Camden wrote:Even though I voted not to trade Wiggins, you guys realize that tonight was just one night, right? We downplayed Giannis' start to the season because it was a small sample size. Well, are we supposed to have a conclusion to this debate after one regular season game in November of 2015? No way.
Wiggins was great tonight and it was exactly what we needed. Giannis could have a monster triple double in his next game and it shouldn't change anything about this thread.
Hilarious. Now you are talking about sample size? If you can be worried about Wiggins after 3 bad games, people can be excited after 2 great games.
Camden wrote:Even though I voted not to trade Wiggins, you guys realize that tonight was just one night, right? We downplayed Giannis' start to the season because it was a small sample size. Well, are we supposed to have a conclusion to this debate after one regular season game in November of 2015? No way.
Wiggins was great tonight and it was exactly what we needed. Giannis could have a monster triple double in his next game and it shouldn't change anything about this thread.
Hilarious. Now you are talking about sample size? If you can be worried about Wiggins after 3 bad games, people can be excited after 2 great games.
Huh? My post clearly went right over your head. Read it one more time and try again.
After the 20 game thread last season on wig, Ive expected this from the guys here. This thread or something similar will be alive and kicking after wig had a bad 3 game stretch sometime this season. And when wig didn't start next year's pre seson games on fire, watch out!
Camden wrote:Even though I voted not to trade Wiggins, you guys realize that tonight was just one night, right? We downplayed Giannis' start to the season because it was a small sample size. Well, are we supposed to have a conclusion to this debate after one regular season game in November of 2015? No way.
Wiggins was great tonight and it was exactly what we needed. Giannis could have a monster triple double in his next game and it shouldn't change anything about this thread.
Hilarious. Now you are talking about sample size? If you can be worried about Wiggins after 3 bad games, people can be excited after 2 great games.
Huh? My post clearly went right over your head. Read it one more time and try again.
No it didn't. You are the king of making conclusions on small sample sizes Cam. It is hilarious having a statement about not drawing conclusions from you.
Camden wrote:Even though I voted not to trade Wiggins, you guys realize that tonight was just one night, right? We downplayed Giannis' start to the season because it was a small sample size. Well, are we supposed to have a conclusion to this debate after one regular season game in November of 2015? No way.
Wiggins was great tonight and it was exactly what we needed. Giannis could have a monster triple double in his next game and it shouldn't change anything about this thread.
Hilarious. Now you are talking about sample size? If you can be worried about Wiggins after 3 bad games, people can be excited after 2 great games.
Huh? My post clearly went right over your head. Read it one more time and try again.
No it didn't. You are the king of making conclusions on small sample sizes Cam. It is hilarious having a statement about not drawing conclusions from you.
1. Wrong. That title solely belongs to LST. Respect him as a poster, but he tends to get caught up in a handful of games completely affecting his thoughts on a team or player. Otherwise, he's great for this board.
2. Let's hear some of my small sample conclusions since I'm the supposed king. Here, I'll point you to the two that you can bring up. Anthony Bennett and Adreian Payne being garbage in the NBA. What else? Come on.
3. The point that you absolutely missed, and still haven't comprehended because you're being petty after a great win, is that Giannis and Wiggins are not the players that they'll be in a couple years. They both have high ceilings and have already shown that they have production to back it up. There are legitimate points for both sides of this coin. Remember, I'm actually on Andrew's side in this one, but is it a slam dunk choice at this moment in time? No.
Camden wrote:Even though I voted not to trade Wiggins, you guys realize that tonight was just one night, right? We downplayed Giannis' start to the season because it was a small sample size. Well, are we supposed to have a conclusion to this debate after one regular season game in November of 2015? No way.
Wiggins was great tonight and it was exactly what we needed. Giannis could have a monster triple double in his next game and it shouldn't change anything about this thread.
Hilarious. Now you are talking about sample size? If you can be worried about Wiggins after 3 bad games, people can be excited after 2 great games.
Huh? My post clearly went right over your head. Read it one more time and try again.
No it didn't. You are the king of making conclusions on small sample sizes Cam. It is hilarious having a statement about not drawing conclusions from you.
1. Wrong. That title solely belongs to LST. Respect him as a poster, but he tends to get caught up in a handful of games completely affecting his thoughts on a team or player. Otherwise, he's great for this board.
2. Let's hear some of my small sample conclusions since I'm the supposed king. Here, I'll point you to the two that you can bring up. Anthony Bennett and Adreian Payne being garbage in the NBA. What else? Come on.
3. The point that you absolutely missed, and still haven't comprehended because you're being petty after a great win, is that Giannis and Wiggins are not the players that they'll be in a couple years. They both have high ceilings and have already shown that they have production to back it up. There are legitimate points for both sides of this coin. Remember, I'm actually on Andrew's side in this one, but is it a slam dunk choice at this moment in time? No.
I'm sure it was you who said after 3 games you were worried about Wiggins.
Camden wrote:Even though I voted not to trade Wiggins, you guys realize that tonight was just one night, right? We downplayed Giannis' start to the season because it was a small sample size. Well, are we supposed to have a conclusion to this debate after one regular season game in November of 2015? No way.
Wiggins was great tonight and it was exactly what we needed. Giannis could have a monster triple double in his next game and it shouldn't change anything about this thread.
Hilarious. Now you are talking about sample size? If you can be worried about Wiggins after 3 bad games, people can be excited after 2 great games.
Huh? My post clearly went right over your head. Read it one more time and try again.
No it didn't. You are the king of making conclusions on small sample sizes Cam. It is hilarious having a statement about not drawing conclusions from you.
1. Wrong. That title solely belongs to LST. Respect him as a poster, but he tends to get caught up in a handful of games completely affecting his thoughts on a team or player. Otherwise, he's great for this board.
2. Let's hear some of my small sample conclusions since I'm the supposed king. Here, I'll point you to the two that you can bring up. Anthony Bennett and Adreian Payne being garbage in the NBA. What else? Come on.
3. The point that you absolutely missed, and still haven't comprehended because you're being petty after a great win, is that Giannis and Wiggins are not the players that they'll be in a couple years. They both have high ceilings and have already shown that they have production to back it up. There are legitimate points for both sides of this coin. Remember, I'm actually on Andrew's side in this one, but is it a slam dunk choice at this moment in time? No.
I'm sure it was you who said after 3 games you were worried about Wiggins.
A lot of us were, but the concern was his demeanor, not ability.
Camden wrote:Even though I voted not to trade Wiggins, you guys realize that tonight was just one night, right? We downplayed Giannis' start to the season because it was a small sample size. Well, are we supposed to have a conclusion to this debate after one regular season game in November of 2015? No way.
Wiggins was great tonight and it was exactly what we needed. Giannis could have a monster triple double in his next game and it shouldn't change anything about this thread.
Hilarious. Now you are talking about sample size? If you can be worried about Wiggins after 3 bad games, people can be excited after 2 great games.
Huh? My post clearly went right over your head. Read it one more time and try again.
No it didn't. You are the king of making conclusions on small sample sizes Cam. It is hilarious having a statement about not drawing conclusions from you.
1. Wrong. That title solely belongs to LST. Respect him as a poster, but he tends to get caught up in a handful of games completely affecting his thoughts on a team or player. Otherwise, he's great for this board.
2. Let's hear some of my small sample conclusions since I'm the supposed king. Here, I'll point you to the two that you can bring up. Anthony Bennett and Adreian Payne being garbage in the NBA. What else? Come on.
3. The point that you absolutely missed, and still haven't comprehended because you're being petty after a great win, is that Giannis and Wiggins are not the players that they'll be in a couple years. They both have high ceilings and have already shown that they have production to back it up. There are legitimate points for both sides of this coin. Remember, I'm actually on Andrew's side in this one, but is it a slam dunk choice at this moment in time? No.
I'm sure it was you who said after 3 games you were worried about Wiggins.
And that Jabari was better than Wiggins after 20 last year. There are 2. Let the pro-Wiggins people enjoy this Cam. We all know how much you love to blow your load when one of your guys has a good game.
Poor lst, cam has to drag you into this. That tells you about someone's character when he needs to drag someone else in an argument, take some shot at the guy and of course give some pat in the back to the guy to appear not being hostile to him.
