QRich, Kobe, Manu or SJax????

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

So this article is what made you call Jamal Mashburn a scrub.....so what you saw of Mash at Kentucky and Dallas ...you still think he was a scrub at any moment in his career...because he had trouble in Miami...he lost all his skills ....is this what you are saying?

---

Have you forgotten everything you saw in Big Dog at Purdue, in Milwaukee, as an all-star.... You think that changed overnight?

Thanks for proving my point swole.

BTW, I said that playing for Riles in Miami made him look like a scrub...

[swolehawk2]

Hell no I didn't forget...he couldn't dribble...create...play D ...or pass worth a damn at Purdue or Milwaukee either.

We are talking about the more complete player at this point in their careers Diesel stop trying to twist and squirm.

[Diesel]

Dog continues to be the better offensive player.

Jax continues to be the better defensive player.

Who is better, more complete depends on what you are looking for.

Comprehend?

[swolehawk2]

This is how you determine...

How much better is Dog's offensive game than Jax's offensive game?

How much better is Jax on D and in transition than Dog?

I would say at this point in their careers that Jax's offensive game is much closer to Dog's....than Dog's defensive/transition game is closer to Jax's...making Jax the more complete player.

If Jax can give you close to what Dog gives on O and much more in other aspects of the game...who do you think is more complete?

Do you u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d?

[Diesel]

Yeah, him winning the Wooden Award (nations top college player), being drafted top 3, leading all rookies in scoring, coming in 2nd in ROY voting, getting a 68 million dollar contract and then a 1 year 12 million dollar extension, being named to the US Olympic team, and being made an allstar speaks to that very point you're trying to make Swole.

Or does it?

You might want to try to stick with your contradictory argument... because this latest line of argument doesn't work for you.

[swolehawk2]

We are talking about now...2003-2004 season ....who is more complete!!!!! Who is the better basketball player now!!!!....this is all this discussion have ever been about...just admit it ...you are wrong!!...LOL

[Diesel]

You say that Jax is getting better on offense?

Maybe.

However, his style can still be dangerous to some offenses. Why do you think San Antonio benched Jackson in the playoffs. It wasn't the emergence of the rookie. Believe me, Jackson opened that door for Ginobilli. The problem was that Jackson has and still has a tendency to pull an Antoine Walker and Shoot too much. He disrupts the flow of Popp's halfcourt game because he shoots as soon as he gets the ball coming down the court. He did it here too. Listen to Hawksquawkers prove this point:

Quote:

---

Playmaker Re: Good move by Terry Stotts

      #41344 - 12/27/03 12:54 PM

Edit   Reply   Quote  

See, and I disagree with the move. I think it was a foolish move and that instead of punishing the whole, he should have punished the guilty parties.

It wasn't Shareef or Theo that were putting up stupid three pointers. It wasn't Shareef or Theo that were letting Wesley have uncontested three pointers. It wasn't Shareef or Theo that was not allowing the shot clock to move or avoiding passing more than once.

There were three guys that were not trying and were causing this chaos ....

JT

Dion Glover

and

Stephen Jackson

You make a statement by punishing the correct people.

---

Pathway said:

Quote:

---

Re: Good move by Terry Stotts

      #41353 - 12/27/03 04:14 PM

Edit   Reply   Quote  

I think we should go with a lineup of Dickau, Hansen, Diaw, Reef and Theo and let backups be Vaughn, Crawford, Mohammed, and Nailon. JT and SJax should get zero playing time and Glove garbage time. These guys continue to make bone-headed plays out there. But I agree with Play, Stotts doesn't have the right system for these guys to play in.

---

Again, Play Chimes in in a post called "why we lose:

Quote:

---

Third, Stephen "The Worst" Jackson. This is a guy that shoots 13 times a game at 38%! So, combine that with Glover and you have basically given the other team 10 free possessions. Couple this with the AWFUL shot selection and quickly chunked up shots and you have what could be the worst offensive player on the squad. It would be okay if he was Artest-like on defense. Unfortunately, he is Jason Terry-like. Then he runs his mouth like he is actually good.

---

In the same thread, Troubleman said:

Quote:

---

Stephen Jackson and Dion Glover have been major disappointments. They play outside of their game too much and neither brings much to the table defensively. If both of those guys would realize that they are nothing more than role players, and strive to become better defenders and play within the system, then this team would show slight improvement. It is a hard adjustment for guys who have been stars since 8 or 9 years old, but the palyers who stick around and help their teams win, are the guys who accept their roles.

---

[Diesel]

Even now....

In 2004.

Big Dog. Scores more points than Jax.

Big Dog. Shoots a better percentage from the field and from three than Jax.

Big Dog. has less turnovers than Jax.

Big Dog. has the same amount of blocks as Jax.

Big Dog. Rebounds better than jax.

Jax has more steals than Big Dog.

Jax has more assists than Big Dog.

These are all the major statistical categories. Who would you say is more complete?

If I wanted a low percentage shooter who shoots the quick shot, who will get me 4 rebounds per game, and play good defense, I take Jax.

If I wanted somebody to play in my halfcourt set, be a second option and keep players from double and tripling my first option, I take Dog.

However, swole... You got to know what you're getting going in. When you get Jax, you're getting a guy who is good with a transition game, sucks in a halfcourt set. The opposite is true of big dog. Most players don't change.

[swolehawk2]

Big Dog. Scores more points than Jax.

Big Dog. Shoots a better percentage from the field and from three than Jax.

Big Dog. has less turnovers than Jax.

Big Dog. Rebounds better than jax.

The point is Diesel....if a player gives u 2 more points a game ...but gives up at least 6 more to the man he is guarding what is the point?

Dog avgs ONLY 2 points more a game...but his strength over Jax is his shooting and scoring....LOL

Dog avg. .3 more rebounds....not 3 rebounds more but .3...and you make it sound as if Dog is Rodman.

How does Dog... a half court player who catches the ball and drains open shots ..as you put it... avg. 2.55 TOS a game...I know how Jax avg. 2.65 becuse he slashes ...brings up the ball and attacks more than Dog.

Something is not quite right there.

The facts are the shooting and rebounding of Dog is only slightly better....but the defense ...passing....creativeness...and transition game of Jax is WAY better than Dogs.

[Admin]

Even though you are 100% correct in your reasoning. Dog is a better mid-range shooter than Jax is.....thats becaue thats all he ever does is shoot midrange jumpers. He cant create his own shot going to the hole like Jax can, he never catches fire from downtown like Jax does, he cant defend even close to how well Jax does, etc. PPG and RPG are basically a wash. At one point Big Dog was a far better scorer than what Jax is at this point in his career.....but the whole arguement is that right now Jax is a far more VALUABLE player than Dog is.

However like I titled my post you will never win this arguement because Diesel is on one of his Lenny/Deke/Dog rants and he wont believe any differing arguements.

[Diesel]

Just like misguided Swole, you have lost my point tooo.

I'm stating that who's better or as you say "more valueable" depends on what kind of team you have. Just like you alluded to, Jax is more valu able to us now... I agree.

However, when we had more halfcourt pieces than transition pieces, Jax was not.

BTW, BD shoots a higher percent from downtown....

The point is the value of the player depends on the gameplan of the team.

For instance, when Theo was here, he was not that valuable to us. He was the only one playing defense (until Diaw came along) so his contribution did nothing to help us win. He didn't rebound well so Second chance opportunities was killing us. BUT, you put him in PTL, with a better defensive team and a gameplan that can revolve around Theo blocking shots and you see Theo being very important to PTL's gameplan.

That's my point. That's the argument.

You Big Dog Haters are so blinded by your hate that you cannot even think straight.

I mean, read the thread. Swole talks about Mashburn not "being" a scrubb because all the time he was in Miami doing what Riles wanted him to do, he still had talent. That proves my point. It depends on the teams gameplan "system" as to how certain players will look. If you want Big Dog to look like a clumsy turnover prone Sf, put him into a transition offense and put the ball in his hands constantly. However, if you use him like he's supposed to be used, you can get allstar.

[Admin]

Jax is a more valuable player. I never said that he is more valuable to us because of anything......the FACT is that he would be more valuable to almost any team in basketball than Big Dog because he plays defense and the offensive stats are so close that its a wash. Why dont you understand that?

You can make your arguement that Dog wins 4 out of 6 categories or whatever, but thats because its far easier to measure a players offensive production than his defensive production....but when you weigh it out, defense is where the only difference between the 2 players exists and Jax is far better at D than Big Dog......something that is apparently not lost on Theo who hated Dogs lack of defense, as did Cassell and Ray Allen, and as does Allen Iverson now.

By the way, I know that Robinson shoots a slightly higher percentage from downtown....but I would be willing to bet that by years end Jax is higher now that he is finding his stroke. Also, if you read closely you will see that I said Jax is far more likely to catch fire from downtown, not that his percentage is higher.......which also means that he is more likely to go cold from downtown.

There really is no debate here, you just want to argue and skew the facts and shift the topic to other players and coaches, etc......but the bottom line is that 9/10 teams in the NBA would rather have the Stephen Jackson of RIGHT NOW over the Glenn Robinson of RIGHT NOW.

[swolehawk2]

"Just like misguided Swole"

How am I misguided?

My argument is that Jax is a more complete and better baskeball player than Dog as of this season...for any team.

If you take Dog and put him in San Antonio...he still can't guard anybody or create off the dribble....or pass effectively....or matchup and get back in transition well.....or slash and finish....you are avoiding my point entirely...by trying to make this into "who fits best where"

So how should Dog be used...and if he is so much better and more complete than Jax....why do you have to fit him in a system for him to look good.

Jax proved he could play in half court system ....if he couldn't they would have not have offered him a multi year deal ....we would not be having this discussion now if Jax would not have had the type of year he had in SAN ANTONIO last year.

Jax can also play well in an up tempo style as we see here with the Hawks.

You know why ....he can play in both...because he can do a lot of things on the court...he is not one dimensional like Dog...therefore more complete and a better basketball player... period.