Say hello to your #1 pick in the 2008 NBA Draft....

Post #81 » by **Ruzious** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:53 pm

NO-KG-AI wrote:I don't see it happening, but Rose could be the best PG in the league if he maxes out his potential.

Can we say the same about Beasley?

No.

Beasley won't be the best PG in the Association. :cheesygrin:

AQuintus · Post #82 » by **AQuintus** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:53 pm

NO-KG-AI wrote:I don't see it happening, but Rose could be the best PG in the league if he maxes out his potential.

Can we say the same about Beasley?

I can't be 100 % certain, but I think I can confidently say that Beasley will never, at any point in his career, be the best PG in the league.

CB4MiamiHeat wrote:yea, why not?

by the time he hits his prime, KG and TD maybe would decline a bit.

So his main competition would be Dirk, Bosh, Boozer, Brand, Amare, West ..? Most the guys on the list are not known for their defense, so theres a good chance he can be the best at his position.

Beasley is just as weak on defense, if not more so, then any of the players on that list.

Tony Parker, Arenas?, AI?, declining Nash, Kidd.Where as Rose's main competition is Chris Paul, Deron Williams,

By the time Rose is beginning his prime, AI, Nash, and Kidd will all be in their mid 40s. Parker and Arenas will both be in their mid 30's. And CP3 and Williams will be reaching the very end of their respective primes.

I would say its less likely for Rose to become better than Chris Paul..who is a complete player. Then it is for Beasley to become better than guys like Amare, Bosh, Boozer who all have big weaknesses, which is their defense.

As great as Paul is, and he is very very great, his potential is still limited by his size. Rose doesn't have this limitation.

Cammo101 · Post #83 » by **Cammo101** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:54 pm

Beasley is NOTHING like Amare.

skones · Post #84 » by **skones** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:57 pm

Ruzious wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I think 99 out of 100 times, an Amare would be picked over a Rose. And the 100th guy would have picked Rose only because you had a gun pointed at his head.

That's not true if you guarantee Rose will be an elite point guard like I stated.

Post #85 » by **Ruzious** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:59 pm

Cammo101 wrote:Beasley is NOTHING like Amare.

I agree. I'm just going with the previously posed hypothetical.

Post #86 » by **Ruzious** » Tue Apr 1, 2008 12:02 am

skones wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

That's not true if you guarantee Rose will be an elite point guard like I stated.

It is true - unless you use the gun more than once. You are seriously underrating how much value Amare has.

skones · Post #87 » by **skones** » Tue Apr 1, 2008 12:12 am

You are seriously underrating the value of an elite point guard.

Post #88 » by **Ruzious** » Tue Apr 1, 2008 12:59 am

skones wrote:You are seriously underrating the value of an elite point guard.

No I'm not. Great bigs (and Amare is regarded as a great big - no matter what I think about him or what you think about him) are almost always regarded as more valuable in drafts and trades than great little players.

Cammo101 · Post #89 » by **Cammo101** » Tue Apr 1, 2008 1:49 am

Ruzious wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

No I'm not. Great bigs (and Amare is regarded as a great big - no matter what I think about him or what you think about him) are almost always regarded as more valuable in drafts and trades than great little players.

You seem to not understand the difference between a franchise big man and a scoring tweener. Beasley is an undersized scoring PF, he is not Howard, Duncan, Shaq...

Beasley is a great player, but he is not the franchise big people are calling him in this thread. I would take Rose without thinking twice. How did that taking the franchise big man work when the Bucks took Bogut over Deron and Paul?

DaGoodz · Post #90 » by **DaGoodz** » Tue Apr 1, 2008 1:55 am

You cant call Beasley undersized for a PF because he was 6'9, and could easily be 6'10 now. I watched him play Oklahoma and Kansas.
He stood next Blake Griffin and Darrell Arthur and was taller than both.
If Beasley gets measured as 6'10 with shoes. I see no way at all Rose goes #1. If Beasley gets measured as undersized, then Rose has a much greater chance to be #1

Post #91 » by **Doctor MJ** » Tue Apr 1, 2008 4:29 am

The_Pope wrote:Ok, say Rose becomes Baron Davis (the closest comparison of any current player) and Beasley becomes Amare. Who do you think they'd pick?

When someone says a player has the potential to become an elite point guard, they don't mean he has the potential to become an occasional all-star.

And honestly man, I don't understand why it's so hard to imagine a point guard having a higher peak than Amare when Amare isn't even his team's star player because his point guard is consider more valuable than him.

Post #92 » by **Doctor MJ** » Tue Apr 1, 2008 4:34 am

Ruzious wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

No I'm not. Great bigs (and Amare is regarded as a great big - no matter what I think about him or what you think about him) are almost always regarded as more valuable in drafts and trades than great little players.

I feel like a broken record. You pick big over small if you think he can bring it from both ends of the court. As is Amare is an offense-based player who scores no more efficiently than his point guard and is completely dependent on other players to get him the ball. I don't mean to knock him, he's a great player, but he's not clearly more valuable than every perimeter player in the game.

If you have a chance to get a Shaq/Duncan type guy with the 1st pick, you take him. An Amare type guy is not in that league.

Cammo101 · Post #93 » by **Cammo101** » Tue Apr 1, 2008 6:17 am

Doctor MJ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

When someone says a player has the potential to become an elite point guard, they don't mean he has the potential to become an occasional all-star.

And honestly man, I don't understand why it's so hard to imagine a point guard having a higher peak than Amare when Amare isn't even his team's star player because his point guard is consider more valuable than him.

Some people just take the whole big over small thing and don't know how to apply it, so they just use it as a blanket statement. People are talking about Amare, yet there are a handful of PG's I would take over Amare. Chris Paul and Deron Williams are 2 of them, and I believe Rose has the ability and skill set to be even better than Williams or Paul. Add to that that Beasley is smaller and less dominate than Amare, and you can see why plenty of people would take Rose.

Milwaukee took Bogut over Williams and Paul because of conventional wisdom. Milwaukee traded TJ Ford for Charlie Villanueva because of conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom is not a foolproof exact science.

skones · Post #94 » by **skones** » Tue Apr 1, 2008 6:22 am

Ruzious wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

No I'm not. Great bigs (and Amare is regarded as a great big - no matter what I think about him or what you think about him) are almost always regarded as more valuable in drafts and trades than great little players.

Great bigs aren't as valuable as an elite point guard. Amare is NOT a franchise big man no matter what you say. You take Amare Stoudemire, make him the centerpiece of your franchise and you're not going to win an NBA championship, you're not going to make it to a championship, you're not going to win a conference championship, you're not going to win a division championship in all likelihood. It's that simple.

Cammo101 · Post #95 » by **Cammo101** » Tue Apr 1, 2008 6:30 am

skones wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Great bigs aren't as valuable as an elite point guard. Amare is NOT a franchise big man no matter what you say. You take Amare Stoudemire, make him the centerpiece of your franchise and you're not going to win an NBA championship, you're not going to make it to a championship, you're not going to win a conference championship, you're not going to win a division championship in all likelihood. It's that simple.

There is a difference between very good big men and franchise bigs. Dwight Howard, Shaq in his prime, Duncan are franchise big men. KG, Amare, Yao are very good big men. There is a difference. The first group anchors their team no both ends of the floor and effect the game outside the box score. The second group puts up good numbers but is not the same kind of force.

skones · Post #96 » by **skones** » Tue Apr 1, 2008 6:42 am

Cammo101 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

There is a difference between very good big men and franchise bigs. Dwight Howard, Shaq in his prime, Duncan are franchise big men. KG, Amare, Yao are very good big men. There is a difference. The first group anchors their team no both ends of the floor and effect the game outside the box score. The second group puts up good numbers but is not the same kind of force.

Garnett was a franchise big man but kind of got a raw deal in Minnesota due to the management of the team. I think Yao could become a franchise big man within the next couple years if he can avoid the injury issues which seem to be plaguing him.

Despite that I completely agree, and a lot of people in this thread don't seem to understand that when I say Beasley is not a franchise big man, I don't mean he doesn't have the potential to be a 20 and 10 guy. It means I don't think he's the type of guy you build a team around. I can see Derrick Rose, to the contrary, as being one of those guys.

Post #97 » by **Doctor MJ** » Tue Apr 1, 2008 1:56 pm

Cammo101 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

There is a difference between very good big men and franchise bigs. Dwight Howard, Shaq in his prime, Duncan are franchise big men. KG, Amare, Yao are very good big men. There is a difference. The first group anchors their team no both ends of the floor and effect the game outside the box score. The second group puts up good numbers but is not the same kind of force.

Your talking sense my friend.

Although, I think you're being unfair to KG. He's not Duncan's equal, but he's probably closer to Duncan than he is to Amare and Yao.

Post #98 » by **NO-KG-AI** » Tue Apr 1, 2008 2:37 pm

^^ and closer than Dwight Howard for sure, maybe not to Magic fans though.

Cammo101 · Post #99 » by **Cammo101** » Tue Apr 1, 2008 3:34 pm

I said Dwight was becoming one. KG has always been a very good, very skilled big man. But he is not a franchise anchor. He disappeared in the 4th quarter for years and has never been a great defender. Very very good player, but IMO he is more of a rich man's Amare than anything. It is hard to quantify this sort of thing, but I have never believed KG to be a franchise anchor big man, and his track record seems to prove it. Like Brand, he needed Cassell and Spreewell to come in and take the pressure off of him in his only playoff run.

This is not a knock on KG really, few players fall in the franchise big man category IMO.

Post #100 » by **Worm Guts** » Tue Apr 1, 2008 3:35 pm

Cammo101 wrote:I said Dwight was becoming one. KG has always been a very good, very skilled big man. But he is not a franchise anchor. He disappeared in the 4th quarter for years and has never been a great defender. Very very good player, but IMO he is more of a rich man's Amare than anything. It is hard to quantify this sort of thing, but I have never believed KG to be a franchise anchor big man, and his track record seems to prove it. Like Brand, he needed Cassell and Spreewell to come in and take the pressure off of him in his only playoff run.

This is not a knock on KG really, few players fall in the franchise big man category IMO.

KG has always been a great defender. 1st team all defense 6 times, 2nd team twice.