Jump to content

please read this danny ferry


hawkzlova123

Recommended Posts

Yes, his 41 and 19 showed he didn't play well enough to win. Oh wait...

Well one thing is for sure...IF we could do it...you put out a starting lineup of (and I don't want this to turn into a guard argument)...

Mack (or Jeff or Dennis), Korver, Millsap, Love, Horford...with the Budster's coaching

That would be a pretty hard team to beat...plus we seem to be developing some depth. Pero, Scotty, maybe another year of EB, Ayón (just in case), and anybody I'm forgetting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well one thing is for sure...IF we could do it...you put out a starting lineup of (and I don't want this to turn into a guard argument)... Mack (or Jeff or Dennis), Korver, Millsap, Love, Horford...with the Budster's coaching That would be a pretty hard team to beat...plus we seem to be developing some depth. Pero, Scotty, maybe another year of EB, Ayón (just in case), and anybody I'm forgetting.

what would we be trading to get him our 1st?Seems other teams could top that fairly easily
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well one thing is for sure...IF we could do it...you put out a starting lineup of (and I don't want this to turn into a guard argument)...

Mack (or Jeff or Dennis), Korver, Millsap, Love, Horford...with the Budster's coaching

That would be a pretty hard team to beat...plus we seem to be developing some depth. Pero, Scotty, maybe another year of EB, Ayón (just in case), and anybody I'm forgetting.

So let me guess, according to your line up above we don't lose anyone and get him for free?

Edited by Peoriabird
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Beware of the stat Stuffer that still loses the game!

Posted Image

There is no one who watched that game that came away saying Love was padding his stats. Trying to compare a hard working, highly efficient superstar in Love to the most brain dead ass in the NBA is laughable.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Superstars don't win championships unless they have a slumber party with superstars the summer before and decide to join with those superstars. Other than that, having a superstar on your team is a curse.. ala Durant, Rose, CP3, Melo, and Harden.. I would rather have a team full of all star talent and role players.. <-- Chicago Bulls formula for MJ..

The bulls had two superstars in MJ and Pip plus everything else. Thats a bit more than what we have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me guess, according to your line up above we don't lose anyone and get him for free?

Yes...that's the way I have it figured out. We get Love for pennies on the dollar and candy and nuts to boot. Posted Image

Seriously though...a trade would be possible if the T-Wolves wanted to do one. Send em Nique, Sir Foster, and a player to be named later. Bob has already shown that he can run the broadcast by himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Superstars don't win championships unless they have a slumber party with superstars the summer before and decide to join with those superstars. Other than that, having a superstar on your team is a curse.. ala Durant, Rose, CP3, Melo, and Harden.. I would rather have a team full of all star talent and role players.. <-- Chicago Bulls formula for MJ..

???

Jordan was a superstar . . the BIGGEST SUPERSTAR. And Pippen was considered to be one of the 50 greatest players of all time, during that era.

When you say you would rather have a team full of all star talent and role players, isn't that what the OKC Thunder and LA Clippers made of?

- Durant and Westbrook are All-Stars, with Ibaka being a good role player

- Paul and Griffin are All-Stars, with Jamal Crawford being a good role player

- Rose doesn't have another offensive All-Star to play with

- Melo absolutely has no help that can play at a consistent level

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

???

Jordan was a superstar . . the BIGGEST SUPERSTAR. And Pippen was considered to be one of the 50 greatest players of all time, during that era.

When you say you would rather have a team full of all star talent and role players, isn't that what the OKC Thunder and LA Clippers made of?

- Durant and Westbrook are All-Stars, with Ibaka being a good role player

- Paul and Griffin are All-Stars, with Jamal Crawford being a good role player

- Rose doesn't have another offensive All-Star to play with

- Melo absolutely has no help that can play at a consistent level

I agree with this but Durant is a Superstar not an All-Star. Paul is a superstar not an All-Star. Rose is an MVP who has been ruined the last two years by injury but was a superstar when he went down.

Teams with All-Stars who will never be Superstars are teams like:

The Nets (JJ 2014 All-Star; Brook Lopez 2013 All-Star; Garnett 2013 All-Star*; Deron Williams 2012 All-Star; PP 2012 All-Star) * = was a superstar but clearly never will be again

The Knicks (Carmelo 2014 All-Star; Tyson Chandler 2013 All-Star)

The Trailblazers (Aldridge 2014 All-Star; Lilliard 2014 All-Star)

The Warriors (Curry 2014 All-Star; Lee 2013 All-Star; Iggy 2012 All-Star)

Note: IMO, Carmelo and Aldridge are not efficient enough as scorers or good enough as defenders to ever be superstars. I think they are clearly a tier below the top guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think superstar is a good word for players that transcend the sport. When you're talking about the best performers across all sports, these are the kinds of players you're having the conversation about - and these guys tend to be not just good but legendary. I think this kind of player is the one that everyone thinks is so difficult to obtain and they're right. Players like Joe Montana, Magic Johnson, or Wayne Gretzky are exceedingly rare. I don't think having that level of talent is absolutely necessary to CONTEND - which is all I want really, not necessarily a championship.

Below that is the tiered level of stars, All Stars, or whatever you want to call them. If you want to contend, you're going to need at least one guy who is in that top tier of talent (or legendary good). Best to have two of those guys, but I think a Tier 1/Tier 2 combo is still sufficient - but that is going to depend upon their chemistry/dynamic, the TEAM, and the coach. This is where defense, hustle, role players, and all the little things come into play.

People for some reason want to put all that above the need to have phenomenal, top tier talent...and that's just silly to me. And pointless. They justify their position by muddling these tiers of players together and separating the legendary talents like Larry Bird/Wilt Chamberlain from the pack - saying, "Oh, there's only a handful of stars in the whole league and you'll never get one of those in Atlanta."Personally, I don't care how we get a top talent in Atlanta. It just needs to happen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...