<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AmBitIoNz23 @ Jun 29 2006, 05:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Thats a good point, but at the same time, if you shut down someone who can only create with the ball in their hands, that effects the entire team in a negative way, because then you have a player dominating the ball and having a bad shooting game at the same time. But if you shut down say a Richard Hamilton, or someone else like Redick who moves without the ball so well, it opens things up for the rest of the team in a more positive way because thats one defender who isnt going to be able to play weakside defense and help out on cutters and people driving to the hoop. Maybe I'm overthinking this though. :happy0144: </div>Sorry it has taken me a while to reply to this, i had to make an emergency drive to the panhandle in Florida to see a family member for a few days. I was enjoying this debate with you, actually talking some X's and O's compared to players names. You know your stuff.You make good points also, if we take a player that can create off the dribble drive and doesn't move without the ball, and then take a player that creates while moving around without the ball it really depends. If i'm starting a brand new team, i want the one that can create off the dribble. Someone that can't create off the dribble like Redick, Marion, Hamilton these guys, but is good at creating without the ball and moving to get open, often times needs someone that can create with the ball to get them the ball. For example, Billups and Nash often times can create with the ball and are a big part of Marion and Hamilton being so effective. Without Nash and Billups and their teamates being able to find them when they get open, Marion and Hamilton are no where near as effective. So someone that can't create with the ball is going to need someone that can create with the ball to be effective. However, someone that can create with the ball in their hands doesn't need someone else to be effective. If their team is having an off night, they can shoulder the scoring load. Also, they are not going to have many off nights, because if their shot isn't working, they can get to the rim better for easier shots and free throws. A person that moves without the ball to get open, is going to have more off nights, because they rely more on their shot. Look at the LSU game for Duke compared to the UCLA game for Gonzaga. Morrison was still doing good, and really carried his team for the most part, while LSU shut down Redick and forced him into a bad game. That's why if i was starting a team i would want the player that can create off the dribble better.If i already have a team established with someone that can create off the dribble, like the Magic with Jameer Nelson, then obviously i am going to want the one that can shoot and moves without the ball like Redick, or Hamilton. In that case you are going to need the one that can create room for Jameer Nelson to drive. So as i said, it really depends on what the team looks like for who i would pick between Morrison and Hamilton. I'm definately not picking either one for their top notch defense.
Morrison is more versatile and overrall. Redick was the best shooter in the country but he needs to add driving ability and toughness to his game.
you gotta go with morrison. I mean look at that mustache. Morrison is the better all-around player. Morrison can make more shots and create more for himself while reddick is a spot up three shooter or just comes off screens. His ball-handling is poor, he has no athletic abilty. The two gurads are bigger and faster in the nba. This does not help redick. Morrison averaged 28 points per game, which is the most in the nation. He also averaged six rebounds, shooting 50 percent from the floor and 43 percent from behind the three-point line. He is bigger, better, and that mustache is just WOW.
Reddick will be the better NBA player. Morrison won't be as good at driving in the NBA, and isn't quick enough to get by an average SF in the league. And as a shooter he isn't as good as Reddick.Neither will be superstars, but Reddick will be a top tier shooter in the league that would totally flourish in a fast breaking/high octane team like the Suns.
JJ Redick because he got it done when it matter most. Plus Redick hold so many records for 3's, FT Shooting, Points in the ACC and at Duke. Now has morrison even accomplished something like that? All i remember him doing is A. Beating bad opponents. B. Getting overhyped and C. Crying
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NJFantastic4 @ Jul 7 2006, 04:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>JJ Redick because he got it done when it matter most. Plus Redick hold so many records for 3's, FT Shooting, Points in the ACC and at Duke. Now has morrison even accomplished something like that? All i remember him doing is A. Beating bad opponents. B. Getting overhyped and C. Crying</div>Wow you must really be a Morrison hater to say something so ignorant. You must have never watched Morrison play huh??? Everything you just said about JJ only proved everyones point who says Morrison is better. The fact that JJ is a one dimensional player. Everyone knows JJ can shoot amazingly. There's no point in pointing out the obvious. College basketball and the NBA can be very different. If it wasn't we would've seen JJ go in the top 5 for the draft. JJ won't be getting so many open shots anymore that he excels on so much. Morrison has more of an NBA scoring game. He can create better than JJ can so he will be better at creating more open shots for himself and he also can take it baseline much better than JJ. Not to mention he has more size and versatality. Why don't you actually go watch basketball then come back here and try and debate this with actual good reasons instead of making yourself look like an ignorant fool.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Outlaw101 @ Jul 7 2006, 06:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>morrison</div>Mind giving any explanations. I don't know what other forums your at but here we don't accept one word posts with no reasoning what so ever.
