sicko
New member
- Joined:
- Jun 3, 2010
- Posts:
- 807
- Liked Posts:
- 122
That is too much, NO HELL NO! Wouldn't give up Noah, Butler YES, Noah...HELL NO!
My point was with the thought of the barrage of comment's recently about the Bulls being "too white". What does that mean, white players aren't athletic enough to play in the NBA? I wonder what Larry Bird thinks of that? How about Dirk?
My question still stands.... why does a 19 year old College Freshman that's athletic so much more of a better prospect than a 23 Euro MVP that's played 7 years of pro ball? Because he's athletic. I could post a bunch of athletes that flat out suck!
What did Wiggins do in College that was so great, Lose to Standford in the tourny? I think you are the one with the double standard. I'm just giving credit where credit is due.
Well none of the white/black talk was in this thread till you brought it. Then you stated you it was not your point, when it obviously was.
Moreover, multiple explained it already. It is not white/black. It is super athletic and not super athletic. You may disagree. Aaron Gordon was picked purely on athleticism. He has about zero NBA skill. Obviously NBA people pick athleticism over skill.
The fact that you had to look up highlights to find about Brooks speaks volumes about how closely you follow the NBA. I will simplify for you.
In the NBA the GMs take athleticism over skill in young players. You have now been told this by multiple people. It is not 7 years in Europe vs 1 in college. It is super athlete vs average athlete.
STARTERS | MIN | FGM-A | 3PM-A | FTM-A | OREB | DREB | REB | AST | STL | BLK | TO | PF | PTS |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tarik Black, F | 26 | 6-8 | 0-0 | 6-8 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 18 |
Perry Ellis, F | 26 | 3-10 | 0-0 | 3-4 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 9 |
Andrew Wiggins, G | 34 | 1-6 | 0-2 | 2-2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
I'm supposed to be up on the 3rd G from Denver to follow basketball and my Bulls? You are the one harping on race, and continue to bring to the convo, but whatever, you obviously have a hardon for me.
Tyrus fuckin Thomas was athletic too. What's your point? Sometimes you need to look at production as well. And in Wiggins case, there's not much production!
Edit to add:
Let's look at Wiggens awesome boxline for the game against Stanford.......
--------------------
STARTERS MIN FGM-A 3PM-A FTM-A OREB DREB REB AST STL BLK TO PF PTS Tarik Black, F 26 6-8 0-0 6-8 2 4 6 0 0 0 0 5 18 Perry Ellis, F 26 3-10 0-0 3-4 3 5 8 0 0 0 3 2 9 Andrew Wiggins, G 34 1-6 0-2 2-2 2 2 4 1 1 2 4 3 4
-------------------------------------------
Wow, impressive potential there.
I have a question. Why is it that a 19 year old freshman, with one year of College experience, is considered to be such a Lock to be a star, as opposed to a 23 year old Niko, who's played 7 years of Pro ball in Spain, considered the 2nd best league behind the NBA, and is more highly decorated (awards) then any other Euro player?
Is it cuz he's black? What has Wiggens done that is such solid proof? And what has Niko done that isn't?
Well that confirms it. You don't know much about the NBA. Brooks was a ~20 ppg scorer a few years ago. I think most NBA fans can remember back a few years.
Moreover, no one is saying that Wiggins will be a great player. We are just explaining to you why Wiggins has more perceived value. No one knows who will be better. NBA people thought Wiggins was a top 2 player. They also stated that the Euro kid would be a 4-10 pick. That tells up who has more perceived value. You can disagree all you want. It does not change the fact that Wiggins has more value right now in a trade. Not sure how you are not getting this.
Wiggins is not as skilled as Parker, but was still picked ahead of Parker. You know why......athleticism.
Now you have been told again, why Wiggins has more value. That is all this is about. Not who is better. Not who will be better.
The question you asked:
This was your question. The answer has been the same from a handful of people.............Athleticism.
Do you understand yet??
My point was with the thought of the barrage of comment's recently about the Bulls being "too white". What does that mean, white players aren't athletic enough to play in the NBA? I wonder what Larry Bird thinks of that? How about Dirk?
My question still stands.... why does a 19 year old College Freshman that's athletic so much more of a better prospect than a 23 Euro MVP that's played 7 years of pro ball? Because he's athletic. I could post a bunch of athletes that flat out suck!
What did Wiggins do in College that was so great, Lose to Standford in the tourny? I think you are the one with the double standard. I'm just giving credit where credit is due.
I said what I said after people started talking after the Gasol trade that this was somehow a great move. I spoke out because I totally disagreed with it and said that it did not make any sense and it didn't.
IF you review the history after Gasol was signed, I said that this only made sense if there was something else in the works as an option. Turns out there was. I also said that they needed more help at the guard position(s). I still believe that. Don't put out this bullshit and try to revise what was being argued. I was clear. I said that IF they put all of their eggs in one basket after Melo and those eggs were signing Gasol, that they were fucking nuts.
WWowie, So BP doesn't "like Wiggins"?So because he doesn't "like" him, the answer why he was picked number one was because he was black. Sure..........that makes sense.
So BP likes Mirotic........... I like Mirotic and have ever since they drafted him. But whether or not Wiggins or Mirotic will prove better than the other, I do not know and neither does anyone else. But to say at this point that you just do not "like" Wiggins is stupid. You don't know him. You don't know Mirotic. Neither do I.
I think that the entire notion of blacks being better athletes are pretty much crap. Certainly genetics play into it and if one's mother and father are great athletes, then odds are he may well become a great athlete. That isn't rocket science. But the notion that somehow, white kids, or yellow kids or whoever are not great athletes is nuts.
I think that blacks have dominated basketball mostly because it is a much more individual sport and they begin playing it earlier than whites do generally. Why? Because blacks inhabit more poor neighborhoods where places for other sports are limited. Look in the suburbs or wealthier areas and you see many many whites playing. How many blacks do you see? Tell me that soccer players are not athletes? It is what area that they are brought up in that is different when they are brought up. Then look at the Hispanics that play soccer primarily. They play on the streets and alleys because all is needed is a ball, the same as basketball. Is anyone going to tell me that Hispanic soccer players are not good athletes?
What happens when a reasonably tall kid reaches say, 6th grade in this country and has talent? High school and even college scouts are out looking at them. The white kids as a general rule, have options if they want to play sports because they can pick and choose. Black and Hispanic kids do not. Most black kids get pigeon-holes into basketball and some into football because of their size more than anything else. Same way that Hispanics at an early age get pigeon-holed into soccer and it is again mostly due to size(how many really tall Hispanics are there in the NBA? Again, this has nothing to do with athleticism.
My three kids were all small for their age in elementary through say, their sophomore year in school. All three were very good athletes but in all three, size or lack of it hurt them. By the time they graduated high school all three were bigger than their classmates and all played high school sports but they were pigeon-holed early on. But they had choices of what they wanted to try out for and earn a spot on a team. I do not believe that the inner city guys have the same kind of chance because they are steered into basketball and football. In fact I could speak long and loud about the efforts out here to get black kids interested in baseball once again at an early age.
My point is this....... Take the white kids out of the suburbs and put them in the inner city and you would see a bunch of good white players in the NBA. Take the black kids and put them in the sub-burbs and you would see a whole lot of soccer, baseball, and yeah basketball players. Football is a melting pot.
But the notion that black are somehow better athletes because of genetics or whatever is nonsense. Jimmy the Greek said that and look what happened to him
Wiggins is valued more over Mirotic because his ceiling is higher. It's not like Wiggins disappeared every game, like he did against Stanford. What about the West Virginia game? 41 pts on 12-18 shooting, 15-19 from the line. He wasn't consistent offensively but definitely showed what he is capable of when he puts his mind to it. Besides that, even if he sucks offensively, he will step in a be a great wing defender from day 1. Mirotic is not a great defensively player. At the worst, he will just be a good shooter in a role player's role. Wiggins would be that and an elite wing defender. Wiggins as a prospect>Mirotic.
Blacktop hoops is a way of life. I can't dis agree one bit. I spent to many years running circles around both in my days, and as a white man, I don't need anyone telling me that white men are not athletic. And for someone to suggest I'm fuckin racist m
akes my blood boil.
Who called you a racist? I sure didn't. Your the guy who brought race into things. Perhaps you need to think a bit more before you post
How about Rose? What has he done for us lately?
Yep, because Love would come here if Rose left. Its not the idea of playing together that entices him here.
What does Rose play? Last thing ive seen him play was a video game vs Kobe Bryant on a NBA 2k commercial.