Sundog60 wrote:If I was putting a team together from scratch, I'd start with Giannis.
So would I.
Why Giannis over Jokic?
With Jokic you are filling the center and the pg playmaking position. He can shoot. Giannis still can't. You can't defend seriously in today's NBA without being called for a foul so I don't equate Giannis' ability there to put him over the top of Jokic, who should get 3 straight MVPs. Jokic isn't a bad defender either. People just need to create a narrative. That is how ridiculously good he is.
No one is saying Jokic isn't great. But Giannis averages 9 points more per game and is a MUCH better defender. It's a good debate without a wrong answer.
Cool gave my answer. I love both players and would be happy to start a franchise with either one. But if forced to choose, I'd take Giannis in a fairly close call. In my mind it's Giannis and Jokic on a tier by themselves. Embiid isn't far behind, but I put him on a slightly lower tier.
Yet you're both stating Giannis > Jokic. Giannis is not better than Jokic.
Sundog60 wrote:If I was putting a team together from scratch, I'd start with Giannis.
So would I.
Why Giannis over Jokic?
With Jokic you are filling the center and the pg playmaking position. He can shoot. Giannis still can't. You can't defend seriously in today's NBA without being called for a foul so I don't equate Giannis' ability there to put him over the top of Jokic, who should get 3 straight MVPs. Jokic isn't a bad defender either. People just need to create a narrative. That is how ridiculously good he is.
No one is saying Jokic isn't great. But Giannis averages 9 points more per game and is a MUCH better defender. It's a good debate without a wrong answer.
Cool gave my answer. I love both players and would be happy to start a franchise with either one. But if forced to choose, I'd take Giannis in a fairly close call. In my mind it's Giannis and Jokic on a tier by themselves. Embiid isn't far behind, but I put him on a slightly lower tier.
Yet you're both stating Giannis > Jokic. Giannis is not better than Jokic.
Just for fun I'll add that Iif I'm starting an NBA team I need to know how I'm filling the rest of the roster before I tell you who I'm starting with. MAYBE it's none of those guys because they are too old to end up building around. I'd probably avoid Embiid because I worry more about him staying healthy but I'm happy he has been able to stay reasonably healthy and build on his incredible talent. I always thought it was there he is a fantastic player and isn't he still a pretty big defensive presence also?
Giannis and Jokic are both really good and also both quite unique. Jokic is honestly maybe the most unique player of my lifetime. Dude is averaging a triple double and that's just wild. I am not sure I can make a call which guy is better than the other. I like both players. Neither guy was supposed to be the best player in the league when drafted. It's fairly easy to cheer for both guys.
Sundog60 wrote:If I was putting a team together from scratch, I'd start with Giannis.
So would I.
Why Giannis over Jokic?
With Jokic you are filling the center and the pg playmaking position. He can shoot. Giannis still can't. You can't defend seriously in today's NBA without being called for a foul so I don't equate Giannis' ability there to put him over the top of Jokic, who should get 3 straight MVPs. Jokic isn't a bad defender either. People just need to create a narrative. That is how ridiculously good he is.
No one is saying Jokic isn't great. But Giannis averages 9 points more per game and is a MUCH better defender. It's a good debate without a wrong answer.
Cool gave my answer. I love both players and would be happy to start a franchise with either one. But if forced to choose, I'd take Giannis in a fairly close call. In my mind it's Giannis and Jokic on a tier by themselves. Embiid isn't far behind, but I put him on a slightly lower tier.
Yet you're both stating Giannis > Jokic. Giannis is not better than Jokic.
Just for fun I'll add that Iif I'm starting an NBA team I need to know how I'm filling the rest of the roster before I tell you who I'm starting with. MAYBE it's none of those guys because they are too old to end up building around. I'd probably avoid Embiid because I worry more about him staying healthy but I'm happy he has been able to stay reasonably healthy and build on his incredible talent. I always thought it was there he is a fantastic player and isn't he still a pretty big defensive presence also?
Giannis and Jokic are both really good and also both quite unique. Jokic is honestly maybe the most unique player of my lifetime. Dude is averaging a triple double and that's just wild. I am not sure I can make a call which guy is better than the other. I like both players. Neither guy was supposed to be the best player in the league when drafted. It's fairly easy to cheer for both guys.
He is averaging a triple double while playing center. He is no slouch defensively. He can also shoot.
Sundog60 wrote:If I was putting a team together from scratch, I'd start with Giannis.
So would I.
Why Giannis over Jokic?
With Jokic you are filling the center and the pg playmaking position. He can shoot. Giannis still can't. You can't defend seriously in today's NBA without being called for a foul so I don't equate Giannis' ability there to put him over the top of Jokic, who should get 3 straight MVPs. Jokic isn't a bad defender either. People just need to create a narrative. That is how ridiculously good he is.
No one is saying Jokic isn't great. But Giannis averages 9 points more per game and is a MUCH better defender. It's a good debate without a wrong answer.
Cool gave my answer. I love both players and would be happy to start a franchise with either one. But if forced to choose, I'd take Giannis in a fairly close call. In my mind it's Giannis and Jokic on a tier by themselves. Embiid isn't far behind, but I put him on a slightly lower tier.
Yet you're both stating Giannis > Jokic. Giannis is not better than Jokic.
It's not that black and white Futch. Giannis is twice the athlete, has a ring, and can guard 1 through 5. He scores 30% more than Joker does. You can make a case that Jokic is better, but it's not as cut and dried as you suggest. If triple doubles were everything, Westbrook would be the best player of all time.
Sundog60 wrote:If I was putting a team together from scratch, I'd start with Giannis.
So would I.
Why Giannis over Jokic?
With Jokic you are filling the center and the pg playmaking position. He can shoot. Giannis still can't. You can't defend seriously in today's NBA without being called for a foul so I don't equate Giannis' ability there to put him over the top of Jokic, who should get 3 straight MVPs. Jokic isn't a bad defender either. People just need to create a narrative. That is how ridiculously good he is.
No one is saying Jokic isn't great. But Giannis averages 9 points more per game and is a MUCH better defender. It's a good debate without a wrong answer.
Cool gave my answer. I love both players and would be happy to start a franchise with either one. But if forced to choose, I'd take Giannis in a fairly close call. In my mind it's Giannis and Jokic on a tier by themselves. Embiid isn't far behind, but I put him on a slightly lower tier.
Yet you're both stating Giannis > Jokic. Giannis is not better than Jokic.
It's not that black and white Futch. Giannis is twice the athlete, has a ring, and can guard 1 through 5. He scores 30% more than Joker does. You can make a case that Jokic is better, but it's not as cut and dried as you suggest. If triple doubles were everything, Westbrook would be the best player of all time.
You've explained that you're a coach. I am taking the big guy who can pass, shoot, defend, 100x out of 100x.
Giannis may be more aesthetically pleasing, but I do not think he is a better team player.
Sundog60 wrote:If I was putting a team together from scratch, I'd start with Giannis.
So would I.
Why Giannis over Jokic?
With Jokic you are filling the center and the pg playmaking position. He can shoot. Giannis still can't. You can't defend seriously in today's NBA without being called for a foul so I don't equate Giannis' ability there to put him over the top of Jokic, who should get 3 straight MVPs. Jokic isn't a bad defender either. People just need to create a narrative. That is how ridiculously good he is.
No one is saying Jokic isn't great. But Giannis averages 9 points more per game and is a MUCH better defender. It's a good debate without a wrong answer.
Cool gave my answer. I love both players and would be happy to start a franchise with either one. But if forced to choose, I'd take Giannis in a fairly close call. In my mind it's Giannis and Jokic on a tier by themselves. Embiid isn't far behind, but I put him on a slightly lower tier.
Yet you're both stating Giannis > Jokic. Giannis is not better than Jokic.
It's not that black and white Futch. Giannis is twice the athlete, has a ring, and can guard 1 through 5. He scores 30% more than Joker does. You can make a case that Jokic is better, but it's not as cut and dried as you suggest. If triple doubles were everything, Westbrook would be the best player of all time.
You've explained that you're a coach. I am taking the big guy who can pass, shoot, defend, 100x out of 100x.
Giannis may be more aesthetically pleasing, but I do not think he is a better team player.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:So, we've moved on from the Towns >> Jokic discussions?
What's most disappointing is that I still think Karl-Anthony Towns is more skilled, more talented than any big in the NBA. He just doesn't play with the same mentality and maturity as the other oft-referenced elite bigs in the league.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:So, we've moved on from the Towns >> Jokic discussions?
What's most disappointing is that I still think Karl-Anthony Towns is more skilled, more talented than any big in the NBA. He just doesn't play with the same mentality and maturity as the other oft-referenced elite bigs in the league.
Offensively yeah, but he seems to be retarded on defense.
