The Bazemore Conundrum

[Lurker]

I still haven't gotten this answer:

Is Al Horford good enough to be one of a championship team's best player?

[NBASupes]

15 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Teams are leaving Al Horford wide open on purpose, they don't respect his three point shot and never will unless he brings it up to 35-36%. Him shooting threes is causing less spacing...

His 3pt% is 33% which is good for a NBA big at the 3pt line. Saying they leave him open all the time is a lie. Especially when his percentage is higher than when wide open. 

[pimp]

8 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

He's a superstar for us. We lose him and it's like losing the foundation of a house, it just fall apart. Him and Korver are our two most untouchable players in terms of impact. 

 

You guys really have to quit looking at surface stats, they don't tell the story what so ever. There isn't a single center that you can replace with Horford right now and improve. Not one. Go head, name the ones you think are better. We will not improve. Because none of them solve our biggest issues and the issues they do solve just creates other issues we didn't have before. 

He's not a superstar for us, or else he would be worth double teaming, or at least get to foul line more than 1.7 times or rebound at a half eay decent rate.

We don't need a better center than him  . We have seen in the past  that we keep winning at the same rate when Horford was out injured. You seem to always ignore that.
You don't need a big time center to win a championship.
All you need  is a guy that can rebound ,set picks , and defend. We can spend money on better SGs and SFs and a average center.
Look at all the teams that went to the finals in the last 16  years with a average centers.
Heat -3 times -  with  scrubs
OKC - Perkins
Warriors - Bogut is just a role player there
Celtics- 2 times   - Perkins
Mavs-  2 times - Dampier 2006 - Chandler 2011
Cavs 2 times
nets -2 times . Jason Collins
Pacers-Rik Smits not as good as he used to be at that point.

We need more dynamic wing players on this team. I f we could get someone that actually has a post game, that would be a bonus.

 

 

[NBASupes]

Just now, Lurker said:

I still haven't gotten this answer:

Is Al Horford good enough to be one of a championship team's best player?

Yes. As is Draymond Green. Is he a #1 option? No. He's an excellent #3 option who is an elite role player. He's not Lebron, Steph or Durant. He's not Westbrook, Harden, Klay or Melo. He is Al Horford. He's worth every penny. If you want a title, you must add the #1 option to play with him. 

[Lurker]

Just now, NBASupes said:

Yes. As is Draymond Green. Is he a #1 option? No. He's an excellent #3 option who is an elite role player. He's not Lebron, Steph or Durant. He's not Westbrook, Harden, Klay or Melo. He is Al Horford. He's worth every penny. If you want a title, you must add the #1 option to play with him.

And that is not Jabari Parker like you want him to be. Parker is not good.

[Lurker]

Draymond Green>>>>>>>Al Horford. Not even close.

[NBASupes]

14 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

That's just general NBA gameplan stuff for the entire team, that tells me nothing.

Please don't mention Tim Duncan - that's a guy teams game plan for.  He could go to any team and anchor a defense and offense even as old as he is.

Tim Duncan is one of the top 10 greatest NBA players ever. So why would I mention him? You really aren't making too much sense in this. You are not going to convince me Horford isn't great when I know he is. He's the only player on this team that is great. He's just not a #1 option or even a #2 option. That's not in his temperament. 

[Lurker]

Horford is at BEST, a 4th option on a title contender. Not the best player.

Or I should say not one of the best players.

[NBASupes]

Just now, Lurker said:

Draymond Green>Al Horford. Not even close.

In Golden State, yes. In Atlanta, Horford>Green. You add Green here and we have more issues and our scoring woes are still the same. Now, add Steph Curry to our team and it's a different question. 

[Lurker]

Still the same in Atlanta. I hope they move on from Horford and start the rebuild.

[NBASupes]

Just now, Lurker said:

Still the same in Atlanta. I hope they move on from Horford and start the rebuild.

How? 

3 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Horford is at BEST, a 4th option on a title contender. Not the best player.

Or I should say not one of the best players.

This is bullshit. Complete bullshit. How? 

[Lurker]

If you think Horford can be a 3rd best player on a title contender. Prove it. You cannot. He is so so overrated by you.

[NBASupes]

2 minutes ago, Lurker said:

If you think Horford can be a 3rd best player on a title contender. Prove it. You cannot. He is so so overrated by you.

Kid, explain how or shut the hell up?  I am getting tired of your low brow bullshit post. Meaningless as hell and you don't ever have an explanation for anything, just an opinion. 

 

Bye Felisha! 

 

Back to Bazemore, I am no longer answering any questions on Horford. None. 

Edited February 9, 2016 by NBASupes

[skimaskway23]

I'm all for Teague for Parker.  Might be a step back this year but the more I watch gsw, the less hope I have about our chances this yr anyway

[AHF]

IMO, Horford could easily be the #3 guy on a championship team.  Horace Grant won a bunch of rings as the #3 guy and Horford is on his level.

As for the "prove it" argument, I have no idea what is being asked for there.  The only way to prove it would be to actually put Horford on a team where he is the 3rd best player and win a championship.  Since he has been the #1 or #2 player in Atlanta for years, there isn't anything to be done there.  Since no one owns a time machine that can alter reality so as to allow you to go back and switch Horford for Grant or something like that there isn't anything to be done there.  Thus, it leaves the notion that Horford can win a ring as the #3 or the #4 or #5, etc. option as a complete hypothetical incapable of being tested today.  So why ask for proof when you know proof isn't possible?

[macdaddy]

Horford was the 3rd (or maybe 2nd) best player on a title contender last year.   Say what you want about our team but in my book any team that makes the conference finals is a title contender. 

[NBASupes]

Back to Bazemore guys, I didn't put in this much work for it to be sidetracked to agendas. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, NBASupes said:

Tim Duncan is one of the top 10 greatest NBA players ever. So why would I mention him? You really aren't making too much sense in this. You are not going to convince me Horford isn't great when I know he is. He's the only player on this team that is great. He's just not a #1 option or even a #2 option. That's not in his temperament. 

 

I didnt bring up TD.

I don't need to try and convince you, The fact that you think Al was ever better than Karl Malone is a losing proposition. 

 You need to define 'Great' because you are not making any sense.

The only time great and Al should be in the same player is if you say 'Al is GREAT at what he's good at (whatever that is).

 

[JTB]

40 minutes ago, AHF said:

IMO, Horford could easily be the #3 guy on a championship team.  Horace Grant won a bunch of rings as the #3 guy and Horford is on his level.

As for the "prove it" argument, I have no idea what is being asked for there.  The only way to prove it would be to actually put Horford on a team where he is the 3rd best player and win a championship.  Since he has been the #1 or #2 player in Atlanta for years, there isn't anything to be done there.  Since no one owns a time machine that can alter reality so as to allow you to go back and switch Horford for Grant or something like that there isn't anything to be done there.  Thus, it leaves the notion that Horford can win a ring as the #3 or the #4 or #5, etc. option as a complete hypothetical incapable of being tested today.  So why ask for proof when you know proof isn't possible?

Me too! Which is why we should trade Al to the clippers to see if it comes true for him. Lol...there he will be the 3rd option.

[NBASupes]

4 hours ago, hylndr11 said:

Right -

Why cant they win  with a bigger SF or a la the article above something that gives us back the benefits of Carroll

We most definitely need the benefits of Carroll but if it is not available,  we need a #1 option with size as well. That's just as important.