NBA Rookie of the Year?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I like that move. Saying something that not only has no basis but is irrefutable because there is no way to define or measure it. You should have been a traffic court lawyer. There is still time. Night school maybe? NBA scout is out of the picture of course.

No way to define or measure what?
Seattle is a bad team. You disagree?
Durant is not exactly getting the lock down
D put on him playing on a team that does not
stay close in very many games. You disagree?

Playing on a team that gets many more shots at the
baskets than a team like San Antonio because they play
very little D and do not spend a lot of time working the ball on
offense. You disagree?

By all Statistical categories Phoenix should consistently crush the
Spurs. But they dont. Why is this? Why do teams like the Pistons
rarely have statistical leaders in any category?
You are stat stuck.
But nonetheless a good fella that makes for good conversation.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

No way to define or measure what?
Seattle is a bad team. You disagree?
Durant is not exactly getting the lock down
D put on him playing on a team that does not
stay close in very many games. You disagree?

Playing on a team that gets many more shots at the
baskets than a team like San Antonio because they play
very little D and do not spend a lot of time working the ball on
offense. You disagree?

By all Statistical categories Phoenix should consistently crush the
Spurs. But they dont. Why is this? Why do teams like the Pistons
rarely have statistical leaders in any category?
You are stat stuck.
But nonetheless a good fella that makes for good conversation.

Seattle loses an average game by 7 points. So are you trying to say that the top scoring threat on an NBA team gets loose coverage because the other team knows it is going to win anyway? Wouldnt he as the primary point producer get more attention than an average player? So in the 13 games that they won, he wasnt on the court during the important possessions? That is a very shaky theory. Sure he is getting numbers in Seattle because they stink and he is kind of forced to. But his production is very good when you consider his age, experience level, lack of talented teammates and physical shortcomings.

[King Glorious]

My feeling is still that he's going to be a guy that gets you 20-23 a night for his career and nothing else. He may even get it up to the 25-26 a night range. As I said, there is nothing wrong with that at all. But there are a lot of guys that could do that in his situation. Rashard Lewis got them 22 a night playing with Ray Allen but gave them nothing else. No defense. No rebounding. No passing. Nothing else. My issue with Durant is that he's strictly a perimeter player. People looked at his rebounding numbers and assumed he was also an inside player and he's just not. He's an athletic player and he dominated guys that he was better than in college but he doesn't have those same physical advantages in the NBA. I think that the expecations for Durant were that he could come in and would be a guy that could get you 28 a night right off the bat, along with maybe 7-8 boards. Perhaps the expectations were unrealistic to begin with. But I don't think that 19 a night and 39% shooting and around four boards a night are what was expected of him. I discount all the comparisons to past players and what they did at his age, especially going further back. Kobe Bryant was straight out of high school and at 19, even though he was in his second season, he wasn't a starter. He played 79 games that year and only started one. He was playing behind Eddie Jones, who was an all-star at the time. Shaquille O'Neal was also on that team so Bryant was never the first scoring option on that team. LeBron was also straight out of high school. A lot of people like to look at the whole age thing and compare where people rank at the same ages. I hate every time I hear them compare what Kobe has done at certain ages to what Jordan had done at that same age. It's not accurate. I like to judge it by comparing guys at the same point in terms of NBA experience. The comparison to LeBron at 19 is better because they were the same age and both in their first year, although Durant does have the advantage in that he had a year of college under his belt and I do think that his experience with the Olympic team gave him even more of an advantage coming in. The key to judging Durant will be to see how he improves once he's got a real feel for the game. Notice how LeBron's numbers went way up in his second year. See how Kobe's improved once he was moved to a starter and had some experience. I want to see how Durant does before I say he didn't reach expectations. It's my feeling though that he'll end up being just like a Rashard Lewis or a Loul Deng or Richard Jefferson or a Jason Richardson or a Richard Hamilton. A guy that can consistently get you 20-25 but very little else. A guy that's a fringe all-star player but not the future hall of famer that many thought he'd be coming out.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

My feeling is still that he's going to be a guy that gets you 20-23 a night for his career and nothing else. He may even get it up to the 25-26 a night range. As I said, there is nothing wrong with that at all. But there are a lot of guys that could do that in his situation. Rashard Lewis got them 22 a night playing with Ray Allen but gave them nothing else. No defense. No rebounding. No passing. Nothing else. My issue with Durant is that he's strictly a perimeter player. People looked at his rebounding numbers and assumed he was also an inside player and he's just not. He's an athletic player and he dominated guys that he was better than in college but he doesn't have those same physical advantages in the NBA. I think that the expecations for Durant were that he could come in and would be a guy that could get you 28 a night right off the bat, along with maybe 7-8 boards. Perhaps the expectations were unrealistic to begin with. But I don't think that 19 a night and 39% shooting and around four boards a night are what was expected of him. I discount all the comparisons to past players and what they did at his age, especially going further back. Kobe Bryant was straight out of high school and at 19, even though he was in his second season, he wasn't a starter. He played 79 games that year and only started one. He was playing behind Eddie Jones, who was an all-star at the time. Shaquille O'Neal was also on that team so Bryant was never the first scoring option on that team. LeBron was also straight out of high school. A lot of people like to look at the whole age thing and compare where people rank at the same ages. I hate every time I hear them compare what Kobe has done at certain ages to what Jordan had done at that same age. It's not accurate. I like to judge it by comparing guys at the same point in terms of NBA experience. The comparison to LeBron at 19 is better because they were the same age and both in their first year, although Durant does have the advantage in that he had a year of college under his belt and I do think that his experience with the Olympic team gave him even more of an advantage coming in. The key to judging Durant will be to see how he improves once he's got a real feel for the game. Notice how LeBron's numbers went way up in his second year. See how Kobe's improved once he was moved to a starter and had some experience. I want to see how Durant does before I say he didn't reach expectations. It's my feeling though that he'll end up being just like a Rashard Lewis or a Loul Deng or Richard Jefferson or a Jason Richardson or a Richard Hamilton. A guy that can consistently get you 20-25 but very little else. A guy that's a fringe all-star player but not the future hall of famer that many thought he'd be coming out.

Though I may be a bit more optimistic about Durant than you are you make valid points. Except the point that he was going to be expected to score 28 per with 7 rebounds? Who expected that? And a year under Rick Barnes is probably a minus in the experience dept. (that should get Peegarden nuts)

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Though I may be a bit more optimistic about Durant than you are you make valid points. Except the point that he was going to be expected to score 28 per with 7 rebounds? Who expected that? And a year under Rick Barnes is probably a minus in the experience dept. (that should get Peegarden nuts)

Yes Texas is a bad team with Durant gone.
They have beaten the best teams in the Nation.
He is a terrible coach. They have absolutely no inside
game yet the can take out UCLA at LA, Tennessee, Kansas...
a pitiful coach. He works well with what he has got. I think he
is very good at utilizing talent properly, but not a great game coach.

I will however also note that I hate the style Texas plays right now, hate it.
They will lose to any top team that has a competent inside presence. Texas could easily take out Duke, and get crushed by North Carolina, that is the type of team they are.

What the heck was Barnes supposed to do with a kid who was only going to stay one year? I suppose Oden became a fundamental wonder after his one year at Ohio State? Both are raw in diff. areas.

I will however say that Durant is as good a shooter for a guy as long as he is that I have seen. If you watch his footwork and hands on the catch and shoot, it should take your breath away, thing of beauty.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Yes Texas is a bad team with Durant gone.
They have beaten the best teams in the Nation.
He is a terrible coach. They have absolutely no inside
game yet the can take out UCLA at LA, Tennessee, Kansas...
a pitiful coach. He works well with what he has got. I think he
is very good at utilizing talent properly, but not a great game coach.

I will however also note that I hate the style Texas plays right now, hate it.
They will lose to any top team that has a competent inside presence. Texas could easily take out Duke, and get crushed by North Carolina, that is the type of team they are.

What the heck was Barnes supposed to do with a kid who was only going to stay one year? I suppose Oden became a fundamental wonder after his one year at Ohio State? Both are raw in diff. areas.

I will however say that Durant is as good a shooter for a guy as long as he is that I have seen. If you watch his footwork and hands on the catch and shoot, it should take your breath away, thing of beauty.

You are too easy...

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You are too easy...

I will argue about anything.
Ya got me.

The truth is I really like Durant.
He is a great kid. Humble, well-spoken
most of the time. He is a really nice kid.

Was not hatin on him. Wish him all the luck
in the world.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Seattle loses an average game by 7 points. So are you trying to say that the top scoring threat on an NBA team gets loose coverage because the other team knows it is going to win anyway? Wouldnt he as the primary point producer get more attention than an average player? So in the 13 games that they won, he wasnt on the court during the important possessions? That is a very shaky theory. Sure he is getting numbers in Seattle because they stink and he is kind of forced to. But his production is very good when you consider his age, experience level, lack of talented teammates and physical shortcomings.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Seattle loses an average game by 7 points. So are you trying to say that the top scoring threat on an NBA team gets loose coverage because the other team knows it is going to win anyway? Wouldnt he as the primary point producer get more attention than an average player? So in the 13 games that they won, he wasnt on the court during the important possessions? That is a very shaky theory. Sure he is getting numbers in Seattle because they stink and he is kind of forced to. But his production is very good when you consider his age, experience level, lack of talented teammates and physical shortcomings.

Point is no team comes in saying we got to shut Durant down.
Double that guy, keep him from going to the hole.

He will get his 17 shots because most are at distance, and he will make his 7. You know his game is not going to hurt you when shots come from further out. Bother him while he is shooting, and he will make his 7 for 17, and we will beat them. It aint that hard. He is 1-D. And yes that is good for a physically immature 19 year old.


Now with the averages. You and both know the fallacy of these. Barry Sanders averages lets say 5 yards a game. We both know that he probably had a bunch of very long runs, and loses, but very few 5 yard runs. So if one looks at the Seattle scores what does it look like cause I dont know? Whats the mode?