McMillan liked what he saw last night

"Good" based on what? His job is rebounding and blocking shots. He does a more than "good" job of it. It baffles me that some people don't realize that some players are role players. Is Oden more talented all-around than Joel? I sure as hell hope so. Do I think Oden should be starting? Hell yes. Does that have any impact on how "good" Joel has been with the Blazers. Of course not.

 

pointless argument.

you have it completely backward. there were many places to go but up. Nate made it so they went up despite your negative opinion. now it's up to the players to take it to the next level.

 

^^^^^^^^this. Well said Ed O. I completely agree.

 

I'm not sure why you addressed your post to me, since I said that Oden is a better player and should be starting.

I took issue with Przy being subjectively labeled as not a "good" player. He's a role player who started on a 54-win team. You also may want to define "good" for what Przy was asked to do before talking about "facts".

 

Great. Define "good" and explain why Przy is not "good". Also, you may want to amend your argument about Oden's "consistency", since I think he should be starting. Unless that wasn't meant to be addressed to me and my "argument".

 

I don't know what Ed's definition of good is, but "good" would have to include the ability to generate more offense than what can be had on just putbacks ... although once upon a time Nick Van Exel and he could run a pretty decent pick and roll ... I'd rate Joel as a very good defensive center, a superb rebounder and an absolute non-entity when it comes to the offensive end of the court, put all that together and he's a "serviceable" starter, but not quite "good."

 

So, were Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman not "good" players as well? I'm not saying that Przy has rebounded or blocked shots as well as them, but if we're including the ability to create offense, wouldn't these to not be "good" as well?

As I said, define "good", Ed. Or don't.

 

Yes. A sycophant to a poster creating a strawman argument toward my post.

Be proud, Julius.

 

Meh.

I think Joel has been a "good" player in terms of what he was asked to do for this team. If others disagree, oh well, but I do see it as a slam toward Przy.

 

Not sure what you're talking about.

What do ed's clown pants have to do with anything?

 

Ben Wallace was DPOY and was absolutely dominant in that role, crappy offense aside his ability to defend the paint was astounding for a couple of years, Rodman was a freak rebounder and a great defensive player too ... If Joel had the rebounding chops or the defensive dominance of either player then, yes, he would be a "good" player.

I love Joel, but he's just not quite in the same class as Wallace or Rodman (in their primes).

EDIT:
To clarify, my rating of Joel as "serviceable" isn't just because he's a bad offensive player, it's composite of everything he does on the court.

 

Of course not, and I never claimed that. You included the ability to create offense in your definition of a "good" player. I was only offering some examples that you didn't include as exceptions to your obviously correct interpretation of "good".

 

Yeah, I reread what I wrote and I should have clarified, that if Joel specifically had any kind of offensive game it would make the sum of his parts add up to "good," not that every player must possess those skills themselves if other parts of their game make them dominant.

 

So, Joel isn't a "good" player. I disagree, but whatever.

 

Tell you what. Compared to the current crop of NBA centers Joel is probably a top fifteen player at his position; by that measure he is actually "good", but just because there is such a dearth of good NBA centers currently in the league doesn't automatically make Joel a good one -- in a historic sense.