neither guy is going to become a good pure pg. of course, bayless is in a situation where he doesn't have to. westbrook is a combo guard and always will be. and he could end up being very good at it. he has all the physical skills. and really, if you threw bayless into a situation where he was going to average 30 minutes a game regardless of how bad he played(like westbrook when he was getting 27 minutes a game during the first month of the year while he shot 35% from the field), bayless would be putting up numbers as well.
Chris Bosh? Shouldn't you have Zach Randolph in that list too? You did say... right? So I'm a little confused as to why you didn't put Zach Randolph in the list of top 10 NBA players. Maybe you like to say outrageous things that have no merit? Looks like it.
Bosh isn't even close to Roy. Roy has led this team to 48 wins and counting. Bosh hasn't even got his team to 30 wins yet.
From what I've gathered from a number of threads the past couple of weeks, Ed O has it like this... Zach Randolph > Chris Bosh > Brandon Roy.
I don't think that a one-year year automatically makes a player a top-10 player, though. Chris Bosh, for example, is on his fourth straight year of 22+ PER, while this is Roy's first over 19.27. Tony Parker has been dominant at the PG spot this year after being one of the best PGs for each of the past several years. Several other players have track records that are longer with spikes that are at least as good as Roy's. Assuming that we can agree (with the exception of people like PapaG, who would rather attack me personally than debate) that the top six are sort of set, even IF Roy is in the next group immediately behind those six this year, I think there are easily (at least) four players who have demonstrated themselves to be better than Roy in the last few years. I don't think that superstardom is based in a single excellent year unless that season is historic... and Roy is not having a historic individual season. Ed O.
I can understand why you'd be confused. Merely listing options of players that might be better than Roy does not mean that I believe he IS better than Brandon. Note that I said: -- I do not think that Roy is a top 5-10 player -- I do not think that many do, either I listed the players that I thought were definitely better. I listed them specifically in two groups. There were seven of them. I then stated that, in order to be in the top 10, Brandon could only be inferior to TWO of the rest of the players in the NBA. I listed several players that most would consider to be at least Brandon's equal. I did NOT say that Bosh was better than Roy. Sorry that you got confused. Ed O.
I don't agree with Ed, but the disbelief/mockery of what he's saying is silly. You can definitely make a case for ten players better than Roy. James, Paul, Howard, Kobe and Wade are pretty easy to make a case for. Duncan, Garnett, Yao, Parker and Nowitzki are all arguable. I'd class Roy in with Duncan, Garnett and Yao and ahead of Parker and Nowitzki. But putting him behind two more excellent players is hardly crazy.
You're so full of shit it's unbelievable. In THIS THREAD ALONE, you -- said I "jumped the shark", and -- said you doubted I followed the team Hollinger is irrelevant. Ed O.
i'm talking about roy this season. he's not a fluke. how good he was two years ago really isn't relevant to the discussion. we're not talking about who has had the better career. we are talking about who is the better player right now. right now brandon roy is easily a top 10 player. does being a top 10 player necessarily make him a superstar? that depends on your definition of superstar. i would call roy one though.
So is it crazy to calll Roy a top 7 player? Because Ed's intiial post didn't put him in that category.
Why are you so angry? Because I was proven correct about Hollinger's ridiculous projections? I'd be calling him irrelevant as well right now.
I think that any single season is likely to be a fluke. I think that top 5-10 production is not the same as being a top 5-10 player, and I think that a track record helps establish that production is a true indication of capabilities. I agree it comes down to definitions, and I understand that we can agree to disagree as to how we define things. Ed O.
