Towns or Okafor or Mudiay or Russel?

[CKamm1]

No. I'm saying something other than what you think.

Shooting in general can be an overrated thing -- not saying Steph's shooting is overrated, at all. Saying that if that's your best strength, which for him it clearly is, players can get a little overrated on that basis. "at some level" -- meaning that after you are past a certain point of really good shooting, additional accuracy can be less important than whether you can pass and make plays.

The perfect point guard is not a guy who shoots it off the charts (as Steph does) but has some weaknesses -- the perfect PG is a really good shooter, playmaker, defender and has the speed and skill to kill you off the dribble too. Great shooters can often not find their shot as easily late game and that becomes problematic.

I think even Durant suffers from this a LITTLE and he's the tallest/best shooter in the game. Dirk made his mark as a great shooter because he has the size and moves to free up his jumper. I think Durant needs to start adding some pet moves and pay attention to the placement and pet moves that Dirk developed to reliably go to when he needed them.

Durant gets by on his great talent more than this -- he has work to do IMO. So yeah, I'm not calling either guy anything but really good players, but I think they're a tad overrated yes and need to do more to be truly great.

Steph also turns it over quite a bit as a footnote, so that detracts from his playmaking too obviously, though StephNYKurry seems to ignore this for some reason. He's up over 3 TOPG.

"Durant and Curry are a tad overrated and need to do more to be truly great." For christ's sakes you have to be kidding me. And that was only maybe the third most ridiculous thing you said.

You too are basically misunderstanding me lol. They are top players but to the extent people think they're finished products, already in the HOF and have done everything they need to do individually to win a championship -- which is basically what most fans think -- I disagree. To win titles and establish themselves as all-time greats, they need to perfect their games and round them out. They need to work on footwork and moves that will make the most of their great jumpers. I don't think they're there yet. If Dirk had not worked on it and gotten better, he'd be a great shooter with no titles.

A thing as simple as working on 1 or 2 unstoppable moves that you can go to in the clutch is big. Right now Durant uses his height and speed to get to the basket at will -- I'm not sure that's good enough. Durant is to me closer to already great great than Steph.

Too many people fall in love with stats and the NBA marketing machine. I mean really what have Steph and Durant done to warrant scoffing at the idea that they should work to mold their talents into better players? Not much. Steph never in a Finals and Durant's team got handled easily in his one Finals. The bar just keeps getting lower. As long as a guy is talented and flashy and can shoot, he's untouchable and beyond critique?

Gimme a break.

Your threshold is absurd. There's not a player ever who couldn't have added something to their game and been better. Those 2 can never get an ounce better and be first ballot no doubt hall of famers.

What does whether they've been in the finals or not have to do with them as individual players?

[K_ick_God]

"Durant and Curry are a tad overrated and need to do more to be truly great." For christ's sakes you have to be kidding me. And that was only maybe the third most ridiculous thing you said.

You too are basically misunderstanding me lol. They are top players but to the extent people think they're finished products, already in the HOF and have done everything they need to do individually to win a championship -- which is basically what most fans think -- I disagree. To win titles and establish themselves as all-time greats, they need to perfect their games and round them out. They need to work on footwork and moves that will make the most of their great jumpers. I don't think they're there yet. If Dirk had not worked on it and gotten better, he'd be a great shooter with no titles.

A thing as simple as working on 1 or 2 unstoppable moves that you can go to in the clutch is big. Right now Durant uses his height and speed to get to the basket at will -- I'm not sure that's good enough. Durant is to me closer to already great great than Steph.

Too many people fall in love with stats and the NBA marketing machine. I mean really what have Steph and Durant done to warrant scoffing at the idea that they should work to mold their talents into better players? Not much. Steph never in a Finals and Durant's team got handled easily in his one Finals. The bar just keeps getting lower. As long as a guy is talented and flashy and can shoot, he's untouchable and beyond critique?

Gimme a break.

Your threshold is absurd. There's not a player ever who couldn't have added something to their game and been better. Those 2 can never get an ounce better and be first ballot no doubt hall of famers.

What does whether they've been in the finals or not have to do with them as individual players?

See I think this is the new generation of bar-lowering. Yeah both are awesome shooters. No doubt. That's not enough to me. Are they otherwise skilled beyond shooting? Yeah. Still not good enough. Dirk, Pierce -- these guys perfected their games and became great. Even a guy like Tony Parker. Wade of course.

I'll remind you that Durant was pretty bad in the playoffs a couple years ago. He was clanking shots late in a decisive game and the Thunder lost. Actually him having that poor playoff game proves my point entirely -- pure shooting, even from a great shooter, is often not enough when it counts the most. Are you challenging the notion that playoffs are really all that matters for separating the All-Stars from the game's best players? Is regular season all that matters to you? I guess you also think Harden is one of the best 2-guards ever. I don't.

They'll get into the HOF okay, but that's not the point. The titles, evidencing the perfection of one's game, are the main point. I threw in HOF as one of the criteria, not sufficient by itself because it is driven largely by stats.

To upset you some more, I also think Chris Paul is a tad overrated. These are guys that I think are perennial All-Stars with great numbers -- yeah they'll probably all get into the HOF (not sure Steph yet but probably soon) -- but who also haven't gotten over the final hump yet.

I don't think it's even controversial really to say that I don't think Steph Curry has proven himself one of the greats of our time. Please. On Durant, it's more controversial but I think he's not there yet. Yes he's already one of the most talented and prolific scorers of his time, high on the list. That's not really what I'm saying though. Melo is a great scorer too. But I don't think he's accomplished what he needs to in order to get to the mountaintop.

[beasonu]

Im surprised the dangelo bandwagon still hasnt picked up

ive been riding it since his game in minny
yall killin me. hes the man we gotta get

[E-Balla]

Your threshold is absurd. There's not a player ever who couldn't have added something to their game and been better. Those 2 can never get an ounce better and be first ballot no doubt hall of famers.

What does whether they've been in the finals or not have to do with them as individual players?

See I think this is the new generation of bar-lowering. Yeah both are awesome shooters. No doubt. That's not enough to me. Are they otherwise skilled beyond shooting? Yeah. Still not good enough. Dirk, Pierce -- these guys perfected their games and became great. Even a guy like Tony Parker. Wade of course.

Meanwhile in the real world Curry is better than Parker and Pierce could ever be and KD is better than all of those guys when healthy. Curry and Durant are the 2 best players in the NBA right now whether you like it or not.

I'll remind you that Durant was pretty bad in the playoffs a couple years ago. He was clanking shots late in a decisive game and the Thunder lost. Actually him having that poor playoff game proves my point entirely -- pure shooting, even from a great shooter, is often not enough when it counts the most. Are you challenging the notion that playoffs are really all that matters for separating the All-Stars from the game's best players? Is regular season all that matters to you? I guess you also think Harden is one of the best 2-guards ever. I don't.

I'd also like to remind you that KD is 4th all time in playoffs PPG and that he's led a team to the Finals behind his great performances (along with WB). Didn't win while there but he's still young. One game doesn't change all the times he's stepped up.

They'll get into the HOF okay, but that's not the point. The titles, evidencing the perfection of one's game, are the main point. I threw in HOF as one of the criteria, not sufficient by itself even because it is driven largely by stats.

To upset you some more, I also think Chris Paul is a tad overrated. These are guys that I think are perennial All-Stars with great numbers -- yeah they'll probably all get into the HOF (not sure Steph yet but probably soon) -- but who also haven't gotten over the final hump yet.

I don't think it's even controversial really to say that I don't think Steph Curry has proven himself one of the greats of our time. Please. On Durant, it's more controversial but I think he's not there yet. Yes he's already one of the most talented and prolific scorers of his time, high on the list. That's not really what I'm saying though. Melo is a great scorer too. But I don't think he's accomplished what he needs to in order to get to the mountaintop.

Steph Curry is about to lead a ~65 win team and win MVP. Name one guy who's done that that isn't one of the greats? And KD has accomplished everything Karl Malone or Chuck has. Are they great?

[K_ick_God]

Just on stats alone .... Steph has 2 years of 20 PPG and 1 partial year. He has had 1 season of over 8 APG and 1 partial year. Again, give me a break. Stephon Marbury did 20 and 8 longer in his career and it still ended in disaster and tragedy. Not a good career really, not a good player, nada, none of it. Steph (Marbury) sucked.

Do I like Steph Curry better? Yes I do. I actually like him a lot, that's the funny part. It's just not all about shooting and numbers and relatively SHORT-term success. What have you done for me lately? Y'all are probably the same people who'd take him off your list of greats if he has 2 bad games (he was recently outplayed by erratic D-Rose by the way).

And obviously, by the outrage you guys are expressing at me daring to say Steph C is a tad overrated .... You'd be the same people who would have *definitely* told us in 2002 that Stephon Marbury was a fully dominant and awesome player, and how dare anyone say he's got a ways to go. You would have been outraged back then too right? Of course you would have. But anyone saying it was not a done deal yet would have been absolutely right. So hold your ponies.

LOL at already jumping to the conclusion on Steph's current season. That's another form of bar-lowering. 55% of a season -- good enough for me! Hmmm it used to be you needed multiple seasons, titles, etc. Now it's 55% and good stats and regular season wins. The greatest of all time!

You could call Durant greater than Dirk. Most probably do. I don't. That's where the tad overrated thing comes in for me. When your numbers and hype are a little better than your results, you're overrated. Kind of by definition. And I said a tad, which is generous. Durant needs some perfection and a title. Not far. Then I'll say he's complete. Steph? Farther to go probably.

[K_ick_God]

... Oh and he's also shooting the lowest 3-point percentage of his career this season ... by a considerable amount.

Hold your ponies.

[Dantares]

Im surprised the dangelo bandwagon still hasnt picked up

ive been riding it since his game in minny
yall killin me. hes the man we gotta get

D'angelo in the triangle would be incredible, there is something about him, he's just got that it factor.

Okafor
Mudiay
Russell
Towns

Is how i rank them. I am least excited about towns because i think he may take a few years to develope.

[FemaleDogPlease]

Im surprised the dangelo bandwagon still hasnt picked up

ive been riding it since his game in minny
yall killin me. hes the man we gotta get

Not really. Once workouts start he will fall again. Probably will be a top 10 picks but I doubt he sneaks into the top 3.

[siar617]

Because I have not seen him I rank Mudiay last with Towns Russel Okafor ahead in that order.

[CKamm1]

Just on stats alone .... Steph has 2 years of 20 PPG and 1 partial year. He has had 1 season of over 8 APG and 1 partial year. Again, give me a break. Stephon Marbury did 20 and 8 longer in his career and it still ended in disaster and tragedy. Not a good career really, not a good player, nada, none of it. Steph (Marbury) sucked.

Do I like Steph Curry better? Yes I do. I actually like him a lot, that's the funny part. It's just not all about shooting and numbers and relatively SHORT-term success. What have you done for me lately? Y'all are probably the same people who'd take him off your list of greats if he has 2 bad games (he was recently outplayed by erratic D-Rose by the way).

And obviously, by the outrage you guys are expressing at me daring to say Steph C is a tad overrated .... You'd be the same people who would have *definitely* told us in 2002 that Stephon Marbury was a fully dominant and awesome player, and how dare anyone say he's got a ways to go. You would have been outraged back then too right? Of course you would have. But anyone saying it was not a done deal yet would have been absolutely right. So hold your ponies.

LOL at already jumping to the conclusion on Steph's current season. That's another form of bar-lowering. 55% of a season -- good enough for me! Hmmm it used to be you needed multiple seasons, titles, etc. Now it's 55% and good stats and regular season wins. The greatest of all time!

You could call Durant greater than Dirk. Most probably do. I don't. That's where the tad overrated thing comes in for me. When your numbers and hype are a little better than your results, you're overrated. Kind of by definition. And I said a tad, which is generous. Durant needs some perfection and a title. Not far. Then I'll say he's complete. Steph? Farther to go probably.

90% of what you typed is putting words in people's mouths that they never said. No one said anything about Marbury nor is their anything remotely comparable about him and Curry beyond some superficial raw numbers. I didn't think it needed to be expressly spelled out that any talk about Curry's career, at just age 26 in his year 6 season, is relying on a good bit of extrapolation. The only point was even if this is the apex of his game, as long as he continues to play at or near this level for a number of years, he is an all time great. I agree with you Durant has more of a track record, he's already an all timer and one of the most unique players in league history. By what possible standard have their results not matched their hype?

I have no clue why you keep saying these guys need titles. We're talking about individuals.

Also, you said he got outplayed recently by Derrick Rose- Rose was 13-33 from the field with 1 assist and 11 turnovers. Rose quite possible played the worst game of all time by a guy who scored 30 points.

[CKamm1]

... Oh and he's also shooting the lowest 3-point percentage of his career this season ... by a considerable amount.

Hold your ponies.

When the lowest percentage of your career is 39% on over 7 attempts a game, it isn't "hold your ponies" it's "holy crap that's amazing"

[CKamm1]

I'll remind you that Durant was pretty bad in the playoffs a couple years ago. He was clanking shots late in a decisive game and the Thunder lost. Actually him having that poor playoff game proves my point entirely -- pure shooting, even from a great shooter, is often not enough when it counts the most.

He's averaged an f'n 30 and 9 over the past 2 playoffs, you're just spouting absolute nonsense

To upset you some more, I also think Chris Paul is a tad overrated. These are guys that I think are perennial All-Stars with great numbers -- yeah they'll probably all get into the HOF (not sure Steph yet but probably soon) -- but who also haven't gotten over the final hump yet.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/death ... f-success/

"Paul has made the playoffs six times; he has led the league in postseason player efficiency rating in three of those six trips. His career playoff PER is 25.0. Here is the list of players who have logged at least 1,000 postseason minutes and exceeded that number: Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Shaquille O’Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon, George Mikan. That’s the list."

"Paul has generally done well in big moments. He has outshot almost every superstar in crunch time, and he’s a tidy 18-of-36 in the last five minutes2 of playoff games in which the score has been within five points. He’s missed some big shots, and he’s suffered his fair share of boners; his turnover rate has spiked badly in several playoff seasons.

Guess what. This is exactly what you’d expect from a little guy who has supervised just about every important offensive possession for his team since the day he walked into the league. Paul has more hits than misses, and that’s rare for crunch time, when shooting percentages drop and even stars wilt under increased defensive attention."

[K_ick_God]

You have some fair points but I'm not persuaded to leave my bottom line. 30 and 9, great numbers from Steph, etc. Nobody is denying that. Getting over the hump to greatness is more than that to me. When a guy is judged as already absolutely great -- without equivocation (this is THE key) -- but hasn't gotten to the top of his potential and has work to do to achieve true lasting greatness, then to me that's being overrated ... from the rating of being beyond critique or doubt. Marbury was an example but far from the only guy who was overrated early on and then went on a downward trajectory.

Doesn't mean I don't think really highly of the guys, but doesn't mean they're not overrated too.

And I don't really buy that the people who love Durant and Steph C now, without any doubts, are not on the whole the same ones who'd be in true blue love with Marbury in 2002. It's the whole mentality of a guy with big numbers and big talent has to be worshiped as basketball Gods already. No. The both have to make the next leap. Yeah that goes for a lot of guys. Right ... a lot of guys are overrated.

Do you think Harden is overrated? Yes or no. Because his numbers are also extremely good. You're just saying that you think Curry and Durant are special. But these guys are all in the same boat to me ... KD, SC, Harden, Melo. They all have more to prove.

FWIW this is kind of different from predicting who we think WILL improve their weaknesses and be consistently great ... the way Dirk grew and established himself as an unequivocal all-time great of the game. If I had to predict, I'd say Durant is likely to get there if he recognizes he has work to do. Steph? 50-50 at best to me. I don't think the Warriors are winning the title this year and I don't think Steph is going to be the best player in the PLAYOFFS even if he does win MVP. Rose won MVP and then choked out against the Cavs in the playoffs that same year.

[Governor Dudley]

I'm happy if we get any1 of them, most happy with Okafor or Russell though.

It's gonna be a real Sophie's choice if they get that 1st pick. Russell will continue to rise.

[fresko024]

Based on everything I'm reading in the media, Okafor is going first.

I would much rather draft Russell or Mudiay and sign Asik and Leonard, Butler, or Mathews in the offseason.

We don't need a big man who can't play defense and is a mediocre rebounder.


IN PHIL WE TRUST #KNICKSTAPE

[E-Balla]

Just on stats alone .... Steph has 2 years of 20 PPG and 1 partial year. He has had 1 season of over 8 APG and 1 partial year. Again, give me a break. Stephon Marbury did 20 and 8 longer in his career and it still ended in disaster and tragedy. Not a good career really, not a good player, nada, none of it. Steph (Marbury) sucked.

Do I like Steph Curry better? Yes I do. I actually like him a lot, that's the funny part. It's just not all about shooting and numbers and relatively SHORT-term success. What have you done for me lately? Y'all are probably the same people who'd take him off your list of greats if he has 2 bad games (he was recently outplayed by erratic D-Rose by the way).

Yikes this is a terrible start to a terrible series of posts. Where did Stephon Marbury come from? Has he ever been more than a barely All-Star? Has he ever been All-Pro? Stephon Marbury is a Joe Johnson level guy - Curry is getting MVP votes. No matter what happens from now on in his career Steph is a Hall of Famer just from being the best 3 point shooter in NCAA history and leading Davidson and following that up by becoming the best 3 point shooter in NBA History over a 3 year period and a legit MVP candidate. If you can't tell what separates Curry from Starbury you have the basketball analysis skills of Isiah Thomas after having his skull bashed in with a rock.

And obviously, by the outrage you guys are expressing at me daring to say Steph C is a tad overrated .... You'd be the same people who would have *definitely* told us in 2002 that Stephon Marbury was a fully dominant and awesome player, and how dare anyone say he's got a ways to go. You would have been outraged back then too right? Of course you would have. But anyone saying it was not a done deal yet would have been absolutely right. So hold your ponies.

If you had any remotely decent points to your argument no one would contest your point. In 02 Stephon Marbury was on the uptick but couldn't even make the All Star game. At no point in his career was he ever dominant or barely All Pro level (my bad he was in 05 - that first year in NY).

LOL at already jumping to the conclusion on Steph's current season. That's another form of bar-lowering. 55% of a season -- good enough for me! Hmmm it used to be you needed multiple seasons, titles, etc. Now it's 55% and good stats and regular season wins. The greatest of all time!

55% of one of the 5 best seasons a team has ever had is pretty good. Post Merger the Warriors are one of 4 teams to have a 10+ SRS so far. Those other teams are the 96 & 97 Bulls (who played in a recently expanded league) and the 92 Bulls. THe only team with a 9+ SRS to not win a ring post merger is the 2013 Thunder who only won 60 games and had their second best player go down in the 2nd game of the post season. Also Steph has been the greatest shooter for years. Maybe having the record for most 3's in a season and literally having the 3 best shooting single seasons of all time back to back to (almost) back is what makes him great unless 3 years isn't multiple to you.

You could call Durant greater than Dirk. Most probably do. I don't. That's where the tad overrated thing comes in for me. When your numbers and hype are a little better than your results, you're overrated. Kind of by definition. And I said a tad, which is generous. Durant needs some perfection and a title. Not far. Then I'll say he's complete. Steph? Farther to go probably.

If you are saying KD is overrated because he's not as good as Dirk (a man called not great by people like you because he didn't win a ring) that's fine. I still want to know if you think Clyde Drexler, Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, etc. are great?

... Oh and he's also shooting the lowest 3-point percentage of his career this season ... by a considerable amount.

Hold your ponies.

Seriously? He's shooting 7.6 threes a game at 39%. The fact that that's his lowest ever is more than enough proof that he's the best.

People seriously disrespect Steph and it's mind boggling. What more could he have done to this point to prove he was great? I mean he comes back every year better than the last in ways no one could imagine (did anyone expect him to come back this season and magically finish inside better than most bigmen) and I've even seen people criticize his shooting in the playoffs (where he's a career 39% shooter on 9! threes a game).

If Stephen Curry gets injured after this season ends he's still been one of the 5 best PGs to ever lace them up (with Magic, Oscar, and Nash being the only one's clearly better) and if KD goes down tomorrow he's still one of the 5 best SFs to lace them up (along with Dr. J, Lebron, and Bird).

[Juco24]

Tonight we'll see how good J.O. is as Duke plays@ UVA, a Stingy defensive oriented team. Looking forward to it

[alphad0gz]

Okafor, the pick with the most upside in the draft.

That is totally untrue. He is the player closest to his ceiling of the top picks. He will be very good, but he is not going to be much different than he is now. The others are more raw but Towns, for example, has nearly unlimited potential. He is just scratching the surface.

[alphad0gz]

[/quote]

Your threshold is absurd. There's not a player ever who couldn't have added something to their game and been better. Those 2 can never get an ounce better and be first ballot no doubt hall of famers.

What does whether they've been in the finals or not have to do with them as individual players?[/quote]

See I think this is the new generation of bar-lowering. Yeah both are awesome shooters. No doubt. That's not enough to me. Are they otherwise skilled beyond shooting? Yeah. Still not good enough. Dirk, Pierce -- these guys perfected their games and became great. Even a guy like Tony Parker. Wade of course.

I'll remind you that Durant was pretty bad in the playoffs a couple years ago. He was clanking shots late in a decisive game and the Thunder lost. Actually him having that poor playoff game proves my point entirely -- pure shooting, even from a great shooter, is often not enough when it counts the most. Are you challenging the notion that playoffs are really all that matters for separating the All-Stars from the game's best players? Is regular season all that matters to you? I guess you also think Harden is one of the best 2-guards ever. I don't.

They'll get into the HOF okay, but that's not the point. The titles, evidencing the perfection of one's game, are the main point. I threw in HOF as one of the criteria, not sufficient by itself because it is driven largely by stats.

To upset you some more, I also think Chris Paul is a tad overrated. These are guys that I think are perennial All-Stars with great numbers -- yeah they'll probably all get into the HOF (not sure Steph yet but probably soon) -- but who also haven't gotten over the final hump yet.

I don't think it's even controversial really to say that I don't think Steph Curry has proven himself one of the greats of our time. Please. On Durant, it's more controversial but I think he's not there yet. Yes he's already one of the most talented and prolific scorers of his time, high on the list. That's not really what I'm saying though. Melo is a great scorer too. But I don't think he's accomplished what he needs to in order to get to the mountaintop.[/quote]

Yeah...you're pretty crazy on this one, KG. Both of those guys have much more to their game than shooting. If there career path just stays the same, they will likely be considered top 50 players.

[StephNYKurry]

Seems like a thread that has turned into people trying to look like "smartest guy in the room"

This is not a difficult exercise. If you've been watching basketball for a while and you've watched Stephen Curry, you understand.