<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Noone has said that the Knicks have anyone better than Bogut. That's number one. Number two you are really starting to overrate Bogut. His man to man defense is mediocre(especially when dealing with athletic players). He will not be a good shot blocker. His quickness or lack thereof will make him a good rebounder but not a monster on the boards. And his post up game wont translate very well in the NBA considering he'll be playing center. He is a great passer though and a great shooter. So it looks like he'll probably become a slightly improved Brad Miller. Then again Miller plays solid defense. So he'll probably be more like Sabonis(great player) but again...Sabonis was an alright defender. So he'll probably be more like Chris Webber after he got injured.</div>
I really don't like to speculate, but almost every incoming rookie is scrutinized. Carmello Anthony was a kid with "no perimeter defense", was "inconsistent" and "didn't involve his teammates". It was said of Dwyane that he would ultimately be destined to be a tweener. His ball handling wasn't good enough to be a point guard, and he was too short and streaky to be a shooting guard. I also don't like the comparisons. Jarvis Hayes was Allan Houston, Mike Dunleavy was Larry Bird, and Dajuan Wagner was Allen Iverson. Anyway, I guess my point is that you can't always pick apart a kid's game like that. If his defense was that big of a liability, Utah wouldn't have been a top fifteen team for the better part of the season. Bogut played well against Tim Duncan and Team USA, averaged insane numbers at Utah and was College Player of the Year, and will be the #1 draft pick. I don't see why you wouldn't expect his potential to roof at a Tim Duncan or a Dirk Nowitzki, especially if Gerald Green roofs at a Tracy McGrady.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Hold on there. If he averaged the same numbers as Sweetney this year...and had these huge games...he had to have a whole load of poor ones. That's basic math. How could he have had 30/20 in one but average Sweetney's numbers without having a bunch of low production games? And just because Sweetney doesnt have the hype machine working for him doesnt mean he wont turn into a good player. Big men like Sweetney take awhile to develop and he is improving by leaps and bounds. When he starts playing his natural position at powerforward and get more experience he'll really start to produce.</div>
Zach Randolph's case can't just be summed up through stats. It wasn't just his points and rebounds that fluctuated, it was also his minutes. With Rasheed Wallace and a coach who wasn't exactly partial to Randolph, it was hard for him to get into the system. If I understand correctly, Mike Sweetney's time is pretty consistant, meaning that he gets the same 10-20 minutes every night, whereas Randolph's was more sporadic.
The reason I brought Randolph's preseason expectations into the argument was because everyone knew the talent was already there. It was not that he improved between his rookie, sophomore, and third seasons. It was simply the increased playing time and starting role that caused the increase in his stats. Sweetney, on the other hand, is someone who is getting those opportunities to show what he can do. If he were handed the starting job and fifteen more minutes tomorrow, then he probably wouldn't be putting up the 20.1 ppg and 10.5 rpg that Randolph averaged; not right away like Randolph did at least. He can potentially be a good player, I never denied that. However, it's in the same way that Stromile Swift, Eddie Griffen, DaSagna Diop, Rodney White, and Rafael Araujo could all be great players.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">And what argument would that be? Some people thought that the Hawks would be enticed to trade their picks for Marbury so they can bring some excitement back to their clubs. Then we talked about whether or not Sweetney was overweight or not and if that affected his game. After that we debated if Bogut was overrated or not. Noone lost any argument. There were disagreements but noone was letting their bias blind them to the truth. </div>
If you honestly don't think that anyone was letting their bias blind them from the truth, then you need to re-read this thread. And the point you made about the thread changing topics was actually one of the reasons I included that 'attn' in my post. As a moderator, I don't want to see this thread stray very far off topic just because certain people want to debate every other sentence and just keep going in circles about non-topic related material, which is exactly what was happening.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">By the way arent you like a moderator or something? First in the other thread you say it's ok for someone to post before they read which I thought was well...pretty stupid. Then this...arent you supposed to encourage respectful, constructive conversation? Just wondering is all...</div>
Yes, I suppose I am "like a moderator or something". Just so long as I know I'm doing a good job of being a moderator, I won't ask for your opinion either, but since you asked, the reason why I said that it wasn't necessary to read every post in the "Jason Kidd thread" was because that thread was just repetitive rubbish with a few intelligent comments found in between. I don't think it was humanly possible to read all of that, and I don't think everyone should have been required to before they posted. As for "arent you supposed to encourage respectful, constructive conversation", indeed that is what I am supposed to encourage, and that is exactly what I was doing by making my post, encouraging the Knicks fans to keep the conversation constructive, which is not where the thread was heading. Don't act like I'm not picking up on what you are subtlely hinting at by sentences like "Just wondering is all....". How about showing some respect for other posters? Nobody is picking a fight with you, so don't pick a fight with me.