Jalen Johnson may be better than De'Andre Hunter and Cam Reddish

[AHF]

When we talk about ceilings for our players and their potential, that does involve two different things:

1. Assessing the potential for Trae, Dre, Cam, Huert, JC and OO (and any other Hawks you'd include).
2. Assessing the potential for JJ.

It also can be approached at least two different ways:

1. Viewing potential with an eye towards likelihood of outcomes.
2. Ignoring likelihood and just focusing on the perfect, best-case scenario.

So my disconnect with people may be that I am rating the potential of our pre-existing talent higher (i.e., someone who looks at Cam and says "eh" when thinking about his potential is going to be in a very different category from me) and that I am putting more emphasis on likelihood of outcomes (i.e., weighting the upside of someone like Hunter more because of what he has shown against NBA competition).

So I'll throw my hand up and say we may be talking past each other to some degree.

But I'm absolutely not having this:

13 hours ago, bleachkit said:

There's literally not a single player in the NBA I would trade Jalen Johnson for. In fact there's not even a trade package I would trade Jalen Johnson for. He will surpass MJ and Lebron, in fact he will lap them. His destiny as the greatest player of all time is a certainty. 

Not when we all know that Skyler Mays may be better than MJ and JJ put together.  I mean it is possible right?  

[Wretch]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

When we talk about ceilings for our players and their potential, that does involve two different things:

1. Assessing the potential for Trae, Dre, Cam, Huert, JC and OO (and any other Hawks you'd include).
2. Assessing the potential for JJ.

It also can be approached at least two different ways:

1. Viewing potential with an eye towards likelihood of outcomes.
2. Ignoring likelihood and just focusing on the perfect, best-case scenario.

So my disconnect with people may be that I am rating the potential of our pre-existing talent higher (i.e., someone who looks at Cam and says "eh" when thinking about his potential is going to be in a very different category from me) and that I am putting more emphasis on likelihood of outcomes (i.e., weighting the upside of someone like Hunter more because of what he has shown against NBA competition).

So I'll throw my hand up and say we may be talking past each other to some degree.

But I'm absolutely not having this:

Not when we all know that Skyler Mays may be better than MJ and JJ put together.  I mean it is possible right?  

Not the damn Infinity Gauntlet.........rofl

[terrell]

12 hours ago, Wretch said:

I'm glad this post is here...  One, so I can get my opinion recorded for future reference and two, because it validates how I felt watching him in Summer League.  And let me just say...holy sheeet.

Yes, it's summer league. 

Yes, he's young. 

Yes, we have a small sample size. 

I hear you guys and I respect the calls to temper our expectations...but the ol' eyeball test on JJ was something else. 

For a 19 year old, 6'9" 220lb wing/forward...with only 2tsp's of college ball on his resume...I didn't see a whole lot of flaws.  What I did see was a damn swiss army knife.  That kid can handle the ball.  He can pass the ball.  He can shoot the ball.  He can post up.  He can face up.  He's got dribble penetration.  He's athletic.  He's a rim runner.  He has tremendous energy and hustle.  He moves down the floor with a purpose and looks like he can effectively defend all 5 positions. 

It's hard trying to keep my enthusiasm in check because he just did everything well, every time he stepped on the court.  He consistently looked like the most talented player out there.  Not necessarily the best shooter or passer or even best scorer...but he looked like the guy with the most facets to his game and everything he did looked smooth and effortless and FAST.

Which is another thing: there was zero hesitation about any of it.  Just...ball got in his hands, he instantly went to work.  Ball went up...he was on the glass.  Ball came down, he was the first one down the court...or if he grabbed the rebound, he was pushing the break.  Or if he grabbed the rebound and there was a guard there, he'd take half a second to assess the defense and then the ball would be in the facilitator's hands.

I'm not going to call him the 2nd or 3rd most talented Hawk or the guy with the most potential, but if this skill translates and he improves...he's coming for somebody's minutes.  Which, honestly...  He's looking like a 3/4.  His frame looks like he'll put on some muscle and he's a mirror of JC's pre-draft measurements.  6'9" height...  6'11" wingspan...  220-ish lbs. (though I've seen him listed 220 in some places and 206 in others).

Jalen has a 7'0.25 wingspan...

Notes: Measured 6'7.75” barefoot, 6'9.25” in shoes 8'10.0” standing reach, 209.6 lbs, and 7'0.25” wingspan at the 2021 NBA Draft Combine …

Btw, he also had a combine high 10.25 inch hand width....

Edited August 18, 2021 by terrell

[AHF]

9 minutes ago, Wretch said:

Not the damn Infinity Gauntlet.........rofl

I mean, if we are just talking about what is possible we could have GOAT Skylar in the very near future and I'll take this moment to give a shout out in thanks to our future intergalactic ruler and to ask him not to smite those who would put others before him.  And don't let me hear from you that it is impossible.  Even if it takes a miracle, we have documented proof of miracles. 

In a world like ours where miracles are real, we therefore must consider that all outcomes from future miracles are possible.  And what is possible is what can potentially happen.  We must therefore all agree that Skyler has the potential to be better than JJ, MJ, LJ, and J. Jonah Jamison all rolled up into one following his miraculous acquisition of the Infinity Gauntlet.

Unless you dispute that the US won a hockey gold metal in 1980, you must concede that miracles are real events and that Skylar Mays has as much or more potential than any member of the Atlanta Hawks.  And if you deny that miraculous gold metal, then I don't want to know you anyway.

[Wretch]

8 minutes ago, terrell said:

Jalen has a 7'0.25 wingspan...

Notes: Measured 6'7.75” barefoot, 6'9.25” in shoes 8'10.0” standing reach, 209.6 lbs, and 7'0.25” wingspan at the 2021 NBA Draft Combine …

Btw, he also had a combine high 10.25 in hand width....

I forget we like exactness around these parts lol. Yes, that's correct. I was being lazy in glossing over it as his 7' wingspan does include JC's 6'11" and some change.

I'm curious about his vertical though. Smitty got a whole bunch of people twisted on who set the vertical record at the combine (not our Johnson rofl) and had me looking foolish at the office yesterday.

As for his weight, I'm assuming 206 is current and accurate.  He has obviously slimmed down because he's listed at 220 all over the place (and at Duke's Bball page). Probably looking for a quickness edge in SL.  I'll take the combine measurement as the most accurate/current, but he clearly can hold the weight and he looks like he can fill that frame out a bit more.

[Wretch]

22 minutes ago, AHF said:

I mean, if we are just talking about what is possible we could have GOAT Skylar in the very near future and I'll take this moment to give a shout out in thanks to our future intergalactic ruler and to ask him not to smite those who would put others before him.  And don't let me hear from you that it is impossible.  Even if it takes a miracle, we have documented proof of miracles. 

In a world like ours where miracles are real, we therefore must consider that all outcomes from future miracles are possible.  And what is possible is what can potentially happen.  We must therefore all agree that Skyler has the potential to be better than JJ, MJ, LJ, and J. Jonah Jamison all rolled up into one following his miraculous acquisition of the Infinity Gauntlet.

Unless you dispute that the US won a hockey gold metal in 1980, you must concede that miracles are real events and that Skylar Mays has as much or more potential than any member of the Atlanta Hawks.  And if you deny that miraculous gold metal, then I don't want to know you anyway.

All facts. Lol. It's too early for all this and I've too much to do...

[Spud2nique]

18 minutes ago, Wretch said:

All facts. Lol. It's too early for all this and I've too much to do...

You stressed, you need to take a soak.

 

[RedDawg#8]

When we speak potential about our guys I have them like this:

Trae- Superstar,  potential MVP (Iverson, CP3, Dame, Curry)

Cam, JJ- Star potential, but non-MVP (PG13, Blake Griffin esque)

JC, Dre- All Star potential (like a Aldridge, Middleton)

OO, Kev, Rife- High level Starters but never All Stars (self explanatory)

Mays- High level role player (Lou Will)

The thing is, if I base JJ's potential on his SL performance it's too early. But most of us think Cam can be a superstar not based on much other than what he did in High School.

90% of his time at Duke and the NBA have been decent to good, but far from star level.

Maybe 2 or 3 college games, a stretch during the 2nd half of his rookie year, and 4 playoff games has he given us glimpses of what we think he can be. 

But still, we all see the same potential in him and his game. Even if it belies his current resume or statistical likelihood.

That's how I think some feel about JJ. At least I do. The eyes don't lie. He isn't just putting up numbers against poor competition. His game literally POPs off the screen, the same as Cam. They have an "it" factor that raises their ceiling higher than guys who have done more to prove themselves in JC and Dre.

My last point, I think the few who put JJ's potential over even Cam aren't that crazy, because as of now, his decision making and functional movement seems to be way ahead of where Cam was at as a rookie. He has play strength and is always on balance, similar to Dre. 

Potential is so subjective that there isn't a right or wrong, it's just opinion. But these guys all have a ton a talent to pair with their potential, which bodes really well for us.

[thecampster]

1 hour ago, Wretch said:

I forget we like exactness around these parts lol. Yes, that's correct. I was being lazy in glossing over it as his 7' wingspan does include JC's 6'11" and some change.

I'm curious about his vertical though. Smitty got a whole bunch of people twisted on who set the vertical record at the combine (not our Johnson rofl) and had me looking foolish at the office yesterday.

As for his weight, I'm assuming 206 is current and accurate.  He has obviously slimmed down because he's listed at 220 all over the place (and at Duke's Bball page). Probably looking for a quickness edge in SL.  I'll take the combine measurement as the most accurate/current, but he clearly can hold the weight and he looks like he can fill that frame out a bit more.

He is one of the youngest players in Summer League. There are a total of 39 of the 738 players age 20 or younger.  He has time/room to grow. I wouldn't be surprised with his hand size if he grew 2 more inches and by age 25 weighed 225-235.

 

I'm not on the "greatest player of all time" train but I do think he is one of the best 3 prospects in this draft.

[thecampster]

10 minutes ago, RedDawg#8 said:

When we speak potential about our guys I have them like this:

Trae- Superstar,  potential MVP (Iverson, CP3, Dame, Curry)

Cam, JJ- Star potential, but non-MVP (PG13, Blake Griffin esque)

JC, Dre- All Star potential (like a Aldridge, Middleton)

OO, Kev, Rife- High level Starters but never All Stars (self explanatory)

Mays- High level role player (Lou Will)

The thing is, if I base JJ's potential on his SL performance it's too early. But most of us think Cam can be a superstar not based on much other than what he did in High School.

90% of his time at Duke and the NBA have been decent to good, but far from star level.

Maybe 2 or 3 college games, a stretch during the 2nd half of his rookie year, and 4 playoff games has he given us glimpses of what we think he can be. 

But still, we all see the same potential in him and his game. Even if it belies his current resume or statistical likelihood.

That's how I think some feel about JJ. At least I do. The eyes don't lie. He isn't just putting up numbers against poor competition. His game literally POPs off the screen, the same as Cam. They have an "it" factor that raises their ceiling higher than guys who have done more to prove themselves in JC and Dre.

My last point, I think the few who put JJ's potential over even Cam aren't that crazy, because as of now, his decision making and functional movement seems to be way ahead of where Cam was at as a rookie. He has play strength and is always on balance, similar to Dre. 

Potential is so subjective that there isn't a right or wrong, it's just opinion. But these guys all have a ton a talent to pair with their potential, which bodes really well for us.

The bigger the player, the longer they take to reach their potential (top 10/15% of their potential). Centers take longest (see Jokic). Using Joel Embiid as an example, he came out at 21-22. He didn't really start to feel his potential until the 2018 season when he busted out for 27 ppg/13rpg. Trae on the other hand was Jalen's age when he came out and took 6 months to become a starter. By 21-22 he was leading his team to the ECF. You gotta be patient with bigger players. They usually are still growing and filling out. Their needs are different than a PG/SG.  Jalen turns 20 on December 18 of this year. For comparison, Trae turned 20 on Sept 18th 3 years ago. He was exactly 3 months older than Jalen during summer league and we all know how young we thought he was. JC was 6 days younger than Trae on his draft night. It took JC until a few weeks into his second year to start feeling it (aged 21) and wasn't "good" until year 3 (age 22).   Deandre Hunter is 1 year, 9 months older than Reddish but they were drafted the same night. Its showed. But most people would take playoff Cam over first 3 months in the league Deandre any day.  

Having Cam and JJ ranked higher in this list than Hunter is probably on point, but to limit both to not being a potential MVP (of at least the playoffs) is limiting them.

As Cam, JJ, JC, Hunter, OO all mature as players, the load on Trae will diminish. Trae's assist/defense numbers will go up naturally as the other players age, but one of them (my bet is either Cam/JJ) will on day be outscoring him. They are just that much more athletic than everyone else on the floor. One of them is bound to "get it". They're are physical phreaks and both have shoulders that belie their weight. They are going to grow in to those shoulders one day and be a night mare cover for lighter players. Just looking at their physical frames, my bets are on Cam, JJ. We are a year ish away on Cam taking off. Probably 2 on JJ.

[thecampster]

and FYI for more perspective on Jalen's age and why it matters.  Cam was 3 months, 17 days older than Jalen this year when drafted. Jalen is really young.

Shariffe Cooper is a full 6 months older than JJ. Let that sink in.

[bleachkit]

The guy I'm most concerned about is DeAndre Hunter. Two meniscus tears, occurring back to back, in only year two. That's not good folks. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, as there are plenty who bounced back from injuries early in their career, there are also plenty who didn't. As we saw after the NY series, we just don't have a replacement for him. 

[marco102]

He was one of the best players in summer league. 

 

[AHF]

5 hours ago, thecampster said:

The bigger the player, the longer they take to reach their potential (top 10/15% of their potential). Centers take longest (see Jokic).

Steve Nash and Chauncey Billups (regular season and finals MVPs) weren't big guys but took a lot longer to reach their potential than Shaq, Kareem, David Robinson, etc.

In fact, the only two rookies to ever win MVP were both big men:  Wilt and Wes Unseld.  

[NBASupes]

14 minutes ago, AHF said:

Steve Nash and Chauncey Billups (regular season and finals MVPs) weren't big guys but took a lot longer to reach their potential than Shaq, Kareem, David Robinson, etc.

In fact, the only two rookies to ever win MVP were both big men:  Wilt and Wes Unseld.  

Big guys take longer if they come fresh out of HS or as freshman in college 

[thecampster]

4 hours ago, AHF said:

Steve Nash and Chauncey Billups (regular season and finals MVPs) weren't big guys but took a lot longer to reach their potential than Shaq, Kareem, David Robinson, etc.

In fact, the only two rookies to ever win MVP were both big men:  Wilt and Wes Unseld.  

ah the old outlier argument to sound like the smart guy in the room...good one

[AHF]

2 hours ago, thecampster said:

ah the old outlier argument to sound like the smart guy in the room...good one

How is it an outlier to point out that no one but centers have ever been MVPs as rookies?  Like no guard or forward has ever done it?  
 

If you’ve got data to back up your statement I’m all ears but PG has traditionally been a position that is both the shortest and one that is considered to frequently take time to be ready to go.  (Traditionally the mantra has been that wings and forwards are the fastest while PGs and Cs take the most time).

There are plenty more examples of PGs who took time to develop with John Stockton and Kyle Lowry leaping to mind as the OG archetype and another current multiple AS who followed a similar path to Billups.

Using the Hawks, Trae took half a season of pretty ugly play and he is a HOFer.  Teague and Dennis both took multiple years of development.  

[Spud2nique]

I think it depends on the player rather than the position. I mean generally point guard is hardest to learn but guys like Kidd who caught on real quick and Co rookied with Grant Hill then Billups. 
 

I will say Billups seems to be an extreme case. No other point guard took that long to develop then turn out that great, oh, Nash perhaps. 
 

 

[RandomFan]

I didn't think I'd ever be participating in a debate about what I thought was a well known and accepted axiom that big men, generally, take longer to develop than other positions in the NBA, but here we are I guess. 

Just so it's written down and flatly stated -- obviously the game has changed over the years and the challenges are different from era to era; but one constant has held true for different and varying reasons since the inception of the NBA all those years ago: Bigs generally develop slower than their shorter counterparts. 

Let's discuss why that is still true in today's era of the NBA, which is quite different from the way bigs played in the Jordan era, for example; which was quite different from how bigs played in the Wilt Chamberlain era, etc...

Luckily BasketballNews.com put out an article a few months ago discussing many of the issues that modern bigs face that generally force a slower development track than guards and wings. It's not just because of their youth or growing into their body (although that is a big reason too). But there is a real lack of skill development going on for bigs in the high school and collegiate level, probably unlike any we've previously seen. 

Some of the excerpts from here: https://www.basketballnews.com/stories/why-big-men-take-more-time-to-develop-in-the-nba-than-guards-and-wings

Why NBA bigs take more time to develop: 'They're used to imposing their will'

by SPENCER DAVIES   JUNE 11 2021

“There's a reason why -- and this goes for all players -- people tend to say, 'The best part about a rookie is he becomes a second-year player or third-year player.' You [use] that term, 'The game slows down for them,’” Toppert said. “But we know that the game isn't slowing down; what's happening is they're becoming familiar with the million scenarios that they're gonna see... A lot of times it's being successful, or being unsuccessful in those moments. It's actually what helps in development.”

What decision has to be made? Is it a pop or a roll? Is it switching the angle of a screen? Is it the right time to make a dribble handoff? Is the defender going under the pick? Is there any opportunity to dive to the rim or catch in the short roll? Is the weak side open for a kick-out? Those answers come with time and experience.

“The big guys are the trigger guys; they've gotta trigger the action. So they're really like the playmaking initiators,” Toppert said. “The best big men in the drag screens, they're not waiting for the guard to call for the ball screen; they're just going to the ball screen. They're initiating that action...

“The majority of NBA big men are designated screeners, or they're like delayed playmakers. Those are really like the two big-man roles. So either they're playmaking through the trail, where you hit 'em in the trail and they're gonna go dribble-handoff to the weak side, or they're screener, roller, divers, lob catchers, etc.”

Utilizing Rudy Gobert and Clint Capela as primary examples, Toppert looks at how screens and screen assists lead to offensive results stemming from their execution; Gobert leads the NBA in both categories in total thus far in the playoffs. Whatever amount of screens they set is the number of plays they are involved in, whereas a guard or main ball-handler might not even use all of those.

“What you see at the college level is the guards dribble the ball, and you see them having to wave for the big guys, 'Come up! Come set this! Come get me!' In the NBA, it's like the opposite. In college, you've gotta call [the bigs] up; in the NBA, you've gotta send 'em away like, 'Oh, we got the switch we want, don't screen now.'”

There is an inherent advantage if you’re a guard transitioning to the pros versus being a big early in your career. Guards always have the ball in their hands, and a smaller guard such as Trae Young, for instance, has relied on his skills to beat taller, longer, faster defenders his whole life. Some backcourt players actually see their role even simplified; you could have high usage in college and be the go-to guy who’s making all the plays for your team, then get to the NBA and have your main responsibility trimmed down to being a slasher, a spot-up guy in a corner and/or guarding your position. 

On the opposite end of the spectrum, big men are used to their size and stature doing the work in their early years and through college. Taller and stronger than most, their body does the work almost effortlessly at the amateur stages; if they make a mistake at that level, they can recover because of their power and force on both ends... until they meet their physical-profile equals in the pros.

“They can almost impose their will on the game, as opposed to reading the game -- two entirely separate schools of thought,” Toppert said. “And so essentially, the bottom line is when you get to a level where you can no longer do those things, now you're gonna be forced to actually learn the game...

"James Wiseman is pretty well built. Deandre was pretty well-built. But the game is so much more physical at the NBA level, and legal physicality, especially big man on big man, you can get away with a lot more in the NBA than you can in college without getting called for a foul. Getting used to that everyday physicality, pounding, beating, is not easy.”

Picking up nuances of the game takes time for most players making the NBA leap. Even the ball-dominant first-, second- and third-year guards have shown their fair share of lumps and bruises along the way because of that physical discrepancy, not because of their skill sets. For bigs, it’s almost like both are working against them.

“I think everyone's journey is different. Obviously, the physical aspect of the game is really important and when you're a big man, you need to be able to box guys out and [so on],” Gobert said. “And then you have some guys who are stretch-5s -- everyone’s game is different. 

It goes back, again, to the grassroots level. These types of players are getting fed in the post and on the block against clear mismatches, and coming out of possessions with a bucket every time down the floor, so why wouldn’t they stick to what they know? 

According to an anonymous NCAA head coach, bigs aren’t properly being developed in college, including at the highly regarded schools. The majority of offenses, per the coach, are motion-based and teaching patterns in lieu of read-based actions. They’re not playing in pro-style offenses in college. They don’t learn how to set screens at different angles, how to react to different coverages as a roller, how to make plays on dribble-handoffs, how to find baseline cutters with the ball in their hands, etc. It’s learning a pattern over reading and reacting.

Development in general takes patience to see through. The big man, more versatile and less strung in the post, is slowly coming back in basketball. Jokic and Embiid being the top-two candidates for MVP this season is indicative of that trend. 

Despite the Miami Heat’s disappointing first-round playoff exit, Bam Adebayo is a Swiss Army knife-type who is one of the best dribble-handoff big men in the league. Marvin Bagley III showed an improved stroke from distance and an ability to put the ball on the floor. We still don’t know what Wendell Carter Jr. is, and he’s going to be on his fifth head coach in four seasons in Orlando next season. Mo Bamba looked as good as he ever has in the second half of the season. Jaxson Hayes looked like a completely different player in the month of May than he did prior. Onyeka Okongwu was a reserve for most of the season, but when he got more playing time late in the year, he made a solid impact as a modern big. 

"People have to understand how to develop big men. Or, I usually say, people have to understand how to develop a basketball player -- I don't care what their size is," Los Angeles Lakers assistant coach and development guru Phil Handy told BasketballNews.com. "Can you teach footwork? Can you teach balance? Can you teach the elements of the game for players to get better?  Forget about big or small, I always try to challenge coaches into developing basketball players. Period.

"To me, the game has kind of gone to this area of everything is based around the three-point line and bigs don't post up anymore. Most teams just wants to guys to set pick-and-rolls and set screens and roll. They don't really want to teach 'em how to play on the block or give them any footwork, so it's one of those things where the game has moved away from bigs being able to post up and take advantage of their size to everybody needs to be able to shoot threes now. So that's a whole area of the game where bigs kind of lose out on getting a chance to be developed because not all seven-footers can dribble [and shoot]. Not everybody is like Kevin Durant where they can handle the ball [or like] Porzingis where they're a seven-footer who can really stretch the floor. You gotta remember that the game is played in all areas of the court -- not just at the three-point line and not just at the rim. So, having the ability to post up and having bigs who understand what their game should look like is something that we have to continue to do. We have to continue developing basketball players; that's important to me."

There’s no shortcutting a process like this; it takes time, determination, persistence and adaptation. And until basketball addresses the lack of modern development at their particular position, that will continue to be the case for big men.

[thecampster]

7 hours ago, AHF said:

How is it an outlier to point out that no one but centers have ever been MVPs as rookies?  Like no guard or forward has ever done it?  
 

If you’ve got data to back up your statement I’m all ears but PG has traditionally been a position that is both the shortest and one that is considered to frequently take time to be ready to go.  (Traditionally the mantra has been that wings and forwards are the fastest while PGs and Cs take the most time).

There are plenty more examples of PGs who took time to develop with John Stockton and Kyle Lowry leaping to mind as the OG archetype and another current multiple AS who followed a similar path to Billups.

Using the Hawks, Trae took half a season of pretty ugly play and he is a HOFer.  Teague and Dennis both took multiple years of development.  

Look Shaq was amazing because he's a flipping Nephilim, not because "centers progress faster". He's a 1 off. We all know that.  Nash played in an era when everyone (especially point guards) had to earn their way on to the floor. It was a very different game then and you know that. I know you know that. That's like pointing to Lebron James and saying all small forwards become power forwards one day or pointing to Spud Webb and saying short players have the best chance at winning the dunk contest. You have a tendency and its to always try to find things people say, look for the exception and point to it as fact. Of course there are exceptions. Sports would be boring without them. But they are not the rule, they are not the commonality.

 

But this doesn't change the facts which are that by nature smaller players tend to be quicker, more agile and big men tend to take longer to grow into their bodies. Just because you can point to 1 or 2 examples where sheer size overcame tendencies does not make what I or anyone else on the subject says wrong. The 1 off is one of the laziest arguments ever presented.  

When I or anyone says, "cheeseburgers taste good" we are not saying that every cheeseburger ever made is as good as every cheeseburger ever eaten. Because of course one could say, "what about tofu burgers" or "what about expiring meat" or "low fat content meat vs high fat content", "grilled vs fried vs broiled", "spices or no".  I am sure that somewhere in the universe there was a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, the best pbnj ever made that tasted better than an expired tofu burger with a multigrain moldy bun. I'm happy to extend you that argument but in general, when given a choice between a burger and a pbnj, most people would agree there is no beating a burger.....but Camp, vegetarians and vegans. But Camp, India. But Camp spicy beef flavored peanut butter with imported Italian raspberry/grape preserves.  Yes, I'll allow 1 offs. Nothing I or anyone else says should ever be assumed to mean that all unicorns fart rainbows. I'm sure there's 1 who actually farts anti-matter.