White Chocolate Just Compared Carmello Anthony to Stockton and Malone

[Elizah Huge]

Contextual. If you're building a team, Melo is a better player to build around than Draymond, no arguments. Draymond would have anemic percentages as a first option.

If you have elite scoring, and playmaking options already set in stone, Draymond is the far-superior 3rd fiddle who does everything you ask him to do, and fits better with scorers.

This ain't rocket science, morons.

I agree with this 100%.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Contextual. If you're building a team, Melo is a better player to build around than Draymond, no arguments. Draymond would have anemic percentages as a first option.

If you have elite scoring, and playmaking options already set in stone, Draymond is the far-superior 3rd fiddle who does everything you ask him to do, and fits better with scorers.

This ain't rocket science, morons.

lololololololol

The first player you get doesnt have to be your first option. If a draft is happening and Im asked to choose between Carmello or Green as my first pick, I'm taking Green 1st and looking for a scorer with my next pick.

Dala and that bball iq.

 

[Elizah Huge]

lololololololol

The first player you get doesnt have to be your first option. If a draft is happening and Im asked to choose between Carmello or Green as my first pick, I'm taking Green 1st and looking for a scorer with my next pick.

Dala and that bball iq.

Dala > Cy

 

[Deleted member 848]

lololololololol

The first player you get doesnt have to be your first option. If a draft is happening and Im asked to choose between Carmello or Green as my first pick, I'm taking Green 1st and looking for a scorer with my next pick.

Dala and that bball iq.

even if you did that, you are admitting to not building around Draymond. You point-blank said you'd choose a 'scorer' with your next pick, which is fine-- Draymond really is elite in terms of 3rd fiddles out there, whereas there's relatively more efficient scorers out there.


What's really funny here is that you 'lol' and u bring up the bball IQ, but then your argument doesn't actually discredit Melo being the better first option to build a team around. Melo as a team's star > Draymond.



--


Either way, this conversation is pointless-- as if Cyrone freaking Torbin will acknowledge any flaw in a team he assembled for a fantasy draft.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

even if you did that, you are admitting to not building around Draymond. You point-blank said you'd choose a 'scorer' with your next pick, which is fine-- Draymond really is elite in terms of 3rd fiddles out there, whereas there's relatively more efficient scorers out there.


What's really funny here is that you 'lol' and u bring up the bball IQ, but then your argument doesn't actually discredit Melo being the better first option to build a team around. Melo as a team's star > Draymond.



--


Either way, this conversation is pointless-- as if Cyrone freaking Torbin will acknowledge any flaw in a team he assembled for a fantasy draft.

Only novices talk so definitely about options.

I'm taking the best player. If the only options are Green or Melo, I'm taking Green. I'll figure out how to score later. Defense is just as important as offense. You can build a team around defense.

 

[Deleted member 848]

If Draymond Green went to Philly right now, they wouldn't win 30 games. They would more games with Melo, any argument against this is rooted in a lack of intelligence or bias.

Again-- context.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Only novices talk so definitely about options.

I'm taking the best player. If the only options are Green or Melo, I'm taking Green. I'll figure out how to score later. Defense is just as important as offense. You can build a team around defense.

If you already have Harden picked, then obviously you should pick Green-- no one is arguing that.

What you're doing is trying to equate this to comparing the two players in a vacuum. The criteria change when you do this-- something you simply can't acknowledge for some bizarre reason.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

If Draymond Green went to Philly right now, they wouldn't win 30 games. They would more games with Melo, any argument against this is rooted in a lack of intelligence or bias.

Again-- context.

If the argument is add Melo or Green to any ****ty *** team and who would cause more wins, the answer is Melo.

Add Green or Melo to any semi-competently run team, Green is going to gain more wins.

Jazz would have won more games with Green than adding Melo.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

If you already have Harden picked, then obviously you should pick Green-- no one is arguing that.

What you're doing is trying to equate this to comparing the two players in a vacuum. The criteria change when you do this-- something you simply can't acknowledge for some bizarre reason.

No, I'm saying if I'm picking from a draft and I have no players, I'd rather take Green.

Give me a bedrock of defense, passing, and energy over a volume shooter who doesn't add anything else.

 

[Deleted member 848]

If the argument is add Melo or Green to any ****ty *** team and who would cause more wins, the answer is Melo.

Add Green or Melo to any semi-competently run team, Green is going to gain more wins.

Jazz would have won more games with Green than adding Melo.

Wrong again. For the third time, it's always about context. Speaking in generalities is really what's
novice-like.

A Melo-run Nuggets team won 54 games in a stacked conference and went to the WCF. Draymond Green will never lead a team to 54 wins and the 3rd round, not even in the east.

 

[Miggs]

Contextual. If you're building a team, Melo is a better player to build around than Draymond, no arguments. Draymond would have anemic percentages as a first option.

If you have elite scoring, and playmaking options already set in stone, Draymond is the far-superior 3rd fiddle who does everything you ask him to do, and fits better with scorers.

This ain't rocket science, morons.

Not sure I agree actually.

 

[Deleted member 848]

No, I'm saying if I'm picking from a draft and I have no players, I'd rather take Green.

Give me a bedrock of defense, passing, and energy over a volume shooter who doesn't add anything else.

Then you're taking the worse player with the hopes that you can draft a good enough scorer in later rounds that you can actually build your team around. If you make a team and Draymond is your best player, your team isn't making the playoffs. Plain and simple.