Drew League 2022...Plus Other Summer ProAm Leagues & Smack Talk

[Spud2nique]

1 minute ago, JeffS17 said:

mostly terrell lol)

You too huh? I kid T I kinda kid.. 

[macdaddy]

I have to admit that i retain very little of which agenda belongs to which poster.  So i get burned on that a lot with the 'you know i hate player x' or 'you came at me with this bs before'.  Oops. 

I do remember teams that people like though.  GM likes Sac, Soth like Minny, Spud loves the dubs. 

[Spud2nique]

18 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Spud loves the dubs. 

19 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Soth like Minny,

And the butt nuggets  

[AHF]

16 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

 Spud loves the dubs. 

Oh my.

 

[Spud2nique]

5 minutes ago, AHF said:

Oh my.

 

mac killed spud  

[kg01]

31 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

I have to admit that i retain very little of which agenda belongs to which poster.  So i get burned on that a lot with the 'you know i hate player x' or 'you came at me with this bs before'.  Oops. 

I do remember teams that people like though.  GM likes Sac, Soth like Minny, Spud loves the dubs. 

Yeah, I can't keep track of all you weirdos' agendas.  The only one I remember is the one who threatened physical violence against a poster in his podcast but nobody held him accountable for it.

But I've said too much ......

[Wretch]

14 hours ago, JeffS17 said:

Missed the conversation today because of work, but this is what I'm alluding to.  Using the #6 pick only was just to get a quick sample, but it's in line with even taking the 4-7 as AHF did here.  OO has already shown he can be elite on defense (and imo has a bunch of intangibles/instincts you cannot train) and his offensive game is not bad for a center, which is the position he has been playing for us.  He has unbelievable touch around the rim and looks to be improving other aspects of his offense. 

It's pretty rare for bigs to come into the league polished, regardless of injury history or Covid, and I think the difference between the two camps on this forum is that some people want OO to prove out before they get excited about him and some people are just excited about him now as a player with high upside.  It's weird to me how much people want to curb others' excitement around Hawks players on a Hawks forum.

4 hours ago, JeffS17 said:

Fair, I was mostly referring to @Wretch's comment that "There are expectations that come with that #6 pick that was spent on him."  OO has outperformed your typical 4-8 lottery picks already imo, particularly when judging against other bigs taken in that range.  I think he has a ton of upside.  I don't think anyone here is actually an OO hater for the record, but I do have some people saved on other forums lol... I'm just a big OO stan

Disclaimer: This is a primary reason why I don't post often. I don't like Merry-Go-Rounds, and it's usually me untangling the conversation as people take things differently than I intended. lol So Jeff, let's clarify my position.  Also, incoming Wretched book of a response. 
TL:DR version: apples/oranges.

Once upon a time on the Squawk, there lived a Wretched old poster that loved hyperboles, rhetoric, and qualitative analysis.

"I think the difference between the two camps on this forum is that some people want OO to prove out before they get excited about him and some people are just excited about him now as a player with high upside."

So let's start here where you've sort of created a false dichotomy.  What you're saying is absolutely true, but people have different definitions of what "prove out" means.  Some posters are partial to different types of analysis - qualitative vs. quantitative, observations vs. statistics, or in layman's terms the good ol' "eye test" vs. "stats."  There's a whole spectrum in there and some people have an actual aversion to one or the other.  I have made a career out of deep statistical analysis (I'm a cyber engineer), so I understand the numbers, but I have a serious aversion to advanced statistics in sports.  In light of that, statements like this turns the conversation into an apples/oranges debate:

"OO has outperformed your typical 4-8 lottery picks already imo,"

We've all seen his performance.  He looks like a good player.  This is a metrics based statement, I am not a 'stats' person (2nd or 3rd time I've said that on this thread), and I'm not looking at his production - let alone relative to other players.  I'm looking at how he plays and I'm saying that you don't have to burn a lottery pick to find that QUALITY player/potential.  We have literally 3 of those guys on the roster right now.  

(Side note, in case you or anyone questions the validity of observing how a player plays, I have a pretty strong fan-draft record going back to 2004. I championed for Luol Deng, Chris Paul, and Brandon Roy during our BK years.  Most recently, my firm picks were Luka and Melo.  I have had misses as Jarret Culver was my 2019 pick and has confused the hell out of me. I'm keeping an eye on him and will probably do some re-evaluation.)

Which brings us to 'lottery pick expectations'

I'm sure it sounds like a typical fan, disappointed with a pick, and waiting for them to underperform so they can call the guy a 'bust."  They expect a lottery pick to put out star performances with little to no development and they expect that every pick their GM makes will be that player.  We got a lottery pick, it was high, so he SHOULD be producing at the level of <insert comparative stats of given player>.  This is not the kind of poster that I am and this is not how I set my expectations.  This is how I'm taking the push-back, so please clarify if I'm wrong. 

I've watched the game for 30 years.  For most of that time, I followed the lottery and developing players closer than I followed the actual game.  I understand the metrics very well.  I have spent years trying to explain to people how difficult it is to land a franchise changing talent and how rare they are in the draft.  I've spent many hours defending our draft picks over the years cautioning people that player development takes time.

That being said, yes...there are expectations that come with a #6 pick.  Teams picking in the lottery, especially the upper lottery where the #4 and #6 picks reside, are looking for a difference maker.  None of the teams picking that high are expecting to draft a backup center.  Initially, sure.  Eventually, and ideally, they want this guy to be a franchise cornerstone.  Teams drafting the mid-late 1st are expecting to find a serviceable player.  Personally, I think if you aren't 'wowed' by someone where you're picking, it's a good sign to move up or down, or move the pick.

I'm saying all this to clarify that this isn't about his performance and in truth, is probably less about OO and more about Schlenk and our scouts.  My initial reaction to the pick was questioning whether or not we took the BPA.  Was OO the 'safe' pick with the JC contract situation up in the air and the newly acquired Capella recovering from a foot injury and 2 years on his contract?  I wasn't too high on the pick and less encouraged by scouts and our GM saying things like, "We THINK he'll be able to DEVELOP a jumper because he's a decent free throw shooter." 

A big that can't shoot, who can't post up, who can't face up and take guys off the dribble...but is a good defender, rebounds well, with goods hands, and is a good finisher is not a difficult thing to find.  So my expectations of how a lottery pick big man should play is a little more than that.  I do EXPECT that lottery picks have the best chance, and or the best potential, to be a franchise cornerstone.  I don't expect that EVERY lottery pick (even our own) will become that.  I do expect our lottery pick to show flashes of potential BEFORE I personally get excited about him as a franchise cornerstone.

Living up to the pick that was spent

Every team is looking for Luka Doncic or Trae Young.  Neither of these guys were picked 1st overall.  The player they call the greatest shooter of all time was drafted 7th, arguably the 2nd was drafted 5th.  I am not simple enough to expect that EVERY pick in the lottery WILL equate to that kind of generational talent.  The point is merely that the franchise changing talent can be had ALL OVER the lottery. 

Moreover, this talent is nigh exclusive to the top 13 picks.  Operative word there being 'nigh' - ie. nearly, just about, pretty much, basically.  The odds of landing a franchise talent in the lottery are discouraging on their own, but outside the lottery the odds are wholly abysmal.  These franchise changing players do more than change the trajectory of the team, they have an effect on the economy, people, and the game that is difficult to put into either qualifiable or quantifiable metrics. 

Your best shot at a franchise player is the lottery - they're really just sitting in there for the taking.  Consequently, the value of that pick is high and I would not burn it on potential/production that I could get with a mid-late 1st rounder, trade, or free agency. <hypothetical point to further explain my stance incoming> *IF* Hunter doesn't become a franchise talent or if he busts, I would be disappointed but not upset as he as demonstrated in game why he was selected so high.  He still needs to live up to that pick, but I get it if he doesn't.  If Okongwu doesn't become a franchise talent or busts, then I don't get it.  Because I don't know why we selected him - nothing that I've seen in his game IN GAME indicates that he is more than a serviceable, defensive, big man.  That does not excite me for a lottery pick.

"It's weird to me how much people want to curb others' excitement around Hawks players on a Hawks forum."

I have done no such thing.  I have said that I'm not particularly excited about him and have thoroughly explained why.  We were asked in this thread (Thoughts on Okongwu?) for our takes on Okongwu.  I gave my opinion that I think he is solid, but he doesn't excite me.  I have spent the last year or so explaining that I don't dislike him as a player, but my expectations for a lottery pick are higher.  I further spent an untold number of hours trying to differentiate my opinion of HOW HE PLAYS from how much he produces.  I have also correlated the way he plays to the availability of similar style of players and similar QUALITY potential.  I'm not sure how much more clear I can be here.

Epilogue

Funny story/Wretch Trivia: This is one of the reasons why I will rarely engage @AHF.  He is probably the 'Dominique Wilkins' of the Squawk as far as post quality goes, but he and I are diametrically opposed on the spectrum of qualitative vs. quantitative analysis of the NBA.  The last time we had a Merry-Go-Round, I was throwing out hypotheticals of our drafts circa 2004-2006 and how we probably should have come away with a core of Dwight Howard, CP3, and Joe Johnson (with a minimum of JJ/CP3).  Why the hell did I go and do that!  The probabilities were far too absurd for AHF and he felt a disturbance in the force.  He promptly and thoroughly came to cleanse my heresy. lol We might have been on that Merry-Go-Round for 2 days and I decided that it is often better to concede to his logic, which is always sound, than it is to press my observable evidence.

[JayBirdHawk]

12 minutes ago, Wretch said:

TL:DR version: apples/oranges.

Once upon a time on the Squawk, there lived a Wretched old poster that loved hyperboles, rhetoric, and qualitative analysis.

Damn, Wretch with the 

 

[Wretch]

On 8/10/2022 at 12:52 PM, Wretch said:

The problem here is that you're cherry-picking.  The same logic applies to the actual lottery picks 1-3 (now through 5).  You can do the same thing at any SPECIFIC pick and you'll see similar trend.  Yes, it's a crap shoot.  Expand your search for #4-7 and observe the higher quality.  Ideally, that's what you want - not that you're guaranteed to get it.  The idea is to cast a net into the pool that produces the franchise changing talent, backed by irrefutable statistics.  None of us expect that this is an automatic thing, though we all understand the VALUE of the pick given the history.  Which is why lottery picks are hard to come by.

I'm not excited about OO as a prospect within that #4-7 range when it's clear that you do not have to spend that VALUE of a pick on a "serviceable big man."  That does not automatically mean that I "hate" him, nor does it mean he cannot develop into a better player.  This isn't really that difficult of a thing to process, nor is it a controversial take.

PS @JeffS17 (as if what I said wasn't long enough, lol...) please reread this this response to your evaluation of the #6 in light of what I just said.

[NBASupes]

18 minutes ago, Wretch said:

Disclaimer: This is a primary reason why I don't post often. I don't like Merry-Go-Rounds, and it's usually me untangling the conversation as people take things differently than I intended. lol So Jeff, let's clarify my position.  Also, incoming Wretched book of a response. 
TL:DR version: apples/oranges.

Once upon a time on the Squawk, there lived a Wretched old poster that loved hyperboles, rhetoric, and qualitative analysis.

"I think the difference between the two camps on this forum is that some people want OO to prove out before they get excited about him and some people are just excited about him now as a player with high upside."

So let's start here where you've sort of created a false dichotomy.  What you're saying is absolutely true, but people have different definitions of what "prove out" means.  Some posters are partial to different types of analysis - qualitative vs. quantitative, observations vs. statistics, or in layman's terms the good ol' "eye test" vs. "stats."  There's a whole spectrum in there and some people have an actual aversion to one or the other.  I have made a career out of deep statistical analysis (I'm a cyber engineer), so I understand the numbers, but I have a serious aversion to advanced statistics in sports.  In light of that, statements like this turns the conversation into an apples/oranges debate:

"OO has outperformed your typical 4-8 lottery picks already imo,"

We've all seen his performance.  He looks like a good player.  This is a metrics based statement, I am not a 'stats' person (2nd or 3rd time I've said that on this thread), and I'm not looking at his production - let alone relative to other players.  I'm looking at how he plays and I'm saying that you don't have to burn a lottery pick to find that QUALITY player/potential.  We have literally 3 of those guys on the roster right now.  

(Side note, in case you or anyone questions the validity of observing how a player plays, I have a pretty strong fan-draft record going back to 2004. I championed for Luol Deng, Chris Paul, and Brandon Roy during our BK years.  Most recently, my firm picks were Luka and Melo.  I have had misses as Jarret Culver was my 2019 pick and has confused the hell out of me. I'm keeping an eye on him and will probably do some re-evaluation.)

Which brings us to 'lottery pick expectations'

I'm sure it sounds like a typical fan, disappointed with a pick, and waiting for them to underperform so they can call the guy a 'bust."  They expect a lottery pick to put out star performances with little to no development and they expect that every pick their GM makes will be that player.  We got a lottery pick, it was high, so he SHOULD be producing at the level of <insert comparative stats of given player>.  This is not the kind of poster that I am and this is not how I set my expectations.  This is how I'm taking the push-back, so please clarify if I'm wrong. 

I've watched the game for 30 years.  For most of that time, I followed the lottery and developing players closer than I followed the actual game.  I understand the metrics very well.  I have spent years trying to explain to people how difficult it is to land a franchise changing talent and how rare they are in the draft.  I've spent many hours defending our draft picks over the years cautioning people that player development takes time.

That being said, yes...there are expectations that come with a #6 pick.  Teams picking in the lottery, especially the upper lottery where the #4 and #6 picks reside, are looking for a difference maker.  None of the teams picking that high are expecting to draft a backup center.  Initially, sure.  Eventually, and ideally, they want this guy to be a franchise cornerstone.  Teams drafting the mid-late 1st are expecting to find a serviceable player.  Personally, I think if you aren't 'wowed' by someone where you're picking, it's a good sign to move up or down, or move the pick.

I'm saying all this to clarify that this isn't about his performance and in truth, is probably less about OO and more about Schlenk and our scouts.  My initial reaction to the pick was questioning whether or not we took the BPA.  Was OO the 'safe' pick with the JC contract situation up in the air and the newly acquired Capella recovering from a foot injury and 2 years on his contract?  I wasn't too high on the pick and less encouraged by scouts and our GM saying things like, "We THINK he'll be able to DEVELOP a jumper because he's a decent free throw shooter." 

A big that can't shoot, who can't post up, who can't face up and take guys off the dribble...but is a good defender, rebounds well, with goods hands, and is a good finisher is not a difficult thing to find.  So my expectations of how a lottery pick big man should play is a little more than that.  I do EXPECT that lottery picks have the best chance, and or the best potential, to be a franchise cornerstone.  I don't expect that EVERY lottery pick (even our own) will become that.  I do expect our lottery pick to show flashes of potential BEFORE I personally get excited about him as a franchise cornerstone.

Living up to the pick that was spent

Every team is looking for Luka Doncic or Trae Young.  Neither of these guys were picked 1st overall.  The player they call the greatest shooter of all time was drafted 7th, arguably the 2nd was drafted 5th.  I am not simple enough to expect that EVERY pick in the lottery WILL equate to that kind of generational talent.  The point is merely that the franchise changing talent can be had ALL OVER the lottery. 

Moreover, this talent is nigh exclusive to the top 13 picks.  Operative word there being 'nigh' - ie. nearly, just about, pretty much, basically.  The odds of landing a franchise talent in the lottery are discouraging on their own, but outside the lottery the odds are wholly abysmal.  These franchise changing players do more than change the trajectory of the team, they have an effect on the economy, people, and the game this is difficult to put into both qualifiable or quantifiable metrics. 

Your best shot at a franchise player is the lottery - they're really just sitting in there for the taking.  Consequently, the value of that pick is high and I would not burn it on potential/production that I could get with a mid-late 1st rounder, trade, or free agency. <hypothetical point to further explain my stance incoming> *IF* Hunter doesn't become a franchise talent or if he busts, I would be disappointed but not upset as he as demonstrated in game why he was selected so high.  He still needs to live up to that pick, but I get it if he doesn't.  If Okongwu doesn't become a franchise talent or busts, then I don't get it.  Because I don't know why we selected him - nothing that I've seen in his game IN GAME indicates that he is more than a serviceable, defensive, big man.  That does not excite me for a lottery pick.

"It's weird to me how much people want to curb others' excitement around Hawks players on a Hawks forum."

I have done no such thing.  I have said that I'm not particularly excited about him and have thoroughly explained why.  We were asked in this thread (Thoughts on Okongwu?) for our takes on Okongwu.  I gave my opinion that I think he is solid, but he doesn't excite me.  I have spent the last year or so explaining that I don't dislike him as a player, but my expectations for a lottery pick are higher.  I further spent an untold number of hours trying to differentiate my opinion of HOW HE PLAYS from how much he produces.  I have also correlated the way he plays to the availability of similar style of players and similar QUALITY potential.  I'm not sure how much more clear I can be here.

Epilogue

Funny story/Wretch Trivia: This is one of the reasons why I will rarely engage @AHF.  He is probably the 'Dominique Wilkins' of the Squawk as far as post quality goes, but he and I are diametrically opposed on the spectrum of qualitative vs. quantitative analysis of the NBA.  The last time we had a Merry-Go-Round, I was throwing out hypotheticals of our drafts circa 2004-2006 and how we probably should have come away with a core of Dwight Howard, CP3, and Joe Johnson (with a minimum of JJ/CP3).  Why the hell did I go and do that!  The probabilities were far too absurd for AHF and he felt a disturbance in the force.  He promptly and thoroughly came to cleanse my heresy. lol We might have been on that Merry-Go-Round for 2 days and I decided that it is often better to concede to his logic, which is always sound, than it is to press my observable evidence.

Okongwu is much better than you listed. It's not easy to find an extremely gifted defender who can guard elite players at the 4 and 5 and can defend on switches 1-3. That's extremely difficult to find.

He can shoot, post up, and face up. He's just not noted for it and likely won't earn his money from it. I just strongly think you are underrating him. 30+ years of watching the NBA is great and all but you can still be wrong like a mfer. I see it all of the time, in fact, I've been wrong time and time again. As has everyone in this arena if you aren't captain obvious like Magic Johnson. 

I don't and never seen Okongwu as a future superstar but he's a role playing stud like Pat Bev. He's basically Pat Bev at PF which is a lot more valuable at PF than at PG. 

There is a reason everyone from other bases wants Okongwu over JC. Only on here do we got fans saying the stupid shit they say time and time again 

[JeffS17]

19 minutes ago, Wretch said:

PS @JeffS17 (as if what I said wasn't long enough, lol...) please reread this this response to your evaluation of the #6 in light of what I just said.

I did read that.  That's why I quoted the AHF post where you can see the breakdown of how each of those picks panned out of the last decade.  I think we just fundamentally disagree on what OO is right now, which is what you have highlighted in red:

"A big that can't shoot, who can't post up, who can't face up and take guys off the dribble...but is a good defender, rebounds well, with goods hands, and is a good finisher is not a difficult thing to find."

I see OO as an elite and versatile defender that has not really been given much opportunity on offense.  I personally think it's unreasonable to expect him to be a starter (and I also think starting v bench isn't a great measurement for young guys since team goals can be wildly different) on a team with Capela/JC in his first couple of years, and I think we have a system that doesn't maximize what he can do.  Most of his production has come from put backs, broken plays, and offensive boards.  We don't have a great idea what he can do outside of that because we're not a tanking team that's just letting young guys fire up shots.  To add to this, he's pretty much done what we've ASKED him to do on the court.  Next year will be very telling though because it sounds like we're asking him to open up his offensive game a bit and do more.

Appreciate the post though and I see where you're coming from, and I now see how we just rate OO differently in his current state.

[Wretch]

2 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

Okongwu is much better than you listed. It's not easy to find an extremely gifted defender who can guard elite players at the 4 and 5 and can defend on switches 1-3. That's extremely difficult to find.

He can shoot, post up, and face up. He's just not noted for it and likely won't earn his money from it. I just strongly think you are underrating him. 30+ years of watching the NBA is great and all but you can still be wrong like a mfer. I see it all of the time, in fact, I've been wrong time and time again. As has everyone in this arena if you aren't captain obvious like Magic Johnson. 

I don't and never seen Okongwu as a future superstar but he's a role playing stud like Pat Bev. He's basically Pat Bev at PF which is a lot more valuable at PF than at PG. 

There is a reason everyone from other bases wants Okongwu over JC. Only on here do we got fans saying the stupid shit they say time and time again 

This is very fair Supes.  Especially the part in bold and ESPECIALLY, ESPECIALLY the underlined.  I can't even argue that I might be underrating him.  I don't know what Schlenk saw in him and none of us know what's going on in the practices - so, yeah.  Maybe he can and will be that player.  I just haven't observed anything in his game (college or NBA) that suggests he has the offensive skillset that you and others believe he has. 

Goes without saying, but without that skillset, IMO he's a pretty good but replaceable player.  I would get excited about that from the gems we uncover in trades/late 1sts/FA'cy.  It's not enough to get me excited about a lottery pick.

(also, not saying I know it all...  I thought Adam Morrison was gonna rip the NBA a new one and I though Bogut was trash)

[JayBirdHawk]

56 minutes ago, Wretch said:

A big that can't shoot, who can't post up, who can't face up and take guys off the dribble...

I won't say he can't do any of these things - I'll say we have not seen enough or with any consistency:

Here at two games he started and had 8+ shot attempts (I picked 2 games he started and played 30+ minutes)

Video and Shotcharts | Stats | NBA.com

Video and Shotcharts | Stats | NBA.com

 

Defense is what makes him special (videos from both those games):

Video and Shotcharts | Stats | NBA.com

Video and Shotcharts | Stats | NBA.com

[Wretch]

1 minute ago, JeffS17 said:

I did read that.  That's why I quoted the AHF post where you can see the breakdown of how each of those picks panned out of the last decade.  I think we just fundamentally disagree on what OO is right now, which is what you have highlighted in red:

"A big that can't shoot, who can't post up, who can't face up and take guys off the dribble...but is a good defender, rebounds well, with goods hands, and is a good finisher is not a difficult thing to find."

I see OO as an elite and versatile defender that has not really been given much opportunity on offense.  I personally think it's unreasonable to expect him to be a starter on a team with Capela/JC in his first couple of years, and I think we have a system that doesn't maximize what he can do.  Most of his production has come from put backs, broken plays, and offensive boards.  We don't have a great idea what he can do outside of that because we're not a tanking team that's just letting young guys fire up shots.  To add to this, he's pretty much done what we've ASKED him to do on the court.  Next year will be very telling though because it sounds like we're asking him to open up his offensive game a bit and do more.

Appreciate the post though and I see where you're coming from, and I now see how we just rate OO differently in his current state.

I completely agree about the expectations of where he should be in terms of production.  As for what he can do, I'll surely have a better opinion of him once he starts actually trying to do the things that we're all looking to see.  It's encouraging and also very telling that he recognizes it.  He promised he would come back with a jumpshot - that means he knows where his game is right now and what's expected of him.

[Wretch]

2 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I won't say he can't do any of these things - I'll say we have not seen enough or with any consistency:

Here at two games he started and had 8+ shot attempts:

Video and Shotcharts | Stats | NBA.com

Video and Shotcharts | Stats | NBA.com

 

Defense is what makes him special (videos from both those games):

Video and Shotcharts | Stats | NBA.com

Video and Shotcharts | Stats | NBA.com

I'm not saying he can't either.  I would expand upon that by saying, I haven't observed anything that indicates he can do it in game.  It sounds like I'm decided on him, but I'm not.  We'll just have to see if he is THAT player.  The only thing that I have decided is that is that I would not have drafted him at #6 and we'll have to revisit how my alternative picks shake out.

On his defense...  Incoming trademark Wretch phrase that I should probably put into my signature.  My favorite kind of player IS LITERALLY what Okongwu is.  Probably because that's how my goofy ass plays basketball LOL...  I'm tall, I'm strong, I can jump, I can defend, but I'm uncoordinated AF with the ball.  So, I gravitate to bigs who do the dirty work and am well aware of what he's strengths are.  Though while I like that kind of player, I don't think it's necessarily special unless we're talking Mutombo/Gobert/Wallace/Rodman type of defensive dominance.  Note that there is only one lottery pick among that group.

[Gray Mule]

No player selected in the draft, regardless of the spot he is drafted, comes with a guarantee.  The very best any GM can do is give an educated guess.  Sometimes they are correct and sometimes they blow the entire thing.  Hawks have made some pretty good selections and have really goofed up on some others.

Chris Paul really wanted to come to Atlanta, but he was too small, so we passed on him.

Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Gray Mule

[Spud2nique]

2 hours ago, Wretch said:

I don't like Merry-Go-Rounds

Good to know, do you like peanut butter or tuna? I’m makin for our mandate. 
 

[Spud2nique]

1 hour ago, Wretch said:

, I can defend, but I'm uncoordinated AF with the ball. 

This separates you and OO, he’s definitely not uncoordinated and if anything he’s got big hands reminiscent of a C Webber who cradles the ball like a baby and fans feel comfy when he has it.

[Spud2nique]

2 hours ago, Wretch said:

That being said, yes...there are expectations that come with a #6 pick.  Teams picking in the lottery, especially the upper lottery where the #4 and #6 picks reside, are looking for a difference maker. 

A difference maker? I’m having a few issues with this, once OO is in, he makes a difference, if you mean a difference maker as far as volume that stand out via stats, then no, he hasn’t gotten enough burn on the floor for that.

 

2 hours ago, Wretch said:

and I'm saying that you don't have to burn a lottery pick to find that QUALITY player/potential.  We have literally 3 of those guys on the roster right now. 

3? Bit confused here? Who? Also, I disagree about burning a lotto pick on OO for a few reasons. First off, he was BPA where we picked outside of probably Haliburton, 1 and 1A, Schlenk decided to go the route of superstar TRAE, from day 1, everything after that is BPA with an eye 👁 on team fit.

The way OO controls the game from the center position is very tactful, he plays with his brain which 50% of players don’t and 70% of bigs specially don’t.

I’m gonna be stereotypical here, finding a smart big is tough, look at Al….

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO SPUD DON’T  YOU SHUT YOUR TRAP AND STOP GOIN DOWN THIS ROAD.. TURN BACK ASAP  

HO…R..

#3

pick in

200….7

 

 

[Spud2nique]

On 8/10/2022 at 9:02 AM, macdaddy said:

What?  where are you seeing that.  Trae is the PG for sure.