1 pick.

Strawman argument, and it seems like my post has went way over your head.

It also seems that logic is not your strong suit. There is no coherent logic within your statement that "if Towns plays the 7th most minutes and takes the 4th most field goals, that would infer that he is most likely not a garbage"

Ironic, considering it is using the same exact logic that you used to deduce that he IS a garbage men. You're calling your own point illogical, though I do not expect you to have the mental capacity to understand this based on your elementary post.


Before I leave you so you could keep getting crapped on by other people for saying totally inane things, I'll lay out my post in layman terms - so perhaps there is a 10% chance you may actually understand why you're being dense.


My posts did not say that Towns and Davis are similar prospects or players, or what ever nonsense you are trying to infer. My post is highlighting your arbitrary rating of Towns as an offensive player.

You said (key word, you, not me - which you seem to be confused about this aspect) that Karl Towns is a garbage man and your reason was because he only took the 4th amount of field goals on his team (despite only being 7th in minutes played, something that you literally pointed out). I am highlighting why this is a silly way to measure whether someone is a garbage man by citing Anthony Davis as an example because according to YOUR criteria he would be considered a garbage man (as he only took the 4th amount of field goals on his team). Again, if your response is "that is stupid" -I would agree, but it is YOUR statement that is inferring that. It is irrelevant whether Davis lead his team in scoring, if anything that HELPS my example, because it shows how ineffective your method is of measuring garbage men.

To wrap this post up, not taking that many field goals on a team that is stacked is not unheard of. If you can't wrap your head around that, then I don't know what to say - maybe you really are bias beyond belief like people in this thread are saying. By the way, scoring 10 points in 20 minutes is not bad by any means, I have no idea where you got other wise. Per 40 Towns would be averaging 18 points....

[noobcake]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word garbage man. Garbage man in the NBA context is a front court player who is not good enough offensively to be the focal point of an offense. Davis was the focus of Kentucky's offense

That isn't what a garbage man is...a garbage man is someone who plays with hustle and tends to get his points on put backs and easy buckets - a blue collar player (hence garbage man). If you think that is not what a garbage man is, then why do you think they are called "garbage" men. People who can create their own shot aren't called garbage men - hell people who even can stretch the floor and spot up like Serge Ibaka are not even called garbage men.

Other than that, Towns may not be THE focal of his offense, but he is a complimentary piece to the offense. He still contributes quite a bit considering he comes off the bench on the offensive end. It makes no sense to call him a garbage man. Do you consider players like Enes Kanter to be garbage men..?

You obviously don't watch basketball if you think Towns' role in Kentucky offense was comparable to Davis. Hint: Davis scored the most point on that 2011-2012 Kentucky team: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sch ... /2012.html

You obviously have poor reading if you think I said that. Also, it is laughable that you would cite Davis lead his team in scoring, as if that is prolific knowledge that is blowing people's minds.

They are not even in the same stratosphere. Davis dominated college, was consensus NPOY and became consensus #1 pick.

Strawman argument, and it seems like my post has went way over your head.

It also seems that logic is not your strong suit. There is no coherent logic within your statement that "if Towns plays the 7th most minutes and takes the 4th most field goals, that would infer that he is most likely not a garbage"

Ironic, considering it is using the same exact logic that you used to deduce that he IS a garbage men. You're calling your own point illogical, though I do not expect you to have the mental capacity to understand this based on your elementary post.


Before I leave you so you could keep getting crapped on by other people for saying totally inane things, I'll lay out my post in layman terms - so perhaps there is a 10% chance you may actually understand why you're being dense.


My posts did not say that Towns and Davis are similar prospects or players, or what ever nonsense you are trying to infer. My post is highlighting your arbitrary rating of Towns as an offensive player.

You said (key word, you, not me - which you seem to be confused about this aspect) that Karl Towns is a garbage man and your reason was because he only took the 4th amount of field goals on his team (despite only being 7th in minutes played, something that you literally pointed out). I am highlighting why this is a silly way to measure whether someone is a garbage man by citing Anthony Davis as an example because according to YOUR criteria he would be considered a garbage man (as he only took the 4th amount of field goals on his team). Again, if your response is "that is stupid" -I would agree, but it is YOUR statement that is inferring that. It is irrelevant whether Davis lead his team in scoring, if anything that HELPS my example, because it shows how ineffective your method is of measuring garbage men.

To wrap this post up, not taking that many field goals on a team that is stacked is not unheard of. If you can't wrap your head around that, then I don't know what to say - maybe you really are bias beyond belief like people in this thread are saying. By the way, scoring 10 points in 20 minutes is not bad by any means, I have no idea where you got other wise. Per 40 Towns would be averaging 18 points....

Not going to respond to your moot points since I've disputed over and over again, with tangible, measurable statistics everything you and some other ****posters stand for while you guys dwell on concepts of potential while citing the the unmeasurable mantra of defense.

I hope that you can resolve the confirmation bias that you possess before you assess any more draft prospect. History is the best judge of everything. We'll see who will be right within a few years.

Extra message to Zeigeister. I'm still waiting for those quotes. I can quote the laughable things you write all day long. Protip: before you quote me calling Wiggins a role player, make sure he do it after he becomes a superstar.

[acrossthecourt]

I don't understand why someone is a lock for a number one pick for low-post offense. It's 2015. That's not how you construct a great offense unless the guy is a good passer and defender, and by a few measures his defense is troubling. (I saw somewhere he blocks shots like Love and rebounds like Bosh.)

Going back to Oden versus Durant, it was more about the high school hype and the center allure. Durant produced more in college and was better overall, even adjusting for games played. Durant broke draft raters. But Oden had all that hype in college. It's the same with Wiggins, really, who had a lukewarm college season and has been a bleh shooter on an awful team so far but everyone reacts to his 16 PPG like he's a star. It's all about that hype.

I just don't understand why we should be excited about a guy like Okafor in the modern NBA.

By the way, Bynum was a drag on the offense. They were a lot better off with (mentally healthy) Odom. Bynum held the ball too long, was a blackhole, and clogged the lane.

[DickGrayson]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word garbage man. Garbage man in the NBA context is a front court player who is not good enough offensively to be the focal point of an offense. Davis was the focus of Kentucky's offense

You obviously don't watch basketball if you think Towns' role in Kentucky offense was comparable to Davis. Hint: Davis scored the most point on that 2011-2012 Kentucky team: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sch ... /2012.html

They are not even in the same stratosphere. Davis dominated college, was consensus NPOY and became consensus #1 pick.

It also seems that logic is not your strong suit. There is no coherent logic within your statement that "if Towns plays the 7th most minutes and takes the 4th most field goals, that would infer that he is most likely not a garbage"

1. Anthony Davis is basically the best big man in the NBA. When we compare Towns to Davis, it only gives Towns more credit.
2. Anthony Davis was an efficient scorer, his game translated better to the NBA where he was able to use more space on the court.
3. Leading scorer for current Kentucky is Aaron Harrison at 11 points. Towns is till the focus point of Kentucky down the stretch.
Aaron Harrison isn't a vocal point since he shoots below 40% FG.

Karl Towns averages 19.1 Points per 40mins on 54%
Anthony Davis averaged 17.5 Points per 40 mins on 63% FG

You said they are not even in the same stratosphere? I believe Anthony Davis is better, but Towns is definitely in the same tier of production and impact on the floor.

Davis being more efficient, obviously translated to the NBA as an elite scorer today.
Karl Towns won't average 25 ppg in the NBA, but he has the tools to produce points similar how to Duncan did throughout his career.

How many garbage big men average 18.7 points per 40 minutes in their freshman year of college?

When I think of garbage big men I think of guys who normally get majority of their points off of put backs, hustle plays. scrappy players.

You have low level garbage big men like Renaldo Balkman, and high level guys like Andre Drummond to even a young Dwight Howard.
Drummond averaged 14 points per 40 his freshman year, very raw offensively and didn't have any go to post moves until he got to the NBA where he's still an average offensive player.

Karl Towns has shown a variety of post moves and face up moves that are effective which leads him to 18.7 points per game.
Towns can get points off of hustle, put backs and being a scrappy dude, but he also can post up, face up, hook, spin, drive and hit a jump shot. If you haven't seen Towns do these things then you've failed as a person following the NBA draft.

focal point of an offense can only be applied to one guy?
Who was the focal point of the Lakers with Shaq and Kobe? The Spurs with Duncan and Robinson? The Knicks with Houston and Sprewell?

[DickGrayson]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word garbage man. Garbage man in the NBA context is a front court player who is not good enough offensively to be the focal point of an offense. Davis was the focus of Kentucky's offense

That isn't what a garbage man is...a garbage man is someone who plays with hustle and tends to get his points on put backs and easy buckets - a blue collar player (hence garbage man). If you think that is not what a garbage man is, then why do you think they are called "garbage" men. People who can create their own shot aren't called garbage men - hell people who even can stretch the floor and spot up like Serge Ibaka are not even called garbage men.

Other than that, Towns may not be THE focal of his offense, but he is a complimentary piece to the offense. He still contributes quite a bit considering he comes off the bench on the offensive end. It makes no sense to call him a garbage man. Do you consider players like Enes Kanter to be garbage men..?

You obviously don't watch basketball if you think Towns' role in Kentucky offense was comparable to Davis. Hint: Davis scored the most point on that 2011-2012 Kentucky team: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sch ... /2012.html

You obviously have poor reading if you think I said that. Also, it is laughable that you would cite Davis lead his team in scoring, as if that is prolific knowledge that is blowing people's minds.

They are not even in the same stratosphere. Davis dominated college, was consensus NPOY and became consensus #1 pick.

Strawman argument, and it seems like my post has went way over your head.

It also seems that logic is not your strong suit. There is no coherent logic within your statement that "if Towns plays the 7th most minutes and takes the 4th most field goals, that would infer that he is most likely not a garbage"

Ironic, considering it is using the same exact logic that you used to deduce that he IS a garbage men. You're calling your own point illogical, though I do not expect you to have the mental capacity to understand this based on your elementary post.


Before I leave you so you could keep getting crapped on by other people for saying totally inane things, I'll lay out my post in layman terms - so perhaps there is a 10% chance you may actually understand why you're being dense.


My posts did not say that Towns and Davis are similar prospects or players, or what ever nonsense you are trying to infer. My post is highlighting your arbitrary rating of Towns as an offensive player.

You said (key word, you, not me - which you seem to be confused about this aspect) that Karl Towns is a garbage man and your reason was because he only took the 4th amount of field goals on his team (despite only being 7th in minutes played, something that you literally pointed out). I am highlighting why this is a silly way to measure whether someone is a garbage man by citing Anthony Davis as an example because according to YOUR criteria he would be considered a garbage man (as he only took the 4th amount of field goals on his team). Again, if your response is "that is stupid" -I would agree, but it is YOUR statement that is inferring that. It is irrelevant whether Davis lead his team in scoring, if anything that HELPS my example, because it shows how ineffective your method is of measuring garbage men.

To wrap this post up, not taking that many field goals on a team that is stacked is not unheard of. If you can't wrap your head around that, then I don't know what to say - maybe you really are bias beyond belief like people in this thread are saying. By the way, scoring 10 points in 20 minutes is not bad by any means, I have no idea where you got other wise. Per 40 Towns would be averaging 18 points....

Not going to respond to your moot points since I've disputed over and over again, with tangible, measurable statistics everything you and some other ****posters stand for while you guys dwell on concepts of potential while citing the the unmeasurable mantra of defense.

I hope that you can resolve the confirmation bias that you possess before you assess any more draft prospect. History is the best judge of everything. We'll see who will be right within a few years.

Extra message to Zeigeister. I'm still waiting for those quotes. I can quote the laughable things you write all day long. Protip: before you quote me calling Wiggins a role player, make sure he do it after he becomes a superstar.

HBK shut down all of your points and your reply is "I'm not going to repeat myself?"


sheesh, talk about weakness =[

[Zeitgeister]

Extra message to Zeigeister. I'm still waiting for those quotes. I can quote the laughable things you write all day long. Protip: before you quote me calling Wiggins a role player, make sure he do it after he becomes a superstar.

I have no idea if Wiggins will be a superstar. He's got a long ways to go to get there.

You wanted quotes?

How about this one?

Seth Curry will have a better career than Stephen/Dell

Took me about 3 minutes to find that.

Oh there's this one too.

Rubio will be GOAT PG in 00's. Griffin is another Boozer.

[ColdBlooded]

Extra message to Zeigeister. I'm still waiting for those quotes. I can quote the laughable things you write all day long. Protip: before you quote me calling Wiggins a role player, make sure he do it after he becomes a superstar.

I have no idea if Wiggins will be a superstar. He's got a long ways to go to get there.

You wanted quotes?

How about this one?

Seth Curry will have a better career than Stephen/Dell

Took me about 3 minutes to find that.

[E-Balla]

I don't understand why someone is a lock for a number one pick for low-post offense. It's 2015. That's not how you construct a great offense unless the guy is a good passer and defender, and by a few measures his defense is troubling. (I saw somewhere he blocks shots like Love and rebounds like Bosh.)

Okafor is a good passer so that point is moot. If you think low post offense is dead you're a sucker for trends. We saw Dirk kill the league with his high post game just 5 years ago and since then there's been no great post scorers. People say DeMarcus but let's be serious he's not a great low post option. The guy loves shooting Js and he's a 31% jumpshooter. He's 47% from the field and he turns the ball over at a high rate.

Its like people in the 80's saying you can't build offenses around 3 point shooters - like of course you couldn't with no great shooters in the league.

Also his blocks don't matter if he can protect the rim and he rebounds better than Andre Drummond if you wanna go there. Its college ball your numbers are usually the result of your role and players rarely play their NBA roles.

Also WTF does a guys defense have to do with his offense?

Going back to Oden versus Durant, it was more about the high school hype and the center allure. Durant produced more in college and was better overall, even adjusting for games played. Durant broke draft raters. But Oden had all that hype in college. It's the same with Wiggins, really, who had a lukewarm college season and has been a bleh shooter on an awful team so far but everyone reacts to his 16 PPG like he's a star. It's all about that hype.

Are we gonna act like Oden didn't perform just slightly worse than Durant? This isn't Wiggins vs Parker where Parker was producing like a star and Wiggins was producing like any run of the mill good player. Per 40 (when pace adjusted) he averaged 22/14/5 on 63 TS to Durant's 27/12 on 58 TS. He led his team to the national championship game and was the best defender in college hoops too. Again look the the PERs where Durant had a 35 and Oden had a 33 (higher than all freshmen since aside from Beasley and Love). He also broke his right hand and he's right handed. Their production per minute was even and Oden wasn't a low minute player Durant was just a high minute player.

I just don't understand why we should be excited about a guy like Okafor in the modern NBA.

By the way, Bynum was a drag on the offense. They were a lot better off with (mentally healthy) Odom. Bynum held the ball too long, was a blackhole, and clogged the lane.

Good thing he's better than Bynum. If you aren't excited for a guy with a post game like Okafor seems to have entering the league you don't know basketball.

[E-Balla]

Also Al Jefferson led the 6th best offense one year with his next best offensive players being Paul Millsap, 2nd year Gordon Hayward, and Devin Harris. And he can't even pass.

[DickGrayson]

You wanted quotes?

How about this one?

Seth Curry will have a better career than Stephen/Dell

Took me about 3 minutes to find that.

Oh there's this one too.

Rubio will be GOAT PG in 00's. Griffin is another Boozer.

[acrossthecourt]

I don't understand why someone is a lock for a number one pick for low-post offense. It's 2015. That's not how you construct a great offense unless the guy is a good passer and defender, and by a few measures his defense is troubling. (I saw somewhere he blocks shots like Love and rebounds like Bosh.)

Okafor is a good passer so that point is moot. If you think low post offense is dead you're a sucker for trends. We saw Dirk kill the league with his high post game just 5 years ago and since then there's been no great post scorers. People say DeMarcus but let's be serious he's not a great low post option. The guy loves shooting Js and he's a 31% jumpshooter. He's 47% from the field and he turns the ball over at a high rate.

Its like people in the 80's saying you can't build offenses around 3 point shooters - like of course you couldn't with no great shooters in the league.

Also his blocks don't matter if he can protect the rim and he rebounds better than Andre Drummond if you wanna go there. Its college ball your numbers are usually the result of your role and players rarely play their NBA roles.

Also WTF does a guys defense have to do with his offense?

Going back to Oden versus Durant, it was more about the high school hype and the center allure. Durant produced more in college and was better overall, even adjusting for games played. Durant broke draft raters. But Oden had all that hype in college. It's the same with Wiggins, really, who had a lukewarm college season and has been a bleh shooter on an awful team so far but everyone reacts to his 16 PPG like he's a star. It's all about that hype.

Are we gonna act like Oden didn't perform just slightly worse than Durant? This isn't Wiggins vs Parker where Parker was producing like a star and Wiggins was producing like any run of the mill good player. Per 40 (when pace adjusted) he averaged 22/14/5 on 63 TS to Durant's 27/12 on 58 TS. He led his team to the national championship game and was the best defender in college hoops too. Again look the the PERs where Durant had a 35 and Oden had a 33 (higher than all freshmen since aside from Beasley and Love). He also broke his right hand and he's right handed. Their production per minute was even and Oden wasn't a low minute player Durant was just a high minute player.

I just don't understand why we should be excited about a guy like Okafor in the modern NBA.

By the way, Bynum was a drag on the offense. They were a lot better off with (mentally healthy) Odom. Bynum held the ball too long, was a blackhole, and clogged the lane.

Good thing he's better than Bynum. If you aren't excited for a guy with a post game like Okafor seems to have entering the league you don't know basketball.

I'm not a sucker for trends. These are entirely different issues. Your logic train went off the tracks a while ago.

The game has changed. Defense has changed immensely due to rule and style changes. This is not being a "sucker" for changes ... this is realizing it's not the 1970's anymore and there are more valuable things a team can do.

Dirk is a prime counterexample. You're talking about high post offense, not low post, with a PF who can space the floor. That's more valuable than low post offense now! From big men at least.

This is the kind of thinking that made Mark Jackson go to post/iso basketball a ton last year. That was not ideal. Also, it's not really a trend. Even historically speaking it's better for an offense to move the ball outside or through a center who passes a ton, from Wilt finding success when he scored less to Portland's success with Walton to Olajuwon's team success when he started passing more, etc.

People keep saying he *can* learn to pass better, he *can* get in better shape, he *can* play defense -- this is supposed to be a number one pick and a lock. Hey, Leonard and Bledsoe and other non-shooters learned to shoot. How about we ignore any shooting problems a guy has? Marc Gasol slimmed down and won DPOTY. Should we all ignore problems from young kids being fat/out of shape? No, that's all ridiculous.

It's not about a guy not being able to make those changes and make a leap when they hit the NBA. It's more about probability and how it's better to bet on a guy who actually has those skillsets. Because right now the number one pick has lousy defense and he keeps getting compared to Al Jefferson and Big Country Reeves. That's not selling me. He could make vast improvements, sure, and so can everyone else.

(Hey, but at least he has that huge wingspan.)