Nitro

Oden was selected 1st because of his potential to be an elite Center, the easiest position to build a contender around. And since when is MJ's final season in college statline of 20/5 on 55% not pretty? Anyway, I'll actually back Snake up a bit on this...I know where he's coming from. Nene is extremely talented and has a similar body to Cousins. However, I have two problems with the comparison he made- 1) Cousins played on a Kentucky team with Wall dominating the ball. In college big men that can play the post are always under-utilized, and it is a totally different style of play. To say he's going to be passive in the post and not make the most of his offensive talent in the NBA just because he was coached that way in college isn't a great conclusion to draw. He's the only go-to post player on the Kings (Landry has a decent post arsenal but he's not a guy you consistently feed to in the post). He'll get his chance to get a lot of post touches and start to reach his potential, which is the beauty of being on such a young Sacramento team. I really think he'll be a great post scorer once he gets comfortable in the system; he is a lot more polished than I thought he was. 2) Cousins has a much better repetoire in the post than Nene and utilizes it a lot more. That's the big difference in their play. Nene has a lot of talent but doesn't have as much skill in the post that Cousins has. Cousins has the potential to be an ELITE big man in this game. Nene had potential, but not to be a go-to scorer for a team. Cousins does. Sacramento knows this and will utilize him as such.

I wouldn't put much stock into what he did in SL. It is likely the first time in months that he's played in serious full-court games, and he has an entire new cast of teammates and a new system to play in. Is it concerning that he didn't play better against much inferior competition to what he'll face in the NBA? Sure, but I wouldn't be too worried. He has a great feel for the game with polished skills as well. That combination will always get you places in the league. My only concern is he doesn't have great athleticism for an elite SG, and that is a big reason why guys like Cousins and Wall are bound to dominate SL. But once Turner gets comfortable and learns the system as well as his teammates, he should be a very good player in the league. Maybe not a superstar, but very few players become superstars in the NBA. You can only hope he works hard and makes what he can of his talents.

Players are bigger than the team because in the NBA it is nearly impossible to win anything without a superstar player. Not to mention all of the national media coverage/increased ticket sales the team gets when they have this star player. Unfortunately the players know this and they and their agents use it to their advantage. As much as a star player can make a team better, they can also destroy it if they aren't happy (Vince Carter). With the stars having this much power, they can pretty much dictate anything and everything.

Both, but take a look at the last 27 champions (since the '82-'83 Sixers): 26 of those 27 teams were led/co-led by superstar players that were DRAFTED by their teams (Lakers- Kobe/Magic, Bulls- MJ, Celtics- Pierce/Bird, Pistons- Isiah, Rockets- Hakeem, Spurs- Duncan, Heat- Wade). The only team that broke the mold was the '04 Pistons. Basically what that shows is that it is MUCH easier to grab a stud in the draft and build a championship team around him rather than try your luck with FA. The reason is because there are only a select number of true superstar talents in the NBA, and if they happen to test the FA waters, the chances of you actually landing that player are very slim (ask all the teams that failed to lure LBJ and Wade to town). But as RD said, you should build through the draft and patch up the rest via FA.

No, I think you're wrong as well...it's Jarron Collins.

Robin isn't even on the Team USA roster right now, and I did a google search for Brook on Team USA and in each pic he's wearing #38...the same number as he's wearing in the first post. It's Brook. I don't think Universe would have posted it in the Nets forum if he wasn't. I think he misspoke in his last post saying it's Robin, but I'll let him clarify when he posts again.

It's Brook. Got these two pics as well where he's also wearing #38. First is off the Nets official website- http://www.nba.com/nets/photos/brook_400_100210.jpg http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g8L5j4-6gFY/0.jpg

It's Brook Lopez. Robin isn't on the Team USA roster. That does suck, though. I've seen a few people go through hell with mono, and it definitely looks like it took a toll on Brook. However his game shouldn't be effected much by the weight loss (at least not on the Nets...may struggle a bit in the WC's).

Phew, I thought Nas was going to make like an Untitled 2 when I read the title of this thread. I didn't love or hate Untitled, but I definitely didn't want to see him use the same subject matter. To me Nas' biggest problem since God's Son has been horrible production. If he got Kanye to produce the album like was brought up in the article, that'd be amazing.

Losing a 13pt lead in the 4th quarter is a collapse. Notice how I didn't say the Celtics choked? If I did, then I'd be discrediting the Lakers. And don't make it seem like we're comparing the NBA in 2010 to the NBA in 1965. 1996 was only 14 years ago. I agree the league has more talent nowadays and the top teams are generally stronger, but it doesn't make up for the massive gap in dominance between the 2010 Lakers and 1996 Bulls. And even if you ignore all the stats proving the Bulls dominance, we can use your method of head-to-head comparison that will also show why the Bulls are clearly the better team.

Good signing for that price. He's a solid role player who's tough and is a decent defender. Not the best 3pt shooter in the world, but neither was Brown. Definitely gives the Lakers bench yet another boost.

Talent-wise? No. Paul isn't better than Wade, Melo isn't better than LeBron, and Amare isn't better than Bosh. But I do think it could be a more well-rounded trio with better chemistry for sure. Anyway, Paul to the Knicks would be awesome for NY, but I wouldn't be so quick to say they'd make noise in the playoffs just yet. If the Hornets are going to deal Paul, they will want a package to revolve around Gallo and Curry's expiring. They will also want to dump Okafor's contract on the Knicks, which is where problems arise financially. If the Hornets are set on dumping Okafor with Paul, the Knicks will likely need to bring in a 3rd team to make it work dollar-wise. However, if the Knicks can persuade the Hornets to trade Posey instead of Okafor (doubtful), they can try Paul/Posey for Gallo/Douglas/Chandler/Curry/picks. That would take about $20M off the books at the end of the year for the Hornets, and give the Knicks the best PG in the NBA and a very solid role player in Posey. But my point with that whole spiel is that the Knicks are going to have to give up a lot to get Paul, and IMO next season wouldn't be as good as the Suns were last season. What it does do is give them 2 legit superstars to build around and attract big-name FA's to play in NY. If the deal is on the table they should take it, but don't expect the Knicks to make much noise next season if it goes down.

I looked on NBA.com and I don't think he even played a minute in SL. I'd like to see him get another shot as he really wasn't a bad NBA player. But without athleticism, his game left much to be desired. I'm curious to see if he's developed his game enough to warrant another oppertunity.

I never said that you said Artest was a better player. But you did say he was a better defender, and then in your arguement seem to think the comparison is close. He's not a better defender, and the comparison isn't close at all. As for the league being watered down, it doesn't matter much because the level of dominance is so enormous. The '96 Bulls destroy this Lakers team in EVERY statistical category. Point differential, rebounds, assists, forced TO's, FG %, 3pt %, PPG, allowed PPG, etc.... If the Oklahoma City Thunder were within 1 tip-in from taking the Lakers to 7, and a very old Boston Celtics were within 4th quarter collapse of beating the Lakers, do you REALLY think the 2010 Lakers are better than the greatest single-season team in NBA history?

A few major issues I have... -Yes, Fisher and Harper's numbers were close in the years you specified, but Harper was a MUCH better player. He was bigger, more versatile and created matchup problems. Not to mention you completely ignored FG % and only look at 3pt %. Harper shot 9% better overall from the field than Fisher, and that is a much bigger difference than Fisher's edge in 3pt shooting. Also, Harper took a greatly reduced role with the Bulls. He was a 20/6/5 player the year before he joined Chicago. To give you an idea, the Hawks gave Joe Johnson the biggest contract out of any FA this summer for virtually the same production. Harper was a much better player than Fisher. -How in the world is Artest a better defender than Pippen? Pippen was arguably the best perimeter defender in NBA history. When Artest was in his prime you might have some ground to say that, but he's not the same defensive player he once was. Even though awards are overrated, in 1996 Pippen was in the middle of a string of 7 straight All-Defensive First Team selections. Meanwhile Artest has made only one All-Defensive team in the last 4 seasons (and that was only a 2nd Team selection). Artest is also NOWHERE NEAR the offensive player Pippen was. Pippen is what made the offensive attack so versatile and dangerous. Artest doesn't make anywhere near the impact Pippen did, and so the advantage for the Bulls in this matchup is enormous. -I would say Rodman/Gasol is a push. You are severely underrating Rodman's defense just because he didnt block shot. He was arguably the greatest defender and rebounder in NBA history. Even though he was undersized, he would have given Gasol fits with his speed, toughness, hands and IQ. Not to mention he dominated the glass more than any player currently in the league ever has, including Dwight Howard. That alone would help take away one of LA's biggest strength. -I would have given the Bulls bench the edge. Much more consistent and the 3pt shooting was lethal (Kukoc over 40% from 3, Kerr at over 51%). You never knew what ANY of the Lakers bench players would give the team on a nightly basis. With the Bulls, there was stability. Look, I understand the Lakers have talent, but we are comparing them to a team that was #1 in offense and #1 in defense the same year. We're talking the most dominant single-season team in NBA history. Some stats from the Bulls' 1996 season... -The Bulls outscored teams by THRITEEN(!) points per game. -The Bulls outrebounded teams by over SIX boards per game. -The Bulls averaged FIVE more assists than opponents. -The Bulls forced 3 more turnovers than they gave up. -The Bulls shot 48% from the floor and 40% from 3. -Three of the five starters were selected to the All-Defensive First Team in 1996. -Against Shaq's Magic, Zo's Heat and Ewing's Knicks in the playoffs, the Bulls lost one combined game. It goes on and on and on...

No, it's Wade's fault for saying something so controversial that would obviously cause a negative public reaction. That is the fundemental part of this arguement that you're simply not getting/refuse to acknowledge.

Again, though, who is stopping Wade from expressing his opinion? Reacting to what he said negatively doesn't mean people are trampling on his right to free speach. But to expect everyone to be ok with it because it's his opinion is not the way the world works. And yes, he released an apology to protect his image; the image of a role model that were try to have our children emulate. If there wasn't something morally wrong with what he said, he wouldn't have made an apology.

I disagree, considering they would have to give up a decent amount of talent to get CP3, I highly doubt they would be as good as the Suns were last season. What Paul would do for NY, though, is give them two young stars to build a team around for the future.

Yeah, because LeBron didn't throw in 19 rebounds and 10 assists in Game 6 against Boston, right? And Wade didn't grab double digit boards twice in the 2006 Finals, right? Terrible, terrible article.

They still have 2-3 spots to fill so I guess it wouldn't be a bad signing. But he's not a great defender and has shot over 41% only twice in the last 10 seasons. Not to mention he's played over 60 games just once in the last 7 seasons. But since they already have Wade/James/Miller/Jones at the wing positions, Stackhouse's contributions wouldn't have to go beyond cheerleading anyway.

You guys know he'll be healthy well before the pre-season, right? The only thing this affects is his availability to play in the World Championships, which according to Yahoo he's going to have to sit out of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_eGS1DqHK8 Speaking of T-Mac, anyone remember this game? It was on Christmas 2003, LeBron and T-Mac went head-to-head in my favorite X-Mas day game ever. LeBron went for like 35 and T-Mac went for 40. Makes me sick to watch T-Mac when he was still in his prime, but very fond memories.

I remember this game, came right after the Magic-Knicks game where Bill Walton said T-Mac had a chance at being the GOAT (oh the memories indeed... ). Fun to watch. I actually saw him in person as a rookie against the Nets, the atmosphere was buzzing. I'm still astonished he lived up to expectations as they were so enormous when he was still a senior in HS.

Ok now I'm back home so I'll throw in my 2 cents... It is a very, very difficult comparison. The stats are extremely close when you look at how they impacted both their counterparts as well as their own team (ie- making their teams better with their defense). From +/- stats to defensive ratings to whatever else, there's not a huge seperation. So, I will just go by x's and o's, and reluctantly take Garnett. It is such a difficult comparison because they are two completely different defensive players; Howard is a shot-blocking intimidator who can alter almost every shot that is within 5ft of the basket and force a team to gameplan around that. Garnett's defensive game involves using his amazing athleticism, reaction and determination to cut-off driving lanes, disrupt pick-and-rolls and at times completely shut-down whoever he is defending. I think KG was the better defensive player for 4 primary reasons- 1) Garnett is a much, much better defender in man-to-man situations. Despite Howard's size and jumping ability, he isn't the greatest man-to-man defender. He doesn't understand how to use footwork to his advantage, doesnt know how to really get under a player's skin and throw him out of his comfort zone, and can be too quick to jump on a contest and pick up the foul. Garnett is just one of those defenders who knows how to make a player extremely uncomfortable, and has the athleticism and natural ability to match that IQ. He knows how to properly front larger big men, has quick hands to deflect passes into the post, has the length and jumping ability to bother shots, and has that fesitiness to play up on the Amare and Chris Bosh types and had the athleticism to recover if they took him off the dribble. Overall, KG simply could lock people down. 2) Versatility. Howard is amazing at blocking and altering shots at the rim, but a prime KG affected the defense in so many more aspects. He could completely destroy a PnR with his ability to force the ballhandler off his path, as well as effectively switch onto the ballhandler or recover and deflect a pass. Anytime a wing player drove into the lane, KG was incredible at cutting them off well before they got to the rim. Many times this is more effective than simply contesting or blocking a shot, and I think LeBron and Kobe's 2008 post-season performances against the Celtics prove that. KG also had range; his freakish talent and athleticism allowed him to cover so much more ground than Dwight without sacrificing any gimme's. It even allowed him to successfully switch onto quicker perimeter players whenever it was necessary. 3) When you compare Howard to many other great defensive players, a big advantage he usually has is his rebounding. Against a prime KG, the difference is almost non-existent. KG usually grabbed between 9.5-10DRPG per 36min in his prime, with a DRB% of 29.5-31.0. Howard is up around 10.0DRPG per 36min, and a DRB% of about 31.0. 4) Dwight's greatest attribute, his shot-blocking, also happens to be one of his big weaknesses. Because he is so quick to block a shot, he gets himself into foul trouble very easily. We saw it time and time again in the playoffs, a quick 2 fouls and he's out of the game for the next 10-12 minutes. When you can't stay on the floor it completely robs you of being able to make any kind of impact on the game, and forces the coach to alter the gameplan. And when you are fouling a player on a shot attempt, it is an easy 2 FT's. KG may not have ever been a guy to swat 7 shots in a half, but he also rarely commited stupid fouls or consistently put himself in a position where he wasn't on the floor for 40 minutes. So yeah, as I said it was tough, but definitely think KG has the advantage.

Note- WE ARE JUST DISCUSSING WHO'S BETTER ON DEFENSE!!!!! Anyway, I saw a similar topic on RealGM and found some of the responses to be very interesting and compelling for both sides. I'll give my 2 cents later, but I'm curious to see how everyone else feels.