What's new
By:

SI.com Top 100 Players......

HantlersE.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hack said:
I get that point, but I disagree with it. I think it's about how good I would think they'd be next year, not necessarily what they just did, even though that plays a part in how you see them.
Click to expand...

Hence why you drafted Shabazz and Lavine. Potential matters to you. Not results.
 
ONE LOVE said:
Wow...


I think Hayward and Gobert should definitely be in top 50. But Favors... not so sure.
Click to expand...
How is it that our best player should be lower ranked than our 2nd and 3rd best players? Favors is seriously underrated by Jazz fans. I understand an argument that Hayward is better than Favors, personally I think Favors is better. But Rudy right now is not better than either of them. He is simply not as good as Favors right now.
 
gregbroncs said:
How is it that our best player should be lower ranked than our 2nd and 3rd best players? Favors is seriously underrated by Jazz fans. I understand an argument that Hayward is better than Favors, personally I think Favors is better. But Rudy right now is not better than either of them. He is simply not as good as Favors right now.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't make it clear, I meant not so sure SI.com would rank Favors in top 50.
 
ONE LOVE said:
Sorry I didn't make it clear, I meant not so sure SI.com would rank Favors in top 50.
Click to expand...

Why?? Even none jazz fans should be able to know there isn't 50 players better then Favors. So SI.com should know. Lol. It's not rocket science.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top