gsuteke Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 also keep in mind as you read this another reason why we drafted Marvin. BTW left-wing hippy pot smokers need not respond with posts telling me how insensitive I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drzachary Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 I'm having a hard time understanding what you're talking about. It sounds awesome though! You sound PUMPED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmac13 Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Even though I have no idea what you are talking about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsuteke Posted June 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...ht&lid=tab5pos1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsuteke Posted June 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Quote: I'm having a hard time understanding what you're talking about. It sounds awesome though! You sound PUMPED! thanks Zachary for your optimism! i'm going to go to bed now where i belong.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_1986.html Its amazing how bad that was. The best player (Dennis Rodman) didn't come around until the second round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLBob Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Yeah, but in fairness we did get two commentators and two head coaches out of it, so I guess yo could say that we're still reaping the benefits of the 1986 draft today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Diesel Posted June 20, 2006 Premium Member Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Your youth is showing. This draft wasn't all that bad. I mean when you consider Brad Daugherty, Mark Price, and Ron Harper... Cleveland made a dynasty on that day. Moreover, I wouldn't say that Rodman was the best player of the draft. I think Daugherty was. However, when you consider longevity and work, i would say that Rodman was definitely the hardest worker. Finally if you want a really bad draft... here ya go... Bad Draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packfill Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Agreed, Dougherty was a very good player and definitely worthy of the number one overall selection. The only thing that derailed him was injuries. Think of it this way, he would easily go number one in this draft, last years draft and just about any draft in recent memory sans LBJ. Also, Price and Harper were excellent players in their prime as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Quote: This draft wasn't all that bad. I mean when you consider Brad Daugherty, Mark Price, and Ron Harper... Cleveland made a dynasty on that day. Yeah, Cleveland did well but how about the other teams in that draft? You can name only a handful of good players in the first round, and that equals a bad draft. I would even venture to say the 2nd round (Price, Rodman, McMillan, Hornacek) was only slightly worse than the first. I agree the 2000 draft was worse than 1986, it was probably the worst ever. But that doesn't mean the 1986 wasn't bad. There were 15 out of 24 players who didn't play past 7 seasons, 7 of 24 players didn't even play past 4 seasons. To me, that means this was a bad draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drzachary Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Quote: Quote: This draft wasn't all that bad. I mean when you consider Brad Daugherty, Mark Price, and Ron Harper... Cleveland made a dynasty on that day. Yeah, Cleveland did well but how about the other teams in that draft? You can name only a handful of good players in the first round, and that equals a bad draft. I would even venture to say the 2nd round (Price, Rodman, McMillan, Hornacek) was only slightly worse than the first. I agree the 2000 draft was worse than 1986, it was probably the worst ever. But that doesn't mean the 1986 wasn't bad. There were 15 out of 24 players who didn't play past 7 seasons, 7 of 24 players didn't even play past 4 seasons. To me, that means this was a bad draft. Hey, don't diss the 2000 draft. We got UMLAUT out of that draft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoonKnight Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 I agree the 86 draft was not that bad and there were some late finds in that draft including Sasha. He was somewhat of a fan favorite when here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDude Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 oooh, you're soooo bold. i'm left wing and i smoke pot. Get over it, you suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDude Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 and yeah, that draft sucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsuteke Posted June 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Quote: oooh, you're soooo bold. i'm left wing and i smoke pot. Get over it, you suck. either a. you guys are missing the boat here or b. you are ignoring my "insensitivity" Marvin may indeed be the Anti/Bias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lascar78 Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 or c) you are a bigot who is prone to stereotyping and who incorrectly assumes that liberals are hippies and/or oversensitive pussies when neither is the case. not sure what politics has to do with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknownjdb Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Why must you be so harsh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walter Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Quote: BTW left-wing hippy pot smokers need not respond with posts telling me how insensitive I am. Your plea for no such response implies you're sensative rather than insensitive. So sensative, in fact, that were someone of this ilk to make a comment to you (I assume one you didn't care for) you would have no other choice but to insult them, dismissing them regardless of their opinion, rather than ignore them or (gasp) consider it thoughtfully. Sorry, but your statement was so wildly, oddly defensive (maybe I missed something) that I find you to be the one with the problem and not the "left-wing hippy pot smokers". W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsuteke Posted June 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Quote: Quote: BTW left-wing hippy pot smokers need not respond with posts telling me how insensitive I am. Your plea for no such response implies you're sensative rather than insensitive. So sensative, in fact, that were someone of this ilk to make a comment to you (I assume one you didn't care for) you would have no other choice but to insult them, dismissing them regardless of their opinion, rather than ignore them or (gasp) consider it thoughtfully. Sorry, but your statement was so wildly, oddly defensive (maybe I missed something) that I find you to be the one with the problem and not the "left-wing hippy pot smokers". W Now Walter, where is the Anti-Marvin sentiment in that post? i'm very dissapointed in you Walter. actually i have no problem. i just cut some people off at the pass. Marvin is the Anti/Bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now