Feels Like a Lateral Move

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Talk about avoidance

Indeed.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I also said that there was a larger issue that prompted that assertion... and I, too, was right, as evidenced by the quote I provided.

Let's look at your quote again.

Quote:

---

Thus, the original issue appeared to be whether MWill is an asset to the Hawks national rep, and now, BK's legacy, or not.

To THAT point...

And then you talk about Richard Jefferson? Hello Mcfly, is anybody home?

Nobody sees the Hawks or BK as a laughingstock because of how Marvin compares to a rookie Jefferson. They see BK as a laughingstock because of how Marvin compares to Paul/Deron.

Shell game #4.... or is it 2-B???

Q: The discussion about whether MWill was even an average SF came from where?

A: A discussion about whether the Hawks were a laughingstock.

Quote:

---

The only reason Jefferson comes into play is in measuring how Marvin currently stacks up against other small forwards.

And, so, you would allege, that this part of the discussion "spontaneously generated" like maggots from meat, into the thread without anything to do with the previous "laughingstock" quote.

Okaaaaaay....

*rolls eyes*

Sometimes it's hard to know whether you really believe what you write or if it's all just a self-absorbed game to see just how far you can twist conversations into oblivion. By the way... the maggots were there in their eggs, you just either couldn't or wouldn't see them... the analogy holds up pretty well.

Anyhow... I'm gone for the rest of the day... will be interesting to see what's spontaneously generated upon my return.

EDIT: Missed the actual numbers for that "substantial" assertion above, btw... more avoidance, or did you just forget? Please pass it along as long as you're replying again, okay? Thanks.

[exodus]

I can't figure out of you are really this dumb or just acting this way to mess with me.

Quote:

---

Q: The discussion about whether MWill was even an average SF came from where?

A: A discussion about whether the Hawks were a laughingstock.

Correct

And the reason Marvin being a below average SF makes BK a laughingstock is because he passed on two franchise PGs.

Whether or not Marvin has put up better numbers than a rookie RJ has no relevance to the national perception of the Marvin pick.

The only reason i made up the list of SF's is becuase Eazy challenged my assertion that Marvin was a below average starting SF.

[AHF]

Ex's post that started this line of discussion contained both of the following comments:

Quote:

---

marvin is still a below average starting 3 after 3 seasons.

****************

BK is a national laughingstock whose best ever record is 37 wins.

Then the conversation turned to whether Marvin was above average or not and that is where the list of people came into play. Ex posted the list to show that Marvin could not currently be an above average starting SF because there were more starting SFs that were better than him right now than there were starting SFs that he surpassed.

I don't think this is worth arguing about. It is clear that exodus says that Knight is a national laughing stock for passing on some standout players while selecting Chills, Marvin and Shelden in the top 6 3 years in a row, along with other personnel moves like Speedy, Lo, etc. and based on the way Knight has been hammered in the national press.

It is also clear that he contends that Marvin is not an average starting SF right now.

Sturt clearly believes Marvin still has star potential and that he is developing along schedule while Exodus disagrees and says that Marvin is an OK young SF that isn't as promising as young, non-stars like Al Thorton, Rudy Gay and Thadeus Young.

I think we should move on from deciding how the thread was framed and back to the issues we are discussing at hand. Agreed?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I think we should move on from deciding how the thread was framed and back to the issues we are discussing at hand. Agreed?

The problem is that sturt can't even state what point he is trying to make. The rookie Jefferson numbers vs current Marvin have no relevance to the points that have been made in this thread.

I am guessing he decided to make up his own point to argue, although he hasn't yet actually stated what his point is.

[EazyRoc]

Correction..I never challenged the fact that he was a below average starting SF. I merely said he was not below average. After looking over the list again, maybe he is average. I'd take Marvin over Battier. He's the only one on that list that I believe Marvin is better than.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Correction..I never challenged the fact that he was a below average starting SF

Looks like you and sturt have something in common. Instead of arguing against the point i was making you decided to argue about something else entirely. Next thing you will be arguing about Speedy's foul shooting.

Sturt doesn't even know what point he is trying to make. his argument is all over the place.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Correction..I never challenged the fact that he was a below average starting SF.

You probably need to make that point more clearly next time.

When someone says something like:

"Marvin isn't an average starting SF."

And the reply is along the lines of:

"You underrate Marvin, he is average."

It looks like you are responding to the original claim rather than starting a new, slightly different tangent.

[EazyRoc]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Correction..I never challenged the fact that he was a below average starting SF

Looks like you and sturt have something in common. Instead of arguing against the point i was making you decided to argue about something else entirely. Next thing you will be arguing about Speedy's foul shooting.

Sturt doesn't even know what point he is trying to make. his argument is all over the place.

What you fail to understand is I wasn't arguing against your "point". I was making a statement just like I said in a previous post.

EDIT: Irregardless, Marvin is better than Battier. So, that makes your whole point moot.

[EazyRoc]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Correction..I never challenged the fact that he was a below average starting SF.

You probably need to make that point more clearly next time.

When someone says something like:

"Marvin isn't an average starting SF."

And the reply is along the lines of:

"You underrate Marvin, he is average."

It looks like you are responding to the original claim rather than starting a new, slightly different tangent.

I agree completely. However, I clarified this for him in another post, but unfortunately he either didn't see my clarification or he chose to ignore it.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Correction..I never challenged the fact that he was a below average starting SF

Looks like you and sturt have something in common. Instead of arguing against the point i was making you decided to argue about something else entirely. Next thing you will be arguing about Speedy's foul shooting.

Sturt doesn't even know what point he is trying to make. his argument is all over the place.

What you fail to understand is I wasn't arguing against your "point". I was making a statement just like I said in a previous post.

EDIT: Irregardless, Marvin is better than Battier. So, that makes your whole point moot.

I have a feeling the people in Houston wouldn't agree. Battier is a legit threat from 3 and is also one of the best defenders in the league.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Correction..I never challenged the fact that he was a below average starting SF.

You probably need to make that point more clearly next time.

When someone says something like:

"Marvin isn't an average starting SF."

And the reply is along the lines of:

"You underrate Marvin, he is average."

It looks like you are responding to the original claim rather than starting a new, slightly different tangent.

I agree completely. However, I clarified this for him in another post, but unfortunately he either didn't see my clarification or he chose to ignore it.

I saw it. The problem is that is where sturt came in and also went on a tangent.

And trying to say Marvin is better than Jefferson was a joke.

[sturt]

AHF, let me have a go with this, because I'm persuaded that ex is being genuine that he somehow became confused how we got from A to B (though I recognize he would prefer to portray himself as the victim)... and since I helped blaze the trail, I think I'm probably the right man for the job...

Quote:

---

Ex's post that started this line of discussion contained both of the following comments:

Quote:

---

marvin is still a below average starting 3 after 3 seasons.

****************

BK is a national laughingstock whose best ever record is 37 wins.

Absolutely. So what we had was....

Ex Assertion: "BK is a national laughingstock."

Ex Supporting Statements for Assertion:

(1) "BK drafted Childress, Marvin and Shelden in the top 6 in 3 consecutive years. That doesn't make things look any better.... (In direct reply to the statement: It's not too late for Childress and Marvin to have really good careers...) Childress has hardly improved in 4 years. marvin is still a below average starting 3 after 3 seasons."

(2) "(BK's...) best ever record is 37 wins."

(3) "Uhhh... the national media (has propagated the image of BK as a laughingstock). Have you been living in a cave the last few years?"

Quote:

---

Ex posted the list to show that Marvin could not currently be an above average starting SF because there were more starting SFs that were better than him right now than there were starting SFs that he surpassed.

In other words, had Marvin performed sufficiently better, there would be, at least, one less reason for BK being a national laughingstock. To the contrary, ex suggests in responding to Eazy's suggestion that MWill is "average," there's at least 15 (ie, 50%) starting SFs that are better than MWill, and... again, tying it back to Point A... therefore, because MWill has not performed sufficiently better than that, that circumstance contributes to BK's status as a national laughingstock.

To which, I responded essentially that BK may have been a laughingstock in the national media (past tense), but that there is some evidence to suggest that that is not deserved (present tense) and that he will not continue to be (future tense) held in such disregard, in particular where it concerns how history will look back on the MWill pick. Hence, my bringing to light numbers that support that MWill's career track, for a 21 year-old, is (present tense) headed in a trajectory that could change minds over the next couple of years.

That's when Ex decided this would be an appropriate response:

Quote:

---

And then you talk about Richard Jefferson? Hello Mcfly, is anybody home?

Nobody sees the Hawks or BK as a laughingstock because of how Marvin compares to a rookie Jefferson. They see BK as a laughingstock because of how Marvin compares to Paul/Deron.

Talk about avoidance.

The only reason Jefferson comes into play is in measuring how Marvin currently stacks up against other small forwards.

So you need to make up your mind which point you are trying to argue. If you are talking about how Marvin effects the national perception of BK then Richard Jefferson is irrelevant.

Recalling the movie ex cites here, and since there's an evident desire by the aggressor to take the (ho-hum) name-calling to that arena, I'll oblige...

Biff was always fairly good in the bully role, but at critical moments, he was a little slow on the uptake. (I can't think of a better analogy, and owe some gratitude to ex for serving that one up.)

In this case, Biff apparently just didn't pick up on the fact that I was debating with him about the validity of saying that the "laughingstock" label would endure, at least to the degree that MWill's career has anything to say about it.

And really, I wasn't the first to bring up the future ramifications to Biff, so it shouldn't have been nearly so cloudy as he claims it was--recall what prompted him to say "marvin is still a below average starting 3 after 3 seasons"... it was none other than Eazy's assertion that "It's not too late for Childress and Marvin to have really good careers."

Finally, let me address Biff...er... can I just call you "ex" again?... I'm not really seeing much purpose in playing the name-calling game, really... you're an adult, as far as I know, so it's kind of silly ... let me address ex's comment:

Quote:

---

And the reason Marvin being a below average SF makes BK a laughingstock is because he passed on two franchise PGs.

The comment begs some assumptions...

Q: Is Marvin a below average SF?

A: Well, addressing that exact question, I agree with Eazy... he's closer to average than he is "below average."

I think this question is more legit, though...

Q: Is Marvin a below average SF in comparison with where other top SFs were at his same age?

A: To the contrary, in certain "minor" areas like scoring and rebounding, he appears to be even ahead of some.

Q: Is BK a laughingstock?

A: I think the zit on your face is always unattractive, but about ten times bigger and yellow-er to your own eyes than it is to everyone else's.

No question, BK has had some harsh criticism that often called his competency into question.

But again, nothing is set in stone--consider how much positive was written and said about BK in the media during the Boston series. Those things turn around real fast... winning has that effect... and... MWill duplicating his ten best games in ten additional games in 08-09 would also have a corrosive effect on the laughingstock legacy.

Q: Is the laughingstock moniker magnified because of Paul and Williams' success? (...and, because the franchise had a vacancy sign on their point guard slot)

A: No argument. But I entered the discussion when MWill was specifically the focus of the contention... looking back, they clearly came up early on, but then didn't resurface until I'd posted on the topic on three separate occasions.

Quote:

---

I don't think this is worth arguing about.... I think we should move on from deciding how the thread was framed and back to the issues we are discussing at hand. Agreed?

Wellllll... ya know, I never did get the satisfaction of learning what ex considers to be "substantial"... ...but, I think I'd just as soon let it go.

[EazyRoc]

Quote:

---

And trying to say Marvin is better than Jefferson was a joke.

I can agree with that.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

To which, I responded essentially that BK may have been a laughingstock in the national media (past tense)

Past tense? i can only assume you simply don't follow the NBA. BK gets constantly dogged by national writers and opposing game announcers.

I watch the games on League Pass and frequently get the opposing teams announcers. EVERY TIME they have to comment about BK's blunder of drafting MW even though it happened 3 years ago.

Quote:

---

but that there is some evidence to suggest that that is not deserved (present tense)

Whether or not it is deserved doesn't matter. BK doesnt' have a job and will be forever linked to his bad picks.

Quote:

---

will not continue to be (future tense) held in such disregard,

So if Marvin becomes an above average SF you think that people won't think it is a big deal that he passed on two franchise pgs to get him?

This year Paul was on the short list for MVP candidates and Deron averaged 18.8/10.5 shooting 50.7% from the field and 39.5% from 3.

Marvin would have to become Lebron to change the perception that BK completely blew it.

Quote:

---

Hence, my bringing to light numbers that support that MWill's career track, for a 21 year-old, is (present tense) headed in a trajectory that could change minds over the next couple of years.

And i could get struck by lightning when i walk outside today.

Is it possible that Marvin could get to Jefferson's level someday? Sure it possible. It is also possible that he never gets any better than he is right now. Neither scenario is likely.

The pg spot is the second most important postition on the floor. Deron and Paul are not only far better scorers than MW they also get others involved in the offense. They are both considered elite pgs.

Why don't you email Chad Ford and Mark Stein and tell them the Marvin pick wasn't so bad since Marvin's numbers this year were comparable to RJ's in his rookie year? I am sure they would get a good laugh out of that.

[sturt]

Ex it appears you figured it out after all, which means I accomplished the purpose of the previous post.

So we disagree. Oh well. Time... perhaps past time... to move on...

Or, maybe, back to the original intent of the post per AHF's request.

[exodus]

The Hawks have $23 million invested in pgs next season and the pg position is still a major question mark. Bibby averaged 10/3 in the playoffs shooting 33%, getting completely clowned by Rondo who isn't even that good. Acie averaged 4/2 shooting 40% during the season. Speedy is inspiring nothing but hopes that he will retire.

Meanwhile Deron and Paul are inspiring comparisons to some of the all time great pgs while Marvin is averaging 15/6 shooting 46% with no three point shooting.

That is the reality of the Hawks situation and your wishful thinking hypotheticals can't change it. I know you won't respond to this because you can't. It is much easier to live in Fantasyland.

[Dsinner]

Quote:

---

When your best year is 37 wins that isnt average, especially considering all the guys he passed on in the draft (Deng, Iggy, Paul, Deron, Roy).

A 37 win team WITH a maxed out payroll. I personaly belive we are a better team than that (see coach) but even BK is responsible for that reason (see coach).

[Dsinner]

Quote:

---

I have a feeling the people in Houston wouldn't agree. Battier is a legit threat from 3 and is also one of the best defenders in the league.

Hell, I don't agree. I'd take Battier in a second over MW. Battier would fit our team perfectly. He's a team player who plays excellent D, can shoot, and most importantly, plays with heart EVERY game.

I PRAY Marv can come close to reaching Battiers level. He's on his way but at his pace it will be a decade or so.

[EazyRoc]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I have a feeling the people in Houston wouldn't agree. Battier is a legit threat from 3 and is also one of the best defenders in the league.

Hell, I don't agree. I'd take Battier in a second over MW. Battier would fit our team perfectly. He's a team player who plays excellent D, can shoot, and most importantly, plays with heart EVERY game.

I PRAY Marv can come close to reaching Battiers level. He's on his way but at his pace it will be a decade or so.

You are really overrating Battier or underrating Marvin. Marvin is the much better scorer, and he is our best man-on-man perimeter defender, though not nearly as good as Battier in that department. I haven't watched a lot of Battier, but when I saw him I wasn't overly impressed. He's definately a solid, well-rounded player who would work on a team where he's not expected to score at all.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Late lottery or not.. In fact, when it's a need pick, why does that even matter?

Because need and talent have to be weighed together.

In 2005 the perceived talent gap between Marvin and Paul/Deron wasn't big enough to justify passing on the position of need.

In 2006 the talent gap was so huge that need wasn't enough to outweigh it.

2005.... we learned the lesson that we shouldn't pass up on Need because it's too hard to get need.

2006... Our need was too great to pass up on need.

PERIOD.

You talk about talent gap as if you can truly quantitate the top 10 players of the game that