Brandon Jennings vs. Stephen Curry

[Lone Star]

lol at this argument. Jennings isn't playing in a loaded Western Conference with over half his teammates from the D-League.

The Warriors have never won this year, regardless of who has been playing. That will happen when your team plays zero defense at all times.

And yes, the WC is tougher, but the Bucks would easily be ahead of the Warriors even if in the West.

What the hell does the Warriors team defense have to do with the Curry/Jennings debate? For that matter what does team record really have to do with the argument either? If winning were everything then the best player on the NBA champions would always be the undisputed MVP, but that is not always the case. Besides the Bucks don't have a winning record against the Western
conference.

[Lone Star]

You don't have any room to laugh at other people, when you're entire argument is based on empty stats. When GS starts playing a reasonable style of ball that doesn't include giving up 4 points a game more than the next worst team, then get back to us.

You can't have it both ways, you can't discount Curry's numbers due to the pace the Warriors play at and then also use a PPG argument against the Warriors... of course they give up more points they play way faster than most other teams. Now the Warriors D sucks once again what does that have to do with a Curry/Jennings debate.

Biedrins was supposed to be one of the up and coming centers in the NBA. When healthy this year, his game regressed. Randolph hasn't progressed as expected when he's been healthy. Jackson didn't want to play for GS. When you have a good PG, those types of things shouldn't happen.

At exactly what point this season was Biedrins healthy? I think most players would have down seasons if they tried to play with pelvic/groin pain. Think about that for a second. Expectations for Randolph were unrealistic, he didn't play much his rookie year and he was a 19 year old second year player this season. Give him till he is 21 to see what he will likely be as a player.

Jennings isn't the biggest reason for the Bucks' success, but it's no coincidence that Bogut's having his best season. They quickly developed a chemistry that has improved the team. And other than those 2, Milwaukee was NOT a talented team, by any stretch of the imagination - until they got Salmons - who Chicago couldn't wait to dump - because he was horribly there. Delfino was a guy nobody wanted. Stackhouse they got for nothing. a Moute was a 2nd round pick tweener forward who still can't shoot. Ilyosova was horrible with Milwaukee his first go round. Bell wouldn't make most NBA rosters. They were hoping guys like Warrick and Alexander would play major roles. So don't hand us excuses about talent.[/quote

]

So what... your GM sucks and the Warrios coach sucks... again what does this have to do with a Curry/Jennings debate?

[Star-Lord]

You're the last person that should be laughing. Who can forget your moronic statement saying the W's made the biggest draftday mistake selecting Curry.

Curry only has five 30pts/10asts games, ranked third behind Wade and LBJ scoring 30 and dishing out 10 or more assists.

Glad to see you're a fan of my work.

Let's be sure to remember that silly thing you posted about Jennings later on down the road...

What the hell does the Warriors team defense have to do with the Curry/Jennings debate? For that matter what does team record really have to do with the argument either? If winning were everything then the best player on the NBA champions would always be the undisputed MVP, but that is not always the case. Besides the Bucks don't have a winning record against the Western
conference.

Winning is everything. That's the point of the damn game. To win. Not to try to put up the prettiest stat line. Jesus tap-dancing Christ...

[old rem]

Nobody...GSW included, wins much without half their top 10 players. It's absurd to bring that crap up...GSW is losing so no matter what player X DOES..he sucks. Nonsense. Does Kevin Love suck because the Wolves lose?

FEW players (aside from LaBron) can really carry a mediocre crew. In GSW's case...the half team available isn't even that bad,but if your bench is a scrub and 2 rookies who arrived mid season, you can win the first half and just run out of steam. GSW has very often matched GOOD,HEALTHY teams 3/4 of the game. Currently...the ONLY PF + C are D League rookies who arrived in Jan. They play well,in spurts,are not consistant yet...and there ain't any backup.

Not Curry's fault.

Jennings is a creative passer...not always efficient. He got minimal post HS experience then...NBA starter. He has scorer skills...and they are still a tad raw.

S Curry was obviously a polished scorer. Curry grew up NBA,he had to be his teams PG..AND go-to scorer. He landed on a team with a VERY talented Combo G..Ellis. He has adapted well as I had expected he would. His more REFINED SKILLSET is why he is better now than Jennings.

The Bucks had been a sluggish team,pretty conservative. Jennings added some zip and a dynamic way..even if a bit high risk. It turned out Bogut would get his act together. that's a key. Jennings helped that but Sessions cold have too. Whatever...Curry is a lot more efficient and polished. Jennings has to mature and adapt...and in a few years can be as good. Right now..he isn't.

[BucksRUS]

This arguement is getting pretty old. Curry is playing better than I thought he would. As for the intricacies of his game, I can't respond knowledgeably since I have only seen one or two of the W's games this year. I have seen Jennings in just about every game he has played. His main issue is his shooting %. He is also two years younger than Curry and barely played last year in Europe. I would expect Curry to be more polished, since he played NCAA basketball for a few years.

[Soca]

You're the last person that should be laughing. Who can forget your moronic statement saying the W's made the biggest draftday mistake selecting Curry.

Curry only has five 30pts/10asts games, ranked third behind Wade and LBJ scoring 30 and dishing out 10 or more assists.

Glad to see you're a fan of my work.

Let's be sure to remember that silly thing you posted about Jennings later on down the road...

What the hell does the Warriors team defense have to do with the Curry/Jennings debate? For that matter what does team record really have to do with the argument either? If winning were everything then the best player on the NBA champions would always be the undisputed MVP, but that is not always the case. Besides the Bucks don't have a winning record against the Western
conference.

Winning is everything. That's the point of the damn game. To win. Not to try to put up the prettiest stat line. Jesus tap-dancing Christ...

lol Later down the road Curry will still be more efficient than Jennings. Just face the music, you'll never be able to live down that ridiculous post you made on Curry.

[Star-Lord]

Never ever!?!?

You mean, twenty years from now, people on this board will still be talking about me?

Cool.

Truth is, the only people that seem to remember are you and that one other dude whose sn I never cared to remember... Chances are, you're the only two that'll continue to carry it around...


Pretty pathetic.

[Ruzious]

You don't have any room to laugh at other people, when you're entire argument is based on empty stats. When GS starts playing a reasonable style of ball that doesn't include giving up 4 points a game more than the next worst team, then get back to us.

You can't have it both ways, you can't discount Curry's numbers due to the pace the Warriors play at and then also use a PPG argument against the Warriors... of course they give up more points they play way faster than most other teams. Now the Warriors D sucks once again what does that have to do with a Curry/Jennings debate.

Biedrins was supposed to be one of the up and coming centers in the NBA. When healthy this year, his game regressed. Randolph hasn't progressed as expected when he's been healthy. Jackson didn't want to play for GS. When you have a good PG, those types of things shouldn't happen.

At exactly what point this season was Biedrins healthy? I think most players would have down seasons if they tried to play with pelvic/groin pain. Think about that for a second. Expectations for Randolph were unrealistic, he didn't play much his rookie year and he was a 19 year old second year player this season. Give him till he is 21 to see what he will likely be as a player.

Jennings isn't the biggest reason for the Bucks' success, but it's no coincidence that Bogut's having his best season. They quickly developed a chemistry that has improved the team. And other than those 2, Milwaukee was NOT a talented team, by any stretch of the imagination - until they got Salmons - who Chicago couldn't wait to dump - because he was horribly there. Delfino was a guy nobody wanted. Stackhouse they got for nothing. a Moute was a 2nd round pick tweener forward who still can't shoot. Ilyosova was horrible with Milwaukee his first go round. Bell wouldn't make most NBA rosters. They were hoping guys like Warrick and Alexander would play major roles. So don't hand us excuses about talent.[/quote

]

So what... your GM sucks and the Warrios coach sucks... again what does this have to do with a Curry/Jennings debate?

There's no point in discussing this with you, because you've obviously made up your mind, and you don't pay attention to logic.

[FNQ]

There's no point in discussing this with you, because you've obviously made up your mind, and you don't pay attention to logic.

Is logic when you make up things about the other team and hope they are true?

Biedrins wasnt healthy at any point this season, AR was actually showing big signs of improvement when he went down, and Jack wanted out from day 1 because he was promised that our pick would be traded for right-now help.

I dunno enough about the Bucks to comment on them... but seems pretty hypocritical to bust his ass about a team he hasn't seen, when you're commenting on the W's when you aren't aware of their situation either

[turk3d]

Interestingly Biedrins (who only was able to play 33 games) and was never in good health still managed to lead the team in rebounds and was followed by Randolph. And furthermore, Biedrins had the 8th best rebounding avg (per 40 @ 16.3) and Randolph was 21st. (@ 13.8).

Also interesting is that although Biedrins and Randolph were clearly our best rebounders on by far the worst rebounding team in the league, our coach preferred to only play them minimally (Biedrins averaged 23.1 and Randolph averaged 22.7 mpg) those games they were able to play. Talk about playing with a handicap. Self-imposed to an extent.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Re ... r.offset=0

[gswhoopsman]

Interestingly Biedrins (who only was able to play 33 games) and was never in good health still managed to lead the team in rebounds and was followed by Randolph. And furthermore, Biedrins had the 8th best rebounding avg (per 40 @ 16.3) and Randolph was 21st. (@ 13.8).

Also interesting is that although Biedrins and Randolph were clearly our best rebounders on by far the worst rebounding team in the league, our coach preferred to only play them minimally (Biedrins averaged 23.1 and Randolph averaged 22.7 mpg) those games they were able to play. Talk about playing with a handicap. Self-imposed to an extent.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Re ... r.offset=0

I don't want to hijack this thread, as its not about Nelson/Biedrins, but this post was too much

summary:

Biedrins was struggling with his health, started the season injured, came back too soon/wore himself down/never recovered and then reinjured himself. But the coach should have played him even more minutes...

[gswhoopsman]

Winning is everything. That's the point of the damn game. To win. Not to try to put up the prettiest stat line. Jesus tap-dancing Christ...

Sure..but that doesn't mean every individual player on a winning team is better than every individual player on a losing team.

With such different environments (east vs west, Bogut vs...Chris Hunter, etc.) and such a small sample size (not even a full season) its not really possible at this point to conclude that Jennings game is more conducive to winning ball. So at this point the largest factors we have to go by are stat lines and what we see.

[Soca]

Never ever!?!?

You mean, twenty years from now, people on this board will still be talking about me?

Cool.

Truth is, the only people that seem to remember are you and that one other dude whose sn I never cared to remember... Chances are, you're the only two that'll continue to carry it around...


Pretty pathetic.

You said the warriors made the biggest draftday mistake selecting Curry. lol of course you're hoping no one remembers that horrific statement.

[Star-Lord]

Actually, this may come as a shock to you, but I don't really give a sh*t. There are much, much more embarrassing things to be remembered for, like being some jagoff beat writer covering the local high schools for a once third rate paper that's now a third rate news site like the Rocky Mountain News...

[floppymoose]

Damn, I was websearching to try to find if there was a current thread on whether Curry should be an all star, and I got this thread as a result.

[nickforthreee]

Damn, I was websearching to try to find if there was a current thread on whether Curry should be an all star, and I got this thread as a result.

lol, lots of warrior fans didnt want curry. turned out to be a beast tho

[FNQ]

Damn, I was websearching to try to find if there was a current thread on whether Curry should be an all star, and I got this thread as a result.

lol, lots of warrior fans didnt want curry. turned out to be a beast tho

Nah, just the two... and one ran himself off of RGM by being so brash coupled with incorrect. The other is a former mod that we'll forgive, mainly because if I had posted here pre-draft, I would have said the same thing. In fact I did on another site..

But in fairness, I rarely watch Cinderella teams in the tourney because they rarely produce NBA talent, and any 6'5 or less guard that isn't a clear PG is immediately off my radar. I clearly didn't learn my lesson as I entirely ignored Damian Lillard for the exact same reasons.. and when another Curry/Lillard comes through the draft, I'll ignore them too.. I refuse to learn this lesson.

[ManualRam]

when deciding b/t 2 comparable prospects, take the smarter one over the dumb one.

[TheRobin]

Much, much rather have Jennings. Honestly, I don't get all the Curry hype. Yes, he can shoot. He's not big or fast enough to score any other way, he can't defend any position on the court and he's the definition of a tweener (too small to play SG, not enough PG skills to play the 1). Jennings is a true PG with elite quickness...I'll take that any day over a single-skill guy like Curry.

Honestly, I hope Curry does go top 6 because that means there's absolutely no possibility the Warriors waste #7 on him...

Lolololololololololollolol

[MrBigShot]

Much, much rather have Jennings. Honestly, I don't get all the Curry hype. Yes, he can shoot. He's not big or fast enough to score any other way, he can't defend any position on the court and he's the definition of a tweener (too small to play SG, not enough PG skills to play the 1). Jennings is a true PG with elite quickness...I'll take that any day over a single-skill guy like Curry.

Honestly, I hope Curry does go top 6 because that means there's absolutely no possibility the Warriors waste #7 on him...

Lolololololololololollolol

lol is right. Steph is a better shooter, scorer, better playmaker, has better court vision and is just a smarter player in general. Jennings is a better defender, I'll give him that.

Most NBA GMs would rather have Curry, and the ones that wouldn't would only do so because he's had a few ankle injuries that some feel may be a problem.