ALL HAIL wrote:Domejandro wrote:Takingbaconback wrote:Rofl how is Randle a definitive sophomore player in terms of evalution? He didn't even play his first year and had to rehabilitate back.
He's officially a 2nd year player with rookie experience.
That's like saying you were accepted into med school and you couldn't participate at all because you were hospitalized for the entire school year but being expected to know everything a first year went through.
I would agree that he should be looked at differently in evaluation, much like Jabari Parker. That said, the suggestion that we should simply ignore the rule and pretend he is a rookie because of circumstance is ridiculous. As stated, I have no problem with him being posted in this thread, but I will not back down on my statement that he is "absolutely" not a rookie by any objective standard. Subjectively you can look at circumstance and consider him a rookie, much of which I would agree with, but due to the minutes he played in his first season (yes, all fourteen of them), he is technically not a rookie. Frankly, looking at my posts, I am confused where your retort of evaluation even comes from, as I never suggested as much, but nonetheless, Julius Randle is not a rookie, haha.
As a side-note, for the love of God nobody turn this around as me disliking Julius Randle, I had him as my third favourite prospect after Joel Embiid's injury; that is a silly assumption that I want to clear the air on right away.
If you understand what you say you understand, then why is it "borderline obnoxious" to see him called a rookie? Why does it annoy you so ... when you say you understand the "circumstance"?
If you put a rock in between your butt cheeks, can you make a diamond? For you, I'm guessing yes.
So what a guy keeps calling Randle a rookie. That guys knows he's not eligible for ROY. He probably thinks the rule is stupid -- and he wouldn't be alone.
Are you that much of a slave to rules and laws that you're only capable of seeing things for how they are instead of seeing things for how they should be?
I guess if the internet were around a hundred years ago you'd find it "borderline obnoxious" if a poster was referring to Black folks as "people" when the law/rule clearly stated they were property.
A rules a rule though, huh?
I have defended him multiple times throughout the thread that he should be able to post about Julius Randle. That said, it has been explained to him why Julius Randle is not a rookie, but he clearly is insisting that Randle is. To be frank, I am somewhat indifferent, as it is far from a horrible thing that he does so, but I was merely making an observation, an observation that is perfectly valid to make, in my opinion. The dude is simply not a rookie, and that same poster has continually pushed him as one; that is silly.
I will ignore the ridiculous false equivalence and simply address your point above it.
Julius Randle being a rookie or not should not be a point of contention. Yes, it is unfortunate that the rule is structured how it currently is, but there is a certain standard that needs to be held; creating some arbitrary cut-off point would be less than unnecessary. I see no reason why Julius Randle should
technically be considered a rookie. As I have tried to "hammer home" multiple times, I see no reason anyone should be perturbed that Randle should be posted in this thread, that would be silly; that said, he is not a rookie and should not be advertised as such, in my opinion. He is impressive enough as a player on his own merits, applying the label "rookie" to him repeatedly when it is not accurate, nor necessary is silly.
ALL HAIL wrote:You better not utter a single word of complaint, Dome, if the police pull you over today for going 36 in a 35.
Speeding is speeding, right?
If I need to explain why this is a false-equivalence, I will be more than happy to do so.
