AllenOneal37

joined 11 months ago
[–] AllenOneal37@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

Was he that generation's Derrick Rose? With a championship.

[–] AllenOneal37@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

I think he's just someone fans think could have done more had he wanted to maybe. Offensively.

[–] AllenOneal37@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

I think you made my point about KD actually. He's literally one of the greatest shooters of all time but you don't put him in that category because he does so much more. Same as Dirk and Nash. My post was skewed towards 3 point shooting by the way but I actually deleted it from my title.

I remember Curry being a shooter after I put him on my hate list because he beat Georgetown. If I remember correctly Dame came in as a scorer more but adjusted the best in the new wave of basketball. The reason I say shooters for them is because how they are played defensively. It's to stop them from pulling up. Kyrie for example has a similar percentage but is not guarded the same way.

In regards to Maxey, as sixers fan, I just don't see him ever being regarded as the same 3point threat even if his % stays the same. I think he's high 30s right now. Hield maybe was expected as more but definitely became a 3point specialist.

To be simple. I see it as scorers, scorers that can shoot, and shooters. Only a few people belong in all 3 categories.

Your final remark about the 3 young guys. In my opinion Ant will be a scorer that can shoot, Ingram is a scorer, and I can't judge Haliburton yet. More of a traditional PG that I can't see averaging more than 25.

Anything else?

 

What is it based on for you? Would it be volume or efficiency?

It's easy to tell the specialists like Korver or Peja but I'm curious when Dame for example became a dangerous shooter as opposed to something else. KD has a great percentage at all spots but he's not considered a "shooter" in my opinion.

My question came from watching Tyrese Maxey who has a similar 3 point% to Dame but they're aren't categorized the same.

For example:

Shooters- Steph, Dame, Hield

Can shoot- D Mitchell, Kyrie, Tatum

[–] AllenOneal37@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

I think because his take is very simple. "Play like this then you'll win. 28 and 15."

If you watch when they used to do the on court examples and it's big man stuff he breaks things down better. Big man 101 on YouTube is one of my favorites to watch from them.

[–] AllenOneal37@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

This is the guy that carries the #1 legacy for the Magic? Big falloff from Penny to McGrady to him.

[–] AllenOneal37@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Top 2 seed similar stats. Look more in shape. Hope no other team wins 60 games.

[–] AllenOneal37@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

According to him he planned on going for 3 years but since they won there wasn't much to do and his coach blessed him leaving. That's if I remember the story correctly.

[–] AllenOneal37@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

No but that's a good point and they happened to win. I just would have guessed because they were no.1 throughout the season that they would have been a better defense. What were they ranked ?

[–] AllenOneal37@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They could. Everyone just talks about their offense like it's all they have.

[–] AllenOneal37@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

I didn't immediately get what that meant but yes. Nash and Dirk Mavs, Nash's suns, and Hardens rockets are the teams that came to my mind.

 

This is about the Suns and mostly an eyeball test meaning I didn't look anything up.

Would this year's Suns be the first "offensive juggernaut" team to win a championship if they do?

I don't have the actual stats but I think the past champions each had at least a top 10 defense.

Who else was a contender with "no defense" ?

[–] AllenOneal37@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

This is list is probably based on stats. Thats fine but as prime prospects in a draft you don't take half of these people over Melo.

view more: next ›