There are NO sure things and as great as Simmons is, he isn't either. He will be a huge success if he ends up equal to Draymond. Maybe he ends up better but I think the chances of that are pretty small. This is coming from a guy who thinks he is a must take #1 pick.
Can't help but find some irony in that statement. Outside of 3pt%, Simmons is better across the board with initial statistics. You would think that since the team is built around him, that LSU would be a better team. Technically, it is Simmons that is supposed to be the Super Odom or Super Draymond, and yet, you don't even think he's that good, despite putting up big numbers.
Why do you think Draymond fell so far in his draft? The one thing that got him some recognition, something that West puts some value in, is a form of character test.
Guys like Jimmy Butler excelled on a similar test. I think, it's also why West drafted Ezeli so high... just flat out intelligence.
Quote:
I don't think you have to be an all-time great to be a franchise player. If you consider Harden, Melo, Wall, etc.
Agreed.
Draymond was an undersized four year guy who had off the chart intangible skills. Hard guy to judge going to the next level. I underestimated him as well but since he has gotten to the pros he has proven what he can do.
Simmons COULD be better than Draymond. I love him as a prospect and think he is the #1 pick but I don't think he is a sure thing top ten player in the NBA and I think Draymond is there now. It's that simple.
Agreed that Draymond was an undersized 4 with well rounded skills. Agreed he was hard to judge next level. But it's not like GMs/scouts thought he would become, in your opinion, a franchise player. He has far exceeded his own expectations as well as the rest of the league.
What makes it simple? Draymond had 4 years at Michigan St. to be the well-rounded player you love. Simmons, does that, now.
When I said its that simple, I was referring to the fact that I believe Draymond is already a top ten player and Simmons is not a sure thing to become that. It's a simple choice for me because I see them as similar players and Simmons is a risk because he hasnt proven it in the pros yet.
I'm shocked that when Jerry West says that a guy is a top ten talent and a franchise player that people try and argue with it. He was an all-time great player, the greatest GM of all time, and the architect of 2 of the 3 best dynasty's since the Jordan Bulls(Shaq/Kobe Lakers and the Warriors will get there).
Quote:
Let's all swallow a little bit of pride and accept that that guy might understand the game and who you can build a team around better than us. He would laugh in a GM's face if they offered him the #1 overall pick for Draymond Green.
No. West said, he's a top 10 guy. He didn't say he was a franchise player.
From what I've read from you, you think a Top 10 player is a guaranteed franchise player. I disagree.
We have also listed players, much longer than 10 players, of guys that are arguable franchise players.
Why swallow any pride and defer to one's opinion? I can disagree with it and I think this discussion has gone quite well, with actual intelligence. You have made it clear that your idea of a franchise player doesn't have to be a shot creator, and I disagree with that.
I hope I have made it clear that a franchise player is a shot creator for himself or others first, and that "score-heavy" shot creators advance farther in the playoffs.
You're right. The statement was more towards the commenters who say Draymond isn't great because klay and curry make him great without any substantial on court proof. If you don't see specific reasons, you should defer to a guy like west. You have supported your opinion with things that happen on the court and you have every right to your opinion. My apologies on that and misreading the quote all though I'm not sure he wouldn't consider him a franchise player in a candid interview. He already said he's better than klay.
Being a franchise player is not predicated on offensive talent IMO. It's about what you do to get your team wins and few players in the NBA
That sums things up. But going by that statement, there are few franchise players, period. A stretch, but it is like saying Robert Horry and Derek Fisher franchise talent.
I love those guys because they hit big shots but if you think they do even half as much as Draymond does you don't understand what he does for that team.
I absolutely understand what Draymond does for the team. IMHO, he does, what the franchise don't have to do. He allows them to focus on their strengths.
IMHO, that is a glue guy, a 2nd or 3rd option. That's Odom. Kukoc. Rodman. Horry. Odom at least had shot creating talent but not the aggression or leadership. He went from a #1 to #3/#4 option, and only won as a latter option of the offense. Kukoc? Stud 6th man, and underrated PF for the Bulls. Still, a #3 guy.
Yes he's a glue guy! I just think he is changing what it means to be that type of guy. He's the best to ever do it and is becoming more valuable as a glue guy than some players are as #1 scoring options. I think that's the main part of the argument that we disagree on.
Being a franchise player is not predicated on offensive talent IMO. It's about what you do to get your team wins and few players in the NBA
That sums things up. But going by that statement, there are few franchise players, period. A stretch, but it is like saying Robert Horry and Derek Fisher franchise talent.
I love those guys because they hit big shots but if you think they do even half as much as Draymond does you don't understand what he does for that team.
I absolutely understand what Draymond does for the team. IMHO, he does, what the franchise don't have to do. He allows them to focus on their strengths.
IMHO, that is a glue guy, a 2nd or 3rd option. That's Odom. Kukoc. Rodman. Horry. Odom at least had shot creating talent but not the aggression or leadership. He went from a #1 to #3/#4 option, and only won as a latter option of the offense. Kukoc? Stud 6th man, and underrated PF for the Bulls. Still, a #3 guy.
Yes he's a glue guy! I just think he is changing what it means to be that type of guy. He's the best to ever do it and is becoming more valuable as a glue guy than some players are as #1 scoring options. I think that's the main part of the argument that we disagree on.
WHOA .... uhhhhh
You a friend of Draymond? You cannot be SERIOUS! _________________ #11/08/16 America became GREAT again
#Avatar-gate
Draymond Green is good ... he's just GREAT because of the system.
IMO Draymond is a huge reason why the system works so great and not the other way around. It's not easy to make the reads and passes that they do while still playing at an extremely fast pace. You have to get the right players to do it.
Yes, to duplicate GS's success, all you have to do is go find the most prolific 3 point scorer of all time, pair him with the 2nd most prolific 3 point scorer in the league, then find a non-guard who can hit 3's, also, and drop dimes at a rate that only a handful of non-guards have ever done. Oh, and make sure that every starter is a solid to great defender. The system is great, and it allows the players' strengths to shine, but you are right, the players also are making the system look better than it is.
So easy, lets go sign those guys in FA ... oh wait can't find them. Gotta wait for another Steph Curry.
Like I said, Draymond Green is a good player. Well rounded, he'll be good on any other team.
Put him on the Warriors and he becomes GREAT.
Or put it this way, if Draymond Green came to the Lakers would he improve our team by 20-30 wins?
No he needs a #1 scorer next to him just like most #1 scorers need a guy like him. He's the best of all the guys who fill the role he does. Again, #1 scorers can help a bad team more than him but he can help average to good teams be great more so than a lot of #1 scorers. Obviously Durant, Kobe, Curry, Lebron and guys that good would do more than him for any team but they are 4 of the best of all time.
That is a balanced position, and I think an accurate one. Every team needs one or two guys that can get a bucket even when guarded closely. Green has a knack for getting key scores, but not when the defense is loaded up to stop him. He also has a knack for getting key rebounds, and key stops. He is a winner, and worth a top 3 pick in most drafts.
The irony I see in much of this discussion is that Magic was the #2 scoring option until his 8th season in the league, playing along side the 6 time MVP and all time scoring leader. At the end of close games, Magic knew where the entry pass should go. Against a set defense, KAJ was still going to score. So, it is a little surprising to see how low a value many have placed on Green, when one of the all time Laker greats was elite because of passing, rebounding, and winning, rather than scoring as a #1 option.
Being a franchise player is not predicated on offensive talent IMO. It's about what you do to get your team wins and few players in the NBA
That sums things up. But going by that statement, there are few franchise players, period. A stretch, but it is like saying Robert Horry and Derek Fisher franchise talent.
I love those guys because they hit big shots but if you think they do even half as much as Draymond does you don't understand what he does for that team.
I absolutely understand what Draymond does for the team. IMHO, he does, what the franchise don't have to do. He allows them to focus on their strengths.
IMHO, that is a glue guy, a 2nd or 3rd option. That's Odom. Kukoc. Rodman. Horry. Odom at least had shot creating talent but not the aggression or leadership. He went from a #1 to #3/#4 option, and only won as a latter option of the offense. Kukoc? Stud 6th man, and underrated PF for the Bulls. Still, a #3 guy.
Yes he's a glue guy! I just think he is changing what it means to be that type of guy. He's the best to ever do it and is becoming more valuable as a glue guy than some players are as #1 scoring options. I think that's the main part of the argument that we disagree on.
WHOA .... uhhhhh
You a friend of Draymond? You cannot be SERIOUS!
Of the guys who do the dirty work for a team and play a glue guy type of role.
You could make an argument for Rodman and some other guys. Bruce Bowen, Doug Christie type guys but I don't think any of them are better than Green. I don't think any of the players were as well rounded as him. He's elite defensively on and off the ball and is a very good offense player without high usage.
Draymond Green is good ... he's just GREAT because of the system.
IMO Draymond is a huge reason why the system works so great and not the other way around. It's not easy to make the reads and passes that they do while still playing at an extremely fast pace. You have to get the right players to do it.
Yes, to duplicate GS's success, all you have to do is go find the most prolific 3 point scorer of all time, pair him with the 2nd most prolific 3 point scorer in the league, then find a non-guard who can hit 3's, also, and drop dimes at a rate that only a handful of non-guards have ever done. Oh, and make sure that every starter is a solid to great defender. The system is great, and it allows the players' strengths to shine, but you are right, the players also are making the system look better than it is.
So easy, lets go sign those guys in FA ... oh wait can't find them. Gotta wait for another Steph Curry.
Like I said, Draymond Green is a good player. Well rounded, he'll be good on any other team.
Put him on the Warriors and he becomes GREAT.
Or put it this way, if Draymond Green came to the Lakers would he improve our team by 20-30 wins?
No he needs a #1 scorer next to him just like most #1 scorers need a guy like him. He's the best of all the guys who fill the role he does. Again, #1 scorers can help a bad team more than him but he can help average to good teams be great more so than a lot of #1 scorers. Obviously Durant, Kobe, Curry, Lebron and guys that good would do more than him for any team but they are 4 of the best of all time.
That is a balanced position, and I think an accurate one. Every team needs one or two guys that can get a bucket even when guarded closely. Green has a knack for getting key scores, but not when the defense is loaded up to stop him. He also has a knack for getting key rebounds, and key stops. He is a winner, and worth a top 3 pick in most drafts.
The irony I see in much of this discussion is that Magic was the #2 scoring option until his 8th season in the league, playing along side the 6 time MVP and all time scoring leader. At the end of close games, Magic knew where the entry pass should go. Against a set defense, KAJ was still going to score. So, it is a little surprising to see how low a value many have placed on Green, when one of the all time Laker greats was elite because of passing, rebounding, and winning, rather than scoring as a #1 option.
He's also leading the team with over 7 assists from the PF/C position. That would be an all-time high number by a big gap.
Last edited by jonnybravo on Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Being a franchise player is not predicated on offensive talent IMO. It's about what you do to get your team wins and few players in the NBA
That sums things up. But going by that statement, there are few franchise players, period. A stretch, but it is like saying Robert Horry and Derek Fisher franchise talent.
I love those guys because they hit big shots but if you think they do even half as much as Draymond does you don't understand what he does for that team.
I absolutely understand what Draymond does for the team. IMHO, he does, what the franchise don't have to do. He allows them to focus on their strengths.
IMHO, that is a glue guy, a 2nd or 3rd option. That's Odom. Kukoc. Rodman. Horry. Odom at least had shot creating talent but not the aggression or leadership. He went from a #1 to #3/#4 option, and only won as a latter option of the offense. Kukoc? Stud 6th man, and underrated PF for the Bulls. Still, a #3 guy.
Yes he's a glue guy! I just think he is changing what it means to be that type of guy. He's the best to ever do it and is becoming more valuable as a glue guy than some players are as #1 scoring options. I think that's the main part of the argument that we disagree on.
WHOA .... uhhhhh
You a friend of Draymond? You cannot be SERIOUS!
Of the guys who do the dirty work for a team and play a glue guy type of role.
You could make an argument for Rodman and some other guys. Bruce Bowen, Doug Christie type guys but I don't think any of them are better than Green. I don't think any of the players were as well rounded as him. He's elite defensively on and off the ball and is a very good offense player without high usage.
Lamar Odom says HI _________________ #11/08/16 America became GREAT again
#Avatar-gate
Being a franchise player is not predicated on offensive talent IMO. It's about what you do to get your team wins and few players in the NBA
That sums things up. But going by that statement, there are few franchise players, period. A stretch, but it is like saying Robert Horry and Derek Fisher franchise talent.
I love those guys because they hit big shots but if you think they do even half as much as Draymond does you don't understand what he does for that team.
I absolutely understand what Draymond does for the team. IMHO, he does, what the franchise don't have to do. He allows them to focus on their strengths.
IMHO, that is a glue guy, a 2nd or 3rd option. That's Odom. Kukoc. Rodman. Horry. Odom at least had shot creating talent but not the aggression or leadership. He went from a #1 to #3/#4 option, and only won as a latter option of the offense. Kukoc? Stud 6th man, and underrated PF for the Bulls. Still, a #3 guy.
Yes he's a glue guy! I just think he is changing what it means to be that type of guy. He's the best to ever do it and is becoming more valuable as a glue guy than some players are as #1 scoring options. I think that's the main part of the argument that we disagree on.
WHOA .... uhhhhh
You a friend of Draymond? You cannot be SERIOUS!
Of the guys who do the dirty work for a team and play a glue guy type of role.
You could make an argument for Rodman and some other guys. Bruce Bowen, Doug Christie type guys but I don't think any of them are better than Green. I don't think any of the players were as well rounded as him. He's elite defensively on and off the ball and is a very good offense player without high usage.
Lamar Odom says HI
Lamar was never Draymond's caliber of a defender. Draymond is a perennial dpoy candidate.
Lamar never came close to over 7 assists a game.
Lamar was never the heart and soul that drove our teams.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35853 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:50 pm Post subject:
jonnybravo wrote:
MIZ83 wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
KobeRe-Loaded wrote:
MIZ83 wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
KobeRe-Loaded wrote:
Draymond Green is good ... he's just GREAT because of the system.
IMO Draymond is a huge reason why the system works so great and not the other way around. It's not easy to make the reads and passes that they do while still playing at an extremely fast pace. You have to get the right players to do it.
Yes, to duplicate GS's success, all you have to do is go find the most prolific 3 point scorer of all time, pair him with the 2nd most prolific 3 point scorer in the league, then find a non-guard who can hit 3's, also, and drop dimes at a rate that only a handful of non-guards have ever done. Oh, and make sure that every starter is a solid to great defender. The system is great, and it allows the players' strengths to shine, but you are right, the players also are making the system look better than it is.
So easy, lets go sign those guys in FA ... oh wait can't find them. Gotta wait for another Steph Curry.
Like I said, Draymond Green is a good player. Well rounded, he'll be good on any other team.
Put him on the Warriors and he becomes GREAT.
Or put it this way, if Draymond Green came to the Lakers would he improve our team by 20-30 wins?
No he needs a #1 scorer next to him just like most #1 scorers need a guy like him. He's the best of all the guys who fill the role he does. Again, #1 scorers can help a bad team more than him but he can help average to good teams be great more so than a lot of #1 scorers. Obviously Durant, Kobe, Curry, Lebron and guys that good would do more than him for any team but they are 4 of the best of all time.
That is a balanced position, and I think an accurate one. Every team needs one or two guys that can get a bucket even when guarded closely. Green has a knack for getting key scores, but not when the defense is loaded up to stop him. He also has a knack for getting key rebounds, and key stops. He is a winner, and worth a top 3 pick in most drafts.
The irony I see in much of this discussion is that Magic was the #2 scoring option until his 8th season in the league, playing along side the 6 time MVP and all time scoring leader. At the end of close games, Magic knew where the entry pass should go. Against a set defense, KAJ was still going to score. So, it is a little surprising to see how low a value many have placed on Green, when one of the all time Laker greats was elite because of passing, rebounding, and winning, rather than scoring as a #1 option.
He's also leading the team with over 7 assists from the PF/C position. That would be an all-time high number by a big gap.
Draymond Green is good ... he's just GREAT because of the system.
IMO Draymond is a huge reason why the system works so great and not the other way around. It's not easy to make the reads and passes that they do while still playing at an extremely fast pace. You have to get the right players to do it.
Yes, to duplicate GS's success, all you have to do is go find the most prolific 3 point scorer of all time, pair him with the 2nd most prolific 3 point scorer in the league, then find a non-guard who can hit 3's, also, and drop dimes at a rate that only a handful of non-guards have ever done. Oh, and make sure that every starter is a solid to great defender. The system is great, and it allows the players' strengths to shine, but you are right, the players also are making the system look better than it is.
So easy, lets go sign those guys in FA ... oh wait can't find them. Gotta wait for another Steph Curry.
Like I said, Draymond Green is a good player. Well rounded, he'll be good on any other team.
Put him on the Warriors and he becomes GREAT.
Or put it this way, if Draymond Green came to the Lakers would he improve our team by 20-30 wins?
No he needs a #1 scorer next to him just like most #1 scorers need a guy like him. He's the best of all the guys who fill the role he does. Again, #1 scorers can help a bad team more than him but he can help average to good teams be great more so than a lot of #1 scorers. Obviously Durant, Kobe, Curry, Lebron and guys that good would do more than him for any team but they are 4 of the best of all time.
That is a balanced position, and I think an accurate one. Every team needs one or two guys that can get a bucket even when guarded closely. Green has a knack for getting key scores, but not when the defense is loaded up to stop him. He also has a knack for getting key rebounds, and key stops. He is a winner, and worth a top 3 pick in most drafts.
The irony I see in much of this discussion is that Magic was the #2 scoring option until his 8th season in the league, playing along side the 6 time MVP and all time scoring leader. At the end of close games, Magic knew where the entry pass should go. Against a set defense, KAJ was still going to score. So, it is a little surprising to see how low a value many have placed on Green, when one of the all time Laker greats was elite because of passing, rebounding, and winning, rather than scoring as a #1 option.
He's also leading the team with over 7 assists from the PF/C position. That would be an all-time high number by a big gap.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144464 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:56 pm Post subject:
KobeRe-Loaded wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
KobeRe-Loaded wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Quote:
Being a franchise player is not predicated on offensive talent IMO. It's about what you do to get your team wins and few players in the NBA
That sums things up. But going by that statement, there are few franchise players, period. A stretch, but it is like saying Robert Horry and Derek Fisher franchise talent.
I love those guys because they hit big shots but if you think they do even half as much as Draymond does you don't understand what he does for that team.
I absolutely understand what Draymond does for the team. IMHO, he does, what the franchise don't have to do. He allows them to focus on their strengths.
IMHO, that is a glue guy, a 2nd or 3rd option. That's Odom. Kukoc. Rodman. Horry. Odom at least had shot creating talent but not the aggression or leadership. He went from a #1 to #3/#4 option, and only won as a latter option of the offense. Kukoc? Stud 6th man, and underrated PF for the Bulls. Still, a #3 guy.
Yes he's a glue guy! I just think he is changing what it means to be that type of guy. He's the best to ever do it and is becoming more valuable as a glue guy than some players are as #1 scoring options. I think that's the main part of the argument that we disagree on.
WHOA .... uhhhhh
You a friend of Draymond? You cannot be SERIOUS!
Of the guys who do the dirty work for a team and play a glue guy type of role.
You could make an argument for Rodman and some other guys. Bruce Bowen, Doug Christie type guys but I don't think any of them are better than Green. I don't think any of the players were as well rounded as him. He's elite defensively on and off the ball and is a very good offense player without high usage.
Lamar Odom says HI
Lamar Odom was a career underachiever, Green is the opposite. Green plays with high intelligence, LO was the opposite. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35853 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 3:05 pm Post subject:
wolfpaclaker wrote:
Quote:
Green is the opposite. Green plays with high intelligence, LO was the opposite
Funny, considering many people including Phil, Tex, Ron Artest have all called Lamar's basketball IQ very high at a very young age.
I think his problem was focus, not basketball IQ, but that's a totally different aspect.
Odom was such a weird player. One moment he would make a brilliant play, and the other he would dribble inbounds, or pass to someone on the bench, or throw the ball off the referee.
Part of me suspects he had to be stoned during some of those games. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
No one said that he was Magic. A comparison was made to make a point. By the argument that some of you are using, Magic couldn't have been a franchise player because he was not the prototypical franchise type player. Most seasons, he scored less than 20 ppg. He was a miserable outside shooter for the first part of his career, although he did improve during the second half of his career. He was not the most dominant scorer on the team. Utility guy, right?
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 3:32 pm Post subject:
MIZ83 wrote:
KobeRe-Loaded wrote:
You guys are right
Draymond Green = Magic Johnson
No one said that he was Magic. A comparison was made to make a point. By the argument that some of you are using, Magic couldn't have been a franchise player because he was not the prototypical franchise type player. Most seasons, he scored less than 20 ppg. He was a miserable outside shooter for the first part of his career, although he did improve during the second half of his career. He was not the most dominant scorer on the team. Utility guy, right?
Disagree. While he was a facilitator first, he still hovered around 20ppg despite having 2 other 20ppg guys behind him.
That would be the equivalent of Draymond averaging 5 more ppg. That's huge.
There were times during Magic's career where he had to prove he could score. What, like a 20 year old Magic scoring 42 points in the Finals wasn't enough? Do people really think Draymond could score 42?
It's a whole different level of glue guy/franchise player. When Kareem retired, he was still around 20ppg. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Green is the opposite. Green plays with high intelligence, LO was the opposite
Funny, considering many people including Phil, Tex, Ron Artest have all called Lamar's basketball IQ very high at a very young age.
I think his problem was focus, not basketball IQ, but that's a totally different aspect.
I agree. Odom was plenty bright. He was just a big sweetheart. He's not a rip your throat out kinda guy. Just wasn't in his personality.
I get the urge to make the Green/Odom comparison, I just don't think it's a very good one. They're different sizes, play different styles, have different mentalities. Green has maximized his talents and Odom scraped the surface. Frankly Green is just better.
I see this is getting off the rails a bit. Draymond isn't Lamar Odom and he isn't Magic Johnson. The question posed was the value of Draymond in relation to a Top 3 pick, which is most likely going to be Brandon Ingram or Dragon Bender if we happen to keep it. That's a no-brainer, and GSW would laugh and hang up the phone if it were offered. But everyone always is seduced by what's in the mystery box.
I see this is getting off the rails a bit. Draymond isn't Lamar Odom and he isn't Magic Johnson. The question posed was the value of Draymond in relation to a Top 3 pick, which is most likely going to be Brandon Ingram or Dragon Bender if we happen to keep it. That's a no-brainer, and GSW would laugh and hang up the phone if it were offered. But everyone always is seduced by what's in the mystery box.
Based on the arguments in here, some believe that w/o Green then Steph Curry wouldn't be the player that he is now.
I'm just saying Green is a good player but I wouldn't say the success of the Warriors rest and lay on his shoulders alone. _________________ #11/08/16 America became GREAT again
#Avatar-gate
No one said that he was Magic. A comparison was made to make a point. By the argument that some of you are using, Magic couldn't have been a franchise player because he was not the prototypical franchise type player. Most seasons, he scored less than 20 ppg. He was a miserable outside shooter for the first part of his career, although he did improve during the second half of his career. He was not the most dominant scorer on the team. Utility guy, right?
Disagree. While he was a facilitator first, he still hovered around 20ppg despite having 2 other 20ppg guys behind him.
That would be the equivalent of Draymond averaging 5 more ppg. That's huge.
There were times during Magic's career where he had to prove he could score. What, like a 20 year old Magic scoring 42 points in the Finals wasn't enough? Do people really think Draymond could score 42?
It's a whole different level of glue guy/franchise player. When Kareem retired, he was still around 20ppg.
Disagree with what? I did not say that Green was in the ballpark of Magic. I made the point that it is ironic that Lakers fans, of all people, cannot appreciate the greatness of a player that is all about winning and excels at things besides scoring that contribute to winning.
In spite of one iconic game, Magic was not an elite scorer. He was a good scorer, but not elite.
I see this is getting off the rails a bit. Draymond isn't Lamar Odom and he isn't Magic Johnson. The question posed was the value of Draymond in relation to a Top 3 pick, which is most likely going to be Brandon Ingram or Dragon Bender if we happen to keep it. That's a no-brainer, and GSW would laugh and hang up the phone if it were offered. But everyone always is seduced by what's in the mystery box.
Based on the arguments in here, some believe that w/o Green then Steph Curry wouldn't be the player that he is now.
I'm just saying Green is a good player but I wouldn't say the success of the Warriors rest and lay on his shoulders alone.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
