Wow this draft sucked!

[gsuteke]

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.

[drzachary]

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're talking about. It sounds awesome though! You sound PUMPED!

[tmac13]

Even though I have no idea what you are talking about!

[gsuteke]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...ht&lid=tab5pos1

[gsuteke]

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..........

[Guest]

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.

[ATLBob]

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.

[Diesel]

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.

[Packfill]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[drzachary]

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!

[MoonKnight]

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.

[TheDude]

oooh, you're soooo bold.

i'm left wing and i smoke pot. Get over it, you suck.

[TheDude]

and yeah, that draft sucked.

[gsuteke]

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

[Lascar78]

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

[unknownjdb]

Why must you be so harsh?

[Guest Walter]

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

[gsuteke]

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.