AbeVigodaLive wrote:Towns is so good... I'd hate to go against him in any way. The Middleton (sure thing) vs. LaVine (nothing near a sure thing) is the primary thing that gives me pause.
Then again, Jabari Parker has shown signs, but he's still without a position. And he desperately needs to add a three point shot.
So Wolves... primarily because of Towns. And the potential of Wiggins doesn't hurt.
2x Towns is so good the other guys with him would have to be so bad and the other 3 really good to off set it.
I think GF and Lavine are the guys I would compare each other too because they obviously have physical talent and theoretical skills but it's whether or not they can put it together. It's looking good for both guys right now which is exciting.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:If this question had been asked a month ago - well wait - this question never would have been asked a month ago. Don't be a prisoner of the moment guys.
The conversation of which team has the best young core between these 2 franchises comes up pretty often on this board. It's interesting the different ways it's posed and this time Monroe isn't even part of the equation.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:If this question had been asked a month ago - well wait - this question never would have been asked a month ago. Don't be a prisoner of the moment guys.
To be fair... We've had Milwaukee vs. Minnesota debates before. And Parker vs. Wiggins debates have happened before. And we've had Middleton vs. Rubio debates. And Giannis vs. Wiggins debates.
So it's not like it's an entirely new topic... just rehashing previous ones slightly differently.
To be fair, GA and Parker have exploded the last month and it's the only reason why this particular debate is relevant. Prior to that Towns was twice as good as GA, Wiggins was twice as good as Parker, and Middleton had an edge on Lavine. All I'm suggesting is this is the type of thing message boards do, manufacture a debate based on a small window of play.
I don't necessarily agree. For example, the one thing I see commonly on message boards is the use of hyperbole in legit discussion points, e.g., "he's twice as good" and "it's not even close!"
The point is that prior to his injury, Parker vs. Wiggins had merit. And, we've discussed GA vs. Wiggins previously... with those choosing GA called "insane" at the time.
Again, you see knee-jerk reactionary stuff. I see a good discussion being compromised by yet more hyperbolic commentary.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:Towns is so good... I'd hate to go against him in any way. The Middleton (sure thing) vs. LaVine (nothing near a sure thing) is the primary thing that gives me pause.
Then again, Jabari Parker has shown signs, but he's still without a position. And he desperately needs to add a three point shot.
So Wolves... primarily because of Towns. And the potential of Wiggins doesn't hurt.
2x Towns is so good the other guys with him would have to be so bad and the other 3 really good to off set it.
I think GF and Lavine are the guys I would compare each other too because they obviously have physical talent and theoretical skills but it's whether or not they can put it together. It's looking good for both guys right now which is exciting.
GF?
Greek Freak
Sorry I am pretty lazy when it comes to his name.
Gotcha. I should have caught that.
I get the promise piece. But I think we're at the point where GA has distanced himself from LaVine quite a bit though. He has shown that he's putting it together for multiple seasons now. And I think that was well before the move to PG. Remember, GA was arguably the best player on a playoff team that played reasonably well in the playoffs last season.
I always give a guy a bit of a bonus when he does it for a team that wins more. I've seen too many Rashad McCants, Shareef Abdur-Rahims and Tony Campbells...
CoolBreeze44 wrote:If this question had been asked a month ago - well wait - this question never would have been asked a month ago. Don't be a prisoner of the moment guys.
To be fair... We've had Milwaukee vs. Minnesota debates before. And Parker vs. Wiggins debates have happened before. And we've had Middleton vs. Rubio debates. And Giannis vs. Wiggins debates.
So it's not like it's an entirely new topic... just rehashing previous ones slightly differently.
To be fair, GA and Parker have exploded the last month and it's the only reason why this particular debate is relevant. Prior to that Towns was twice as good as GA, Wiggins was twice as good as Parker, and Middleton had an edge on Lavine. All I'm suggesting is this is the type of thing message boards do, manufacture a debate based on a small window of play.
I don't necessarily agree. For example, the one thing I see commonly on message boards is the use of hyperbole in legit discussion points, e.g., "he's twice as good" and "it's not even close!"
The point is that prior to his injury, Parker vs. Wiggins had merit. And, we've discussed GA vs. Wiggins previously... with those choosing GA called "insane" at the time.
Again, you see knee-jerk reactionary stuff. I see a good discussion being compromised by yet more hyperbolic commentary.
What a shock that the king of Devil's advocacy wouldn't agree.
"Prior to his injury, Parker vs Wiggins had merit" So what?
CoolBreeze44 wrote:If this question had been asked a month ago - well wait - this question never would have been asked a month ago. Don't be a prisoner of the moment guys.
To be fair... We've had Milwaukee vs. Minnesota debates before. And Parker vs. Wiggins debates have happened before. And we've had Middleton vs. Rubio debates. And Giannis vs. Wiggins debates.
So it's not like it's an entirely new topic... just rehashing previous ones slightly differently.
To be fair, GA and Parker have exploded the last month and it's the only reason why this particular debate is relevant. Prior to that Towns was twice as good as GA, Wiggins was twice as good as Parker, and Middleton had an edge on Lavine. All I'm suggesting is this is the type of thing message boards do, manufacture a debate based on a small window of play.
I don't necessarily agree. For example, the one thing I see commonly on message boards is the use of hyperbole in legit discussion points, e.g., "he's twice as good" and "it's not even close!"
The point is that prior to his injury, Parker vs. Wiggins had merit. And, we've discussed GA vs. Wiggins previously... with those choosing GA called "insane" at the time.
Again, you see knee-jerk reactionary stuff. I see a good discussion being compromised by yet more hyperbolic commentary.
Look at the vote total so far. Doesn't look like much of debate today. You want to make a big deal out of this? Take the Milwaukee side and be convincing.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:If this question had been asked a month ago - well wait - this question never would have been asked a month ago. Don't be a prisoner of the moment guys.
To be fair... We've had Milwaukee vs. Minnesota debates before. And Parker vs. Wiggins debates have happened before. And we've had Middleton vs. Rubio debates. And Giannis vs. Wiggins debates.
So it's not like it's an entirely new topic... just rehashing previous ones slightly differently.
To be fair, GA and Parker have exploded the last month and it's the only reason why this particular debate is relevant. Prior to that Towns was twice as good as GA, Wiggins was twice as good as Parker, and Middleton had an edge on Lavine. All I'm suggesting is this is the type of thing message boards do, manufacture a debate based on a small window of play.
I don't necessarily agree. For example, the one thing I see commonly on message boards is the use of hyperbole in legit discussion points, e.g., "he's twice as good" and "it's not even close!"
The point is that prior to his injury, Parker vs. Wiggins had merit. And, we've discussed GA vs. Wiggins previously... with those choosing GA called "insane" at the time.
Again, you see knee-jerk reactionary stuff. I see a good discussion being compromised by yet more hyperbolic commentary.
Look at the vote total so far. Doesn't look like much of debate today. You want to make a big deal out of this? Take the Milwaukee side and be convincing.
No. I chose Minnesota because of Towns. (see above)
I just wanted to point out your consistently bombastic, antagonistic and even hypocritical posting style.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:If this question had been asked a month ago - well wait - this question never would have been asked a month ago. Don't be a prisoner of the moment guys.
To be fair... We've had Milwaukee vs. Minnesota debates before. And Parker vs. Wiggins debates have happened before. And we've had Middleton vs. Rubio debates. And Giannis vs. Wiggins debates.
So it's not like it's an entirely new topic... just rehashing previous ones slightly differently.
To be fair, GA and Parker have exploded the last month and it's the only reason why this particular debate is relevant. Prior to that Towns was twice as good as GA, Wiggins was twice as good as Parker, and Middleton had an edge on Lavine. All I'm suggesting is this is the type of thing message boards do, manufacture a debate based on a small window of play.
I don't necessarily agree. For example, the one thing I see commonly on message boards is the use of hyperbole in legit discussion points, e.g., "he's twice as good" and "it's not even close!"
The point is that prior to his injury, Parker vs. Wiggins had merit. And, we've discussed GA vs. Wiggins previously... with those choosing GA called "insane" at the time.
Again, you see knee-jerk reactionary stuff. I see a good discussion being compromised by yet more hyperbolic commentary.
Look at the vote total so far. Doesn't look like much of debate today. You want to make a big deal out of this? Take the Milwaukee side and be convincing.
No. I chose Minnesota because of Towns. (see above)
I just wanted to point out your consistently bombastic, antagonistic and even hypocritical posting style.
You have problems with posters having strong opinions. The truth is those with strong opinions are what makes the board interesting. Without posters like myself, Cam, Khans, Lip and Q this would be a pretty generic place. Your counterpunch style leads to more antagonism than anything else here.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:If this question had been asked a month ago - well wait - this question never would have been asked a month ago. Don't be a prisoner of the moment guys.
To be fair... We've had Milwaukee vs. Minnesota debates before. And Parker vs. Wiggins debates have happened before. And we've had Middleton vs. Rubio debates. And Giannis vs. Wiggins debates.
So it's not like it's an entirely new topic... just rehashing previous ones slightly differently.
To be fair, GA and Parker have exploded the last month and it's the only reason why this particular debate is relevant. Prior to that Towns was twice as good as GA, Wiggins was twice as good as Parker, and Middleton had an edge on Lavine. All I'm suggesting is this is the type of thing message boards do, manufacture a debate based on a small window of play.
I don't necessarily agree. For example, the one thing I see commonly on message boards is the use of hyperbole in legit discussion points, e.g., "he's twice as good" and "it's not even close!"
The point is that prior to his injury, Parker vs. Wiggins had merit. And, we've discussed GA vs. Wiggins previously... with those choosing GA called "insane" at the time.
Again, you see knee-jerk reactionary stuff. I see a good discussion being compromised by yet more hyperbolic commentary.
Look at the vote total so far. Doesn't look like much of debate today. You want to make a big deal out of this? Take the Milwaukee side and be convincing.
No. I chose Minnesota because of Towns. (see above)
I just wanted to point out your consistently bombastic, antagonistic and even hypocritical posting style.
You have problems with posters having strong opinions. The truth is those with strong opinions are what makes the board interesting. Without posters like myself, Cam, Khans, Lip and Q this would be a pretty generic place. Your counterpunch style leads to more antagonism than anything else here.
Didn't mean to derail the thread...
Actually, Q and I agree on many, many things. Maybe I'm actually a member of the "cool kids club" despite my leanings toward realistic takes, non-combative discussions and slightly less Wolves-centric opinions while trying to see both sides of issues.
For example, I can see why bombastic hyperbole is good for a message board. It incites responses. The voice of reason in me simply gives those authors less credibility when they use those takes as bully pulpits or to belittle other takes time after time after time.
See. Everything all neatly wrapped up in a single response.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:Towns is so good... I'd hate to go against him in any way. The Middleton (sure thing) vs. LaVine (nothing near a sure thing) is the primary thing that gives me pause.
Then again, Jabari Parker has shown signs, but he's still without a position. And he desperately needs to add a three point shot.
So Wolves... primarily because of Towns. And the potential of Wiggins doesn't hurt.
2x Towns is so good the other guys with him would have to be so bad and the other 3 really good to off set it.
I think GF and Lavine are the guys I would compare each other too because they obviously have physical talent and theoretical skills but it's whether or not they can put it together. It's looking good for both guys right now which is exciting.
GF?
Greek Freak
Sorry I am pretty lazy when it comes to his name.
Gotcha. I should have caught that.
I get the promise piece. But I think we're at the point where GA has distanced himself from LaVine quite a bit though. He has shown that he's putting it together for multiple seasons now. And I think that was well before the move to PG. Remember, GA was arguably the best player on a playoff team that played reasonably well in the playoffs last season.
I always give a guy a bit of a bonus when he does it for a team that wins more. I've seen too many Rashad McCants, Shareef Abdur-Rahims and Tony Campbells...
Yep I was just coming at it from a different angle. Yeah you are right GF has been more proven than Lavine and has now kept that distance even with Lavine looking this last stretch like he is really figuring it out. I think why I liked comparing them is they both have very high upside and when I watch GF he seemed very uneven with a display of something probably nobody else could do on a fast break followed by dribbling the ball off his foot the next or something like that. He also has a couple more years of NBA experience on Lavine but like I said it's just a different angle their games have some pretty stark differences although there are some similarities too.
