What's new
By:

White Chocolate Just Compared Carmello Anthony to Stockton and Malone

If anyone thinks Draymond Green didn't have a huge impact on the success of the Warriors in both the regular season and the playoffs, then you are just seeing what's really going on out there. I'm sorry., but it's true.

Green gave them that defensive identity and attitude. He is what transformed them into a championship squad. Steph is the best player, and they don't win it without him. Klay is second and they don't win it without him, and Draymond is 3rd, and they don't win it without him.

It usually takes a stacked team to win the championship. 3 big time players is a formula that gets its done quite often. Rarely do you see stars do it by themselves.
 
Hack said:
If anyone thinks Draymond Green didn't have a huge impact on the success of the Warriors in both the regular season and the playoffs, then you are just seeing what's really going on out there. I'm sorry., but it's true.

Green gave them that defensive identity and attitude. He is what transformed them into a championship squad. Steph is the best player, and they don't win it without him. Klay is second and they don't win it without him, and Draymond is 3rd, and they don't win it without him.

It usually takes a stacked team to win the championship. 3 big time players is a formula that gets its done quite often. Rarely do you see stars do it by themselves.
Click to expand...

I guess we can agree to disagree. They were on their way the year before. Replacing the coach did wonders, as did another year of experience for Klay. Sure, you can say Green was the final piece, but that doesn't make him equally important to the other stars. Replace the weakest link on ANY team and that team will improve. You could also make a case that the W's improved as much as they did because Barnes (48%/41%) replaced Iggy in the starting lineup.
 
What Melo is and was is a guy who had a lot of promise, and got everyone all excited about how good he could be, and in the end he never capitalized on it. He didn't improve his game. He just shot the ball and scored, and didn't learn how to win. That's his story. A guy who didn't get it. Pretty much wasted his talents. He had his moments and was really good on the USA team when he was surrounded other really good players. But he always lacked that extra stuff that champions have that sets them apart.
 
Stifle Tower said:
I guess we can agree to disagree. They were on their way the year before. Replacing the coach did wonders, as did another year of experience for Klay. Sure, you can say Green was the final piece, but that doesn't make him equally important to the other stars. Replace the weakest link on ANY team and that team will improve. You could also make a case that the W's improved as much as they did because Barnes (48%/41%) replaced Iggy in the starting lineup.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he was as equally important. I posted in order their importance. But he still was very important. Without him, it's a good possibility they don't win as many games and lose in the conference finals or something.

Rodman was still very important for the Bulls.
 
dalamon said:
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.
Click to expand...
I disagree. You don't build a team around a guy like Carmello and win in the playoffs. You probably can't build a team around Draymond and win in the playoffs but at least he is not going to destroy your chances of winning it all. With Carmello he does destroy your chances of winning it all because of the player he is. I'd take Green every time regardless of circumstances.
 
Hack said:
Not much, but what's your point? Artest in his prime was very good and made his teams better.
Click to expand...

Artest in his prime was a way better scorer than Green too. I'm not sure if this is suppose to be a diss at Green, Im confused.

They are pretty different. I mean, they are both great defenders who play hard, but the comp kind of ends there.
 
Hack said:
I didn't say he was as equally important. I posted in order their importance. But he still was very important. Without him, it's a good possibility they don't win as many games and lose in the conference finals or something.

Rodman was still very important for the Bulls.
Click to expand...

And my argument is not that he wasn't important: he was. But if you replaced him (like Denver did with Melo) with TWO very good players, the record could have been about the same. You'd certainly lose production at the starting 4. But if you gained a lot by upgrading over Livingston or Speights, bench production would nearly offset the difference.

Now playoffs...that's a different animal. Rotations tighten and subs are less important. That's why a "Big 3" is more important than a "Pretty Good 9."
 
I wonder if those dismissing Green's importance ever played any level of competitive sports.
 
Cy said:
Artest in his prime was a way better scorer than Green too. I'm not sure if this is suppose to be a diss at Green, Im confused.

They are pretty different. I mean, they are both great defenders who play hard, but the comp kind of ends there.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why that was confusing. I was just telling WC that because it sounded like he was about to try and say Artest didn't make his team better.
 
Hack said:
Not much, but what's your point? Artest in his prime was very good and made his teams better.
Click to expand...

Not much? A ton. Leadership, the ability to guard all five positions on the floor, the brains to know when to take a three point shot and when not to.

Should I go on?
 
Hack said:
I'm not sure why that was confusing. I was just telling WC that because it sounded like he was about to try and say Artest didn't make his team better.
Click to expand...

Not talking about you, talking about how it seems like WC is trying to diss Green by calling him just "Ron Artest"/
 
Cunning Linguist said:
Not much? A ton. Leadership, the ability to guard all five positions on the floor, the brains to know when to take a three point shot and when not to.

Should I go on?
Click to expand...

Who are you talking about?

Ron was a little bit of a nutcase but was by no means a negative to his team. He was really good.
 
Cunning Linguist said:
The difference between Green and Artest. It's great.
Click to expand...

I'm confused on who you think is better. I'm guessing it's green.

I would probably take Green too because he seems to have it together, and that's important too. But as far as skill set and the value of that, it's not much different. Ron was a great defender too who could knock down 3's as well as play team ball.

You might just remember him the way he was towards the end. Prime Artest was a fantastic ball player. That's why his teams were good.
 
Cy said:
Not talking about you, talking about how it seems like WC is trying to diss Green by calling him just "Ron Artest"/
Click to expand...

Not a diss at all. Both are great defenders and key pieces on championship teams. Just trying to get a clearer idea in my head of what type of player he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top