Draymond Green discussion...and "californiadude" blackmail.

[turk3d]

I think Festus was a good value pick at thirty...I like him, even with his warts. Great size.

But Drummond is better and would have played some big role with Mark Jackson if we magically picked him at seven. Just because his minutes were X in Detroit tells you exactly nothing about how many minutes he would have played under Jackson. I think it would have been significant.

Of course Mylie, especially with Jackson's development record.

Even though Barnes started all games his first year, do you know in how many of them Jackson played him less than 20 minutes (and this includes games where he doing really well)? 21. U doubt very seriously that Drummond would have flourished with us, but that's just a matter of opinion I guess.

[old rem]

Drummond had a PER of 21.6 as a rookie and Festus 9.7. Drummond would have thrived in Festus' role and that's pretty obvious.

PER is a stupid measure that rewards people for chucking and ignores defense.

PER is the opposite, I have no idea where you're getting that from. It favors players that rebound and that are highly efficient on offense. That's why over half of the top players are PF's and C's.

Either way which style the stats favors is irrelevant because they play the same position and style. It's just a fact that Drummond is twice as productive, much more efficient, much more athletic, and younger. To argue that Ezeli is or was anywhere close to Drummond as a player is idiotic.

Actually.....Drummond IS better...but he's had a lot of opportunity to max his game......pretty much has at this point. Ezeli has similar skillset..including limitations. Drummond is actually a worse shooter in further outside than his wingspan. Drum is real good at using beef and power in close....and Festus can too..but has less experience and for GSW.. there's never been a focus on making festus a top guy. Drummond, D Jordan, Ezeli have a lot in common... but Ezeli hasn't had a real defined role, opportunity, by comparison. Drummond is almost as good as he ever will be. Ezeli won't ever be as good.. but can gain somewhat.

Hard to compare Dray Green to anyone. You have to go back in time to find a good PF who's a tad under 8-8....who seems to do some of everything, who's a leader though hardly yet a veteran. Dray is a VERY effective D guy. He has handles,passes,rebounds. He's a decent 3 shooter. When Iggy is not often doing what we expected he would...Dray is doing all that and a bit more.....but in a bigger body. Look at the Box for the Dallas game. Dray pretty much matched the 7 ft HOF Dirk. Not bad for a guy we found as a rd 2.

[old rem]

With GSW now 20-2.... everyone is looking...wondering HOW the F GSW got so GOOD after decades of mediocre. Well..it's complicated. Obviouasly...having @ super shooters at G breking records for 3's...helps... but note...Barnes 3% is the best on GSW. Bogut is doing great as a D-Reb guy.. but passes,screens verry well. Speights... has been an efficient beast. Best #2 C in the NBA this year...easily. Then there is Dray...the Dancing Bear....part Scottie Pippen, part undersized tough guy. The GSW's.... reflect well how the NBA game has CHANGED. NOW... the NBA has ZONEs and semi zone ..so the classic Shaq/Barkley "back down" don't work now. A "big" won't get to go 1 on 1 in the paint for more than a second. The NBA...like College ball...has had to adapt by being good at zone busting 3 shots...and guess who is best at that? GSW is best at that.

[turk3d]

Article by ESPN on Dray and Mavs game:

http://espn.go.com/blog/golden-state-warriors

[Quazza]

All Star?


hearing some rumblings.....

[Mylie10]

All Star?


hearing some rumblings.....

Those are rumblings in your pants....do the math...there's no way Draymond leaps the All Star competition with 13 points per game.

[Twinkie defense]

That's true... Draymond is a MIP candidate, not All Star.

[Quazza]

All Star?


hearing some rumblings.....

Those are rumblings in your pants....do the math...there's no way Draymond leaps the All Star competition with 13 points per game.

nope - was on ESPN Fantasy in a blurb

[turk3d]

That's true... Draymond is a MIP candidate, not All Star.

Also if he keeps it up, could wind up DPOY which would be interesting because if so, he could wind up the first one to win it, who doesn't get 1st team @ his position, lol. Wouldn't that be something?

[East Bay Sports]

Draymond, DPOY? Pass me what you're smoking, turk. Bogut has a shot if he can get healthy and we finish the season #1 on defense efficiency and defensive FG%.

[turk3d]

Draymond, DPOY? Pass me what you're smoking, turk. Bogut has a shot if he can get healthy and we finish the season #1 on defense efficiency and defensive FG%.

Right now, I think Dray with his ability to guard all 5 positions is the best defensive player in the League. Bogut (if he can stay on the floor) may (and I say may) have a shot @ 1st Team Defensive Center (he should) but it will even tough for him there.

I could see him being worthy of DPOY (right now I'd say he is, although it's TBD at this point whether it will be at seasons end) but there is likely going to be a few PFs who'll get the nod over him # PF. My opinion, has nothing to do with what I've been smoking (I don't smoke btw).

Name someone who's been better than him right now?

[oaktownwarriors87]

quit with the straw man argument about who is better, Drummond or Ezeli - no one is making that argument except you.

Actually that is exactly what was being argued. Truk3d was suggesting that rooke Drummond may not have been as effective as rookie Ezeli. He has made this point multiple times, so I replied with their rookie numbers. You either need to read the thread again or look up the definition of a straw man argument.

I realize what you're saying Onus. What I'm saying is that Festus was a lot more mature than Drummond was (23 yeears old compared to just 19) and didn't have the high expectations that Drummond had and Drummond reportedly had some maturity issues so I think that Festus was better suited for that role when Bogut went down at times.

I just feel that Drummond would have had more difficulty here (especially with our fanbase) and would have been considered a future project and most likely would have taken longer to deveop while we were looking to be making a strong playoff run. I just don't think he would have helped us that much in that regard.

That said, neither Drummond or Ezeli is around to score points, that's not their role, and neither of them are particularly adept at doing it - Drummond is averaging 11.3 ppg this season, which is .1 ppg less than Bogut's career average and about what DeAndre Jordan put up last season. Defensive center scoring numbers.

Actually, Drummond does score points. More than Bogut, Draymond Green, or Harrison Barnes... and twice as much as Ezeli. That' one of the things that makes him so valuable. They don't run plays for him, but he scores points and plenty of them.

These guys are there for their defensive abilities, and PER is a poor measure of defense. If you want to proclaim how great Drummond is I would definitely leave the PER aside.

You're right, PER does not do an adequate job of showing a players defensive impact. I did not say that nor have I have suggested that. I simply showed that Drummond is more than twice as productive. Now, if Ezeli does things out of the box score that Drummond does not you may have an argument. But I highly doubt you or anyone else believe Ezeli does enough outside of the box score to make up for having half the production of a player such as Drummond.

If I were to say Kyle O'Quinn is better than Klay Thompson because he has a higher PER you may have an argument against me and PER as a poor measurement of impact. But not in the case of Ezeli and Drummond. Same position, same style, same role. One player is just significantly better than the other and PER is a simple way to show that.

[turk3d]

quit with the straw man argument about who is better, Drummond or Ezeli - no one is making that argument except you.

Actually that is exactly what was being argued. Truk3d was suggesting that rooke Drummond may not have been as effective as rookie Ezeli. He has made this point multiple times, so I replied with their rookie numbers. You either need to read the thread again or look up the definition of a straw man argument.

I realize what you're saying Onus. What I'm saying is that Festus was a lot more mature than Drummond was (23 yeears old compared to just 19) and didn't have the high expectations that Drummond had and Drummond reportedly had some maturity issues so I think that Festus was better suited for that role when Bogut went down at times.

I just feel that Drummond would have had more difficulty here (especially with our fanbase) and would have been considered a future project and most likely would have taken longer to deveop while we were looking to be making a strong playoff run. I just don't think he would have helped us that much in that regard.

That said, neither Drummond or Ezeli is around to score points, that's not their role, and neither of them are particularly adept at doing it - Drummond is averaging 11.3 ppg this season, which is .1 ppg less than Bogut's career average and about what DeAndre Jordan put up last season. Defensive center scoring numbers.

Actually, Drummond does score points. More than Bogut, Draymond Green, or Harrison Barnes... and twice as much as Ezeli. That' one of the things that makes him so valuable. They don't run plays for him, but he scores points and plenty of them.

These guys are there for their defensive abilities, and PER is a poor measure of defense. If you want to proclaim how great Drummond is I would definitely leave the PER aside.

You're right, PER does not do an adequate job of showing a players defensive impact. I did not say that nor have I have suggested that. I simply showed that Drummond is more than twice as productive. Now, if Ezeli does things out of the box score that Drummond does not you may have an argument. But I highly doubt you or anyone else believe Ezeli does enough outside of the box score to make up for having half the production of a player such as Drummond.

If I were to say Kyle O'Quinn is better than Klay Thompson because he has a higher PER you may have an argument against me and PER as a poor measurement of impact. But not in the case of Ezeli and Drummond. Same position, same style, same role. One player is just significantly better than the other and PER is a great way to show that.

That's not what I said, what I was referring to what he would have done playing for us, and I still maintain that Ezeli was at least as effective (if not more so) that Drummond would have been, which can't be proven false since he played for Detroit that year.

You may not like what I said, but given the choice of where we picked, I would have picked Drummond over Ezeli if he were available but he wasn't. It all goes back to Barnes right? I just don't feel that with Jackson development skills that Drummond would have thrived with us his first two years, that's all. You may not agree, but so what?

Does that mean that in the long term future Drummond won't exceed Ezeli? Of course not but it seems like you think that's what I was trying to imply. Drummond surely has the greater upside (not even close) and I doubt that anyoe (including me) is disputing that. I was just talking short term and there is obvious disagreement on that.

I think he was better off winding up in a rebuilding team such as Detroit than he would be on a team that is trying to get to be a serious playoff contender and which has what they believe to be a franchise Center already. Another plus for Ezeli who's probably better suited as a backup, wheras Drummond might be better suited as a starter, but probably not on a contender, at least right now.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Truk3d was suggesting that rookie Drummond may not have been as effective as rookie Ezeli.

That's not what I said... Ezeli was at least as effective (if not more so) that Drummond would have been

OH MY GOD CAN YOU NOT READ YOUR OWN POST?!?!

which can't be proven false since he played for Detroit that year.

You're right, it can't be proven false, because technically nothing can be proven true ore false.

After all, gravity is still just a theory, right?

[Onus]

quit with the straw man argument about who is better, Drummond or Ezeli - no one is making that argument except you.

Actually that is exactly what was being argued. Truk3d was suggesting that rooke Drummond may not have been as effective as rookie Ezeli. He has made this point multiple times, so I replied with their rookie numbers. You either need to read the thread again or look up the definition of a straw man argument.

I realize what you're saying Onus. What I'm saying is that Festus was a lot more mature than Drummond was (23 yeears old compared to just 19) and didn't have the high expectations that Drummond had and Drummond reportedly had some maturity issues so I think that Festus was better suited for that role when Bogut went down at times.

I just feel that Drummond would have had more difficulty here (especially with our fanbase) and would have been considered a future project and most likely would have taken longer to deveop while we were looking to be making a strong playoff run. I just don't think he would have helped us that much in that regard.

That said, neither Drummond or Ezeli is around to score points, that's not their role, and neither of them are particularly adept at doing it - Drummond is averaging 11.3 ppg this season, which is .1 ppg less than Bogut's career average and about what DeAndre Jordan put up last season. Defensive center scoring numbers.

Actually, Drummond does score points. More than Bogut, Draymond Green, or Harrison Barnes... and twice as much as Ezeli. That' one of the things that makes him so valuable. They don't run plays for him, but he scores points and plenty of them.

These guys are there for their defensive abilities, and PER is a poor measure of defense. If you want to proclaim how great Drummond is I would definitely leave the PER aside.

You're right, PER does not do an adequate job of showing a players defensive impact. I did not say that nor have I have suggested that. I simply showed that Drummond is more than twice as productive. Now, if Ezeli does things out of the box score that Drummond does not you may have an argument. But I highly doubt you or anyone else believe Ezeli does enough outside of the box score to make up for having half the production of a player such as Drummond.

If I were to say Kyle O'Quinn is better than Klay Thompson because he has a higher PER you may have an argument against me and PER as a poor measurement of impact. But not in the case of Ezeli and Drummond. Same position, same style, same role. One player is just significantly better than the other and PER is a great way to show that.

That's not what I said, what I was referring to what he would have done playing for us, and I still maintain that Ezeli was at least as effective (if not more so) that Drummond would have been, which can't be proven false since he played for Detroit that year.

You may not like what I said, but given the choice of where we picked, I would have picked Drummond over Ezeli if he were available but he wasn't. It all goes back to Barnes right? I just don't feel that with Jackson development skills that Drummond would have thrived with us his first two years, that's all. You may not agree, but so what?

Does that mean that in the long term future Drummond won't exceed Ezeli? Of course not but it seems like you think that's what I was trying to imply. Drummond surely has the greater upside (not even close) and I doubt that anyoe (including me) is disputing that. I was just talking short term and there is obvious disagreement on that.

I think he was better off winding up in a rebuilding team such as Detroit than he would be on a team that is trying to get to be a serious playoff contender and which has what they believe to be a franchise Center already. Another plus for Ezeli who's probably better suited as a backup, wheras Drummond might be better suited as a starter, but probably not on a contender, at least right now.

Yea I'm sure Drummond who was more effective than Ezeli in a worse situation would be less effective in a better situation, because that's usually the case

Short term/Long term Drummond was better/is better/ most likely will be better

[turk3d]

Truk3d was suggesting that rookie Drummond may not have been as effective as rookie Ezeli.

That's not what I said

Ezeli was at least as effective (if not more so) that Drummond would have been

OH MY GOD CAN YOU NOT READ YOUR OWN POST?!?!

which can't be proven false since he played for Detroit that year.

You're right, it can't be proven false, because technically nothing can be proven true ore false.

If you're going to quote me, at least learn how to spell my name right and try not to just display part of what I said instead of the whole thing?

I hate to have to revisit all this but I'll do it for your benefit: Here's the relevant posts that I made:

I just feel that Drummond would have had more difficulty here (especially with our fanbase) and would have been considered a future project and most likely would have taken longer to deveop while we were looking to be making a strong playoff run. I just don't think he would have helped us that much in that regard.

Once we got Bogut, I see very little opportunity for Drummond to get minutes (who knew that Bogut was going to go down to injury) and I never said I thought that Ezeli was better than Drummond, what I said that under the circumstances, he was a better fit and probably more NBA ready which he proved to be on a playoff bound team.

Even on that weak Dtroit team, Drummond averaged < 22 mpg (which happens to be what he's averaged his entire NBA career). And that's without filling our need for a SF (this was prior to Iggy's acquisition) which Barnes filled and helped us during the playoffs. People just love those dead horse around here.

Particularly note the bold and underlined. Why not put the entire quote down instead of the part you want to try and make it look I said something that you probably know wasn't meant without any context?

[oaktownwarriors87]

Truk3d was suggesting that rookie Drummond may not have been as effective as rookie Ezeli.

That's not what I said

Ezeli was at least as effective (if not more so) that Drummond would have been

OH MY GOD CAN YOU NOT READ YOUR OWN POST?!?!

which can't be proven false since he played for Detroit that year.

You're right, it can't be proven false, because technically nothing can be proven true ore false.

If you're going to quote me, at least learn how to spell my name right and try not to just display part of what I said instead of the whole thing?

I hate to have to revisit all this but I'll do it for your benefit: Here's the relevant posts that I made:

I just feel that Drummond would have had more difficulty here (especially with our fanbase) and would have been considered a future project and most likely would have taken longer to deveop while we were looking to be making a strong playoff run. I just don't think he would have helped us that much in that regard.

Once we got Bogut, I see very little opportunity for Drummond to get minutes (who knew that Bogut was going to go down to injury) and I never said I thought that Ezeli was better than Drummond, what I said that under the circumstances, he was a better fit and probably more NBA ready which he proved to be on a playoff bound team.

Even on that weak Dtroit team, Drummond averaged < 22 mpg (which happens to be what he's averaged his entire NBA career). And that's without filling our need for a SF (this was prior to Iggy's acquisition) which Barnes filled and helped us during the playoffs. People just love those dead horse around here.

Particularly note the bold and underlined. Why not put the entire quote down instead of the part you want to try and make it look I said something that you probably know wasn't meant without any context?

Did I say "Turk3d says Ezeli is better than Drummond"? NO.

What I said:
"Truk3d was suggesting that rookie Drummond may not have been as effective as rookie Ezeli."

What you said:
"Ezeli was at least as effective (if not more so) that Drummond would have been"

Please, tell me where am I misrepresenting your opinion or what you said? I am arguing that rookie Drummound wold have no doubt been better. You are clearly arguing that rookie Ezelie "was at least as effective (if not more so)."

Also, reducing your argument to spelling and all this mindless nitpicking reeks of desperation. Please stop.

[turk3d]

OH MY GOD CAN YOU NOT READ YOUR OWN POST?!?!



You're right, it can't be proven false, because technically nothing can be proven true ore false.

If you're going to quote me, at least learn how to spell my name right and try not to just display part of what I said instead of the whole thing?

I hate to have to revisit all this but I'll do it for your benefit: Here's the relevant posts that I made:

I just feel that Drummond would have had more difficulty here (especially with our fanbase) and would have been considered a future project and most likely would have taken longer to deveop while we were looking to be making a strong playoff run. I just don't think he would have helped us that much in that regard.

Once we got Bogut, I see very little opportunity for Drummond to get minutes (who knew that Bogut was going to go down to injury) and I never said I thought that Ezeli was better than Drummond, what I said that under the circumstances, he was a better fit and probably more NBA ready which he proved to be on a playoff bound team.

Even on that weak Dtroit team, Drummond averaged < 22 mpg (which happens to be what he's averaged his entire NBA career). And that's without filling our need for a SF (this was prior to Iggy's acquisition) which Barnes filled and helped us during the playoffs. People just love those dead horse around here.

Particularly note the bold and underlined. Why not put the entire quote down instead of the part you want to try and make it look I said something that you probably know wasn't meant without any context?

Did I say "Turk3d says Ezeli is better than Drummond"? NO.

What I said:
"Truk3d was suggesting that rookie Drummond may not have been as effective as rookie Ezeli."

What you said:
"Ezeli was at least as effective (if not more so) that Drummond would have been"if he played for the Warriors his first year.
What's wrong with you dude?

Please, tell me where am I misrepresenting your opinion or what you said? I am arguing that rookie Drummound wold have no doubt been better. You are clearly arguing that rookie Ezelie "was at least as effective (if not more so) playing for the Warriors than Drummond would have been."

in the context IF Drummond played for us his first year. Read all I've wrote on the subject, not just what you want to read.

You please stop.

[azwfan]

Ok, this is the 2nd time i've seen "gravity is just a theory" come up (who the hell knows why this is coming up in a thread about Draymond Green).

Gravity is not a theory, its a law.

Big Bang, Evolution, those are theories... use one of those.

[Twinkie defense]

Last night, Draymond with 11 points (5/11 shooting), 13 rebounds, 5 assists, 1 steal, 4 blocks, one elbow to the melon, and some big defensive plays (loved where he forced a jump ball with one hand).

Who the heck wants to trade this guy for Drummond? Are you crazy!?