• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official '16-17 NBA Thread: not with a bang but a whimper

I think all of pundits who have proclaimed Fultz and Ball to be franchise level prospects are ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
i think fultz is a monster, one of the better nba prospects i've ever watched, and everyone else in the class is a question mark

need a buckets mixtape ruling to be sure though

he's just so damn silky
 
i haven't watched Washington play, but how can the #1 pick win 9 games total? and the Pac-12 sucks too. Like I feel especially at PG that a super stud can lift an entire team, like sophomore Chris Paul would have taken just about any P5 team to at least .500 imo. We had the #1 offense in the country that year and there were some good dudes on that team but not stacked in the slightest.
 
my argument isn't as much that this class isn't good but more so that it's really hard to be a really good/franchise-changing player in the nba.
 
my argument isn't as much that this class isn't good but more so that it's really hard to be a really good/franchise-changing player in the nba.

What is the threshold for franchise-changing player? Is a Jimmy Butler one? A Rudy Goebert? Isaiah Thomas?
 
None of those guys meet it. I think you could count that list on close to one hand.
 
None of those guys meet it. I think you could count that list on close to one hand.

Lebron, Kawhi, KD, Steph, Harden?
 
Come on. Anthony Davis, Westbrook, Chris Paul. It's more than one hand.

These superteams are skewing perception big time.
 
Like, if you replace Kawhi with Paul George, they're not as good, but in a normal NBA without the superteams they are definitely a contender.
 
Come on. Anthony Davis, Westbrook, Chris Paul. It's more than one hand.

These superteams are skewing perception big time.

None of them are leading championship contenders. Davis has barely made the playoffs in his career.

I originally had Russ but took him off in favor of Steph because Steph's leap vaulted the Warriors into champions and KD's departure turned the Thunder into a low seed.
 
Like, if you replace Kawhi with Paul George, they're not as good, but in a normal NBA without the superteams they are definitely a contender.

LOL. The Spurs wouldn't be championship contenders without Kawhi. I think Pop could get them to 50 wins but there's no other player in the league I would want guarding Lebron in the last minute of Game 7. Kawhi was already a Finals MVP and he's miles better than he was 3 seasons ago.
 
I said close to. I'll take those 8 maybe and that's it, although you're really pushing me on a couple. Just take the Wiggins hype from a couple years ago. He's basically a slightly above average player who does nothing but volume score at a pretty inefficient level. He and KAT haven't even come close to sniffing .500.
 
Okay, but you swap Kawhi and Russ and the Thunder still aren't contenders. Put Durant on the Pelicans and they aren't winning the championship. That's a dumb criteria.
 
Ayo, if I understand you correctly, you are looking for a player that could go to a shitty lottery team and turn them into a championship contender within 4 years.

Yeah. It's hard to argue Fultz or Smith can do that if their college teams can't even make the tournament. Same with Simmons.
 
Okay, but you swap Kawhi and Russ and the Thunder still aren't contenders. Put Durant on the Pelicans and they aren't winning the championship. That's a dumb criteria.

I disagree with both of those actually.
 
Okay, but you swap Kawhi and Russ and the Thunder still aren't contenders. Put Durant on the Pelicans and they aren't winning the championship. That's a dumb criteria.

Agreed. I think you can be a franchise player but get stuck in a shitty franchise. Davis is an example. Any team in NBA would kill for him
 
Back
Top