Boogua

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Feb 27, 2013 -> 10:53 PM) Even better than the show Harden put on against The Thunder last week. The PG position is just too much now. I remember back in the day Mookie Blalock was considered an all-star caliber PG. lol. He made one all-star game. You can think that wings are just better now, but it just looks that way because of all the rule changes. You probably know that, but I just don't know why you would make a statement trying to compare eras when the game is so different. Even Bill Simmons wrote in his "big book of basketball" that Kevin Johnson would likely average 30-15 post-2004. Fun fact: Another PG that scored 54 points in a game was Damon Stoudamire. It happened in 2005 and he was 31 at the time. Point guards are just too much now.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Feb 27, 2013 -> 09:30 AM) They beat Ok State(who was the best team on their schedule, not Ill or Butler) and KState. And like I said, I'm certainly not saying they should be ranked number 1 or even a 1 seed at this point but my eye tells me they're one of, if not the best team in the country. They have scorers/shooters from every position on the floor, they're extremely efficient offensively, their defense has improved big time as the season has went on, they're big, they're fast as hell, they're really, really good. And don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying but from what I've seen, they're as good as anyone. I don't think you can say OK State is the best team they've faced like it's a fact. I think everybody would agree that the B1G is a harder conference than the Big 12 and look at how OK State did out of conference compared to Illinois. The argument can certainly be made that OK State is the best team they've faced, but it isn't fact. And the problem with Gonzaga is their guard play. Against good defensive teams their guards have lots of problems. Pangos isn't a good defender either. Look at the three OOC games against Illinois, Butler, and K state (cherry picking because those were probably the three best defensive teams that Gonzaga faced this year), Pangos had a combined 24 points on pretty poor percentages. Stockton off the bench isn't particularly good either. On paper and when they're playing poor teams Gonzaga looks incredible. Unfortunately, when they play teams that can pressure the ball or play solid defense their guards have issues because they can't really drive.

QUOTE (Jake @ Feb 23, 2013 -> 11:30 PM) Yep. His reputation is mainly based on Aldon Smith and Jared Allen, guys he received no help against (Carimi too) A lot of Aldon Smith came against Carimi too, which lost him his job. I may be mistaken about this though. E: Didn't see the parenthesis.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 20, 2013 -> 12:12 PM) Top four teams from a conference have to go to different regions, so if Wisconsin gets a higher seed than Ohio State, they will avoid being in the same region as IU, MSU, or UM. Just looked at Wisconsin's remaining schedule and wow. They're probably going to get 13 wins in the B1G this year. They only played IU and UM once, but it's still impressive. So much for having a down year...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 19, 2013 -> 02:57 PM) You can't win an NBA title with one superstar caliber player anymore. The Mavericks won the championship 2 years ago with one superstar caliber player.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Feb 15, 2013 -> 02:56 PM) Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet Released DB Charles Woodson's agent Carl Poston: "He'd like to go play for a contender, win another Super Bowl. He caught that bug." Sooo GBs not a contender any more? They are, but they released him. ?

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 15, 2013 -> 11:02 AM) Was Dwights injury last year the same as this years? He had surgery for the injury last year and hasn't recovered since. Although there's no telling whether or not he'll be as explosive as he was. If he isn't then he loses a ton of his value. And people can say that the Center position has gone the way of the dodo bird, but look at how valuable Dwight was pre-injury. People argued that he was more valuable than Lebron at points and he took a team to the finals. He averaged 23 points per game. There isn't one thing that Dwight Howard could do better offensively than a young Shaq. Nothing. There aren't too many defensive anchors at Center anymore. Look at how valuable Chandler was for that Mavs team though. Look at how much the Pacers are paying Roy Hibbert. The Center position is going extinct, but it's because all the big men want to be like KG or Kevin Durant.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Feb 15, 2013 -> 10:06 AM) That's where the Lakers with Howard/Gasol were supposed to come into play. But they're not even making the playoffs. Can't see anything outside of an injury that stops the Heat this year. Yeah, because they hired a terrible coach for their aging team. It probably wouldn't have mattered much anyways though because Dwight looks nothing like the dwight of the last few years. I agree that the Heat are probably going to win, but I think the Spurs would give them the most fits. Who checks Parker? Who checks Duncan? It would be really interesting. The Thunder eliminated the Spurs last year and will be favorites to do it again, however Harden dominated in that series and he's gone now.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 15, 2013 -> 08:58 AM) The Grizzlies have fallen apart since they gave away Rudy Gay. I think they're 4-2 since the trade (4-3 if you want to count the day of the trade when they didn't have Prince or Davis in uniform yet). I'm not sure I'd say that they've fallen apart though.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:40 PM) Just give the Heat the title already. Let's focus on the offseason - semi serious. I hear that Boozer + Robinson for Bargnani + JLIII is still on the table. I feel like the Heat would have a tougher time beating a team like the Spurs or Grizzlies than the Thunder. Unfortunately, the Thunder will most likely make the finals again. To beat the Heat you have to kill them on the glass and beat them inside. The Thunder can't do that. Ball movement helps too (something the Spurs are great at). That's what hurt the Heat against the Mavs two years ago. That and Lebron having the worst finals by a superstar ever.

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 12, 2013 -> 05:38 AM) Watched "Brooklyn Castle" yesterday on train ride. The chess stuff was interesting with how serious these kids and teachers take it, like most of us take baseball or basketball. I tried learning chess when I was younger but couldn't get a grasp on strategy. To see these kids who are 12 or so get it down was pretty neat. I actually play some tournament chess on occasion (around expert rating) and there is a kid named Awonder Liang that plays in local tournaments. He's 9 years old and is the youngest player ever to beat a Grandmaster in tournament play. Pretty cool considering the kid is American and we've only had one claim to fame in chess and he was a complete psycho.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Feb 11, 2013 -> 10:55 AM) The NBA was more fundamentally sound in the 90s, it's more athletic today. I guess it depends on what you prefer. I really don't think it's that black and white. The 90s had some really good athletes too. Overall today's PGs are probably a bit more athletic (guys like Westbrook and Rose are pretty sick athletes), but the big men today tend to be less athletic. I just looked at the rebounding leaders for this year and it goes as follows: Howard, Randolph, Vucevic, Asik, and Chandler. Howard is really the only amazing athlete in that bunch (and he's been hobbled this year). Chandler is okay, but isn't nearly as athletic as he used to be. The top 5 from 1991? Rodman, Kevin Willis, David Robinson, Mutombo, and Olajuwan. There are some pretty good athletes in that bunch. Fair to say that they were obviously more athletic than this year's leaders. Rebounding is just a raw stat and you don't have to take it seriously if you don't want, but it does usually deal with athleticism (as well as fundamentals). You can't tell me that today's big men are better athletes than the 90s. Also, fundamentals still win out over athleticism a good portion of the time. That's why Duncan is still so good. That's why Tony Parker is averaging 20 points a game on 53%(59.5 TS%) shooting while Westbrook is shooting 42.5% (52 TS%) with the best offensive player in the league next to him.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 11, 2013 -> 12:56 PM) Angelo was never good at drafting first two rounds. His biggest hit was Hester, everything else was pretty bad. Before the Super Bowl he was pretty good at drafting late in drafts, then he lost his touch and started reaching with everything. His comments are pretty damn ironic considering how many players he drafted merely on athleticism and not on actual football talent, previously mentioned Jarron Gilbert being a big one. Tommie Harris was pretty damn good too, but yeah, I get your point. Two of his better first round picks (Harris and G-Reg) were easy picks because they basically fell into his lap.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Feb 9, 2013 -> 04:37 PM) Maybe I worded that incorrectly. I guess what I meant to say is that the days of "everything NBA was better in the 90's" should be long gone. I'm not just talking Bulls fans. But NBA fans in general. The product we have now is pretty f***ing sick. Say what you want about the new rules. But I love the pick n roll, spread 'em out league of today. I was watching a Bulls playoff game from 1998 and what the f***? I don't remember the pace being so f***ing slow. Nobody ever ran. Everything was half-court. And everybody was mugging each other. When people say that I think they generally refer to the early portion of the 90s. Pre-expansion. There was still running at the time and you had wing players like Jordan, Drexler, (and to an extent Barkley, who was a post player that could play on the wing). You had good PGs in Hardaway, Stockton, Price, and KJ. Then to top it off it was the golden era for centers. Are there any all time great centers today? How about power forwards? The game is pretty unbalanced for wing players. I do agree that it has become pretty entertaining because there are tons of storylines now, but I don't think people will ever stop saying that "everything NBA was better in the 90's" because it will always hold true. Using 1998 as your example isn't really fair to the 90s. Maybe watch some of the early Knicks-Bulls series, or some of the early Bulls finals. You see guys like Richard Dumas (for Phoenix) running the floor and making no-look passes or going behind his back for layups. The guy averaged 16 points as a rookie and I had never even heard of him until I re-watched some old games. Look up his highlights if you get a chance. Look, I'm only 25, so I should be biased towards today's era, but having watched a ton of old film I just can't do it. It was just a superior product.

Wow.

It really should be an interesting game. Illinois tends to play better when the game speeds up a bit. Watford and Zeller aren't your typical physical big men that the Illini tend to have problems with too. Somewhat comparable to Olynyk and Harris from Gonzaga (who did well against the Illini and almost fouled out the whole front court, but didn't dominate on the glass). If Egwu can stay out of foul trouble I think Illinois has an okay chance. Unfortunately the odds of that happening against Zeller are slim to none, so I just can't see how Illinois wins. They'd have to be hot from downtown and play energetic defense. You never know if Illinois flips a switch and plays the way they did against Butler, Gonzaga, and Ohio State though, so who knows?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 10:00 AM) #1 on rivals and Scout for the moment, look for Bama to hop us on Rivals. Ole Miss is either recruiting better than anyone else or they are cheating, I cant see any other way that they are pulling in these strange recruits. Disgusting class. Whoever wins "The Game" over the next few years will probably have a spot in the national title game. Ohio State and Michigan (especially Ohio State) just look head and shoulders above everybody else in the B1G right now. Nobody else has a recruiting class even in the top 15.

Nkemdiche picks Ole Miss. They already have Treadwell, they look really good with Tunsil, and could possibly flip Chris Jones. If ya ain't cheatin, ya ain't tryin. Edit: Tunsil officially committed to Ole Miss. Sick.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 08:44 AM) I would say that's a horrible description of him. He's shooting 53 percent from 3 and has been the best player on one k the best teams in the country. Ronnie Brewer and his non existent jump shot has zero to do with Oladipo. Small volume of 3 PT shots and I'd bet he was fairly wide open for most of them. If he was actually that good at shooting he would be a projected top 5 pick. Someone like Ben Gordon who was 6'2, couldn't play the point, was a poor defender, and never shot over 43.5% from 3 in college went #3 overall. If you look at Oladipo's jump shot it doesn't look all that smooth and I doubt he'll be a plus offensive player in the NBA his first few years. Can he develop into one though? Sure, but right now his offense (including his jump shot) is the main reason he's projected to go in the teens, just like Ronnie Brewer did.

So UM got Derrick Green. Illinois is going to be garbage for the foreseeable future, but the UM-OSU matchups should be pretty epic soon. I will now have a reason again to watch B1G football (besides the occasional gambling). Sorry, didn't see the last page. Doh.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Jan 26, 2013 -> 09:41 PM) To Jake or anyone subscribed to PFF....I was curious as to why Brandon Myers, who was the most productive of the potential FA TEs, has a -14.6 rating...far and away the lowest rating of any TE on the list. He was absolutely terrible at run blocking.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 25, 2013 -> 09:11 AM) These things you state are obvious. Also, the league has done a great job in marketing it's stars - it's almost like a soap opera. KG talking about Melo's wife's twat, Dwight/LBJ drama, team "doing it right" in OKC, Kobe bein' Kobe, etc etc. It's a star driven league and the league is just littered with stars who have the personality and the want to get their faces out there. I love it so much it makes my heart pitter patter. I don't think it's obvious to all. It should be, but it isn't. And I agree with your post. The league is extremely interesting because of the ability to root against teams like the Heat and Lakers, while being able to root for a team like the Thunder. The last two finals were the most interesting and entertaining since Jordan for me.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 25, 2013 -> 08:59 AM) 2008 - 2013 basketball is more fun to watch and a much better product than any era in the history of the game. Because the rule changes make it a guards league. People loved watching Allen Iverson so the league said "why don't we make everyone able to play like Iverson?!" Allen Iverson put up some of the best years of his career after the rule changes from the ages of 29-32. Pretty strange considering his game was almost completely reliant on his athleticism and ability to get to the rim. He was steadily declining the years before the changes and then BOOM! A good comparison is all the rule changes in football that make QBs amazing. The casual fan loves offense so they want to give it to them. How many 5000 yard passers were there before the last few years? Matthew Stafford has over 10,000 passing yards over the past two years. People can say that football has evolved and that QBs are just better now, but that's just silly. The rule changes need to be acknowledged.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 04:39 PM) Yeah, I'm so not getting back into the old timers, BACK IN MY DAY arguments again. You provide no real insight anyway besides what your eyes seem to believe. No biggie. I've seen no evidence provided by you and you basically respond to none of the arguments against the new era of basketball, because it's difficult.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 04:56 PM) Kevin Johnson's highest PER was 23.7, and his career mark was 20.7 Chris Paul's lowest mark was 22.0, and his career mark is 25.5 (high of 30). In his second year, Kyrie Irving's PER is almost as high as KJ's best mark. Nice. Paul, with his 25.5 Career PER must be the best PG ever then. And Isiah with his career 18 PER or whatever must be really low on your list of PGs. How about the fact that Nash's career PER is lower than KJs. His career high in PER is only 0.1 higher than KJs. Interesting. It's also an easier era for PGs. They're not getting hounded in the backcourt and they aren't getting murdered on drives to the hole (while having to take it to the cup on great centers. Not guys like Joel Anthony and Omer Asik)