# "NBA's Top Trios" - Blazers not in top 10



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

This has many stupidities, most notably having Bryant, Bynum and Gasol as #3 top trio...when they've never played together!

(Of course, I think Oden, Aldridge and Roy should be higher, but they've never played together... but in the Lakers' case, Gasol replaced Bynum and has never played anything but C for the Lakers.)


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Dont you worry...You will become a believer in the Lakers trio in the first week of the regular season


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Lol! Well considering I don't think the Blazers have a valid Trio yet, I think that is a legit article. Dynamic duo so far is progressing, but I think that's about the most we can claim.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> Dont you worry...You will become a believer in the Lakers trio in the first week of the regular season


Yea it's a good thing they don't play every game in Portland, or they would be 0-82.:eek8:


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Yeah I saw that. Most of those 3's are on their way out. Kidd/Dirk/Howard, Duncan/Ginobili/Parker, Nash/Amare/Shaq... A lot of them are on the decline.


----------



## OdenRoyLMA2 (May 23, 2008)

To be fair, Oden has yet to play a game.

Though I do think we should be up there...


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

hasoos said:


> Yea it's a good thing they don't play every game in Portland, or they would be 0-82.:eek8:




But, but, but!!! 





:biggrin:


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Its a good list. LA is too high (because i don't think Bynum should be considered one of any trio yet). And Detroit is too high...

Portland shouldn't be on that list because Greg Oden hasn't played yet, so you can't justifiably put them there(even though i think he will be awesome).

here is mine...

1. Boston
2. San Antonio
3. Houston
4. New Orleans
5. Washington
6. Lakers
7. Orlando
8. Dallas
9. Philadelphia
10. Suns (i'm sorry, Shaq isn't that good anymore)
11. Portland/Miami (because rookies or they would be way higher)
13. Toronto (JO question)


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Dallas and Phoenix don't have a noteworthy trio. They each have an excellent duo and a famous name.

Maybe if Portland suited up Drexler or Walton, they'd have made the top ten. Roy/Aldridge/Drexler sounds great.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> But, but, but!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just giving ya a bad time Darizzle! :afro:


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

likewise :biggrin: :cheers:


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

DaRizzle said:


> But, but, but!!!


Given your avatar, shouldn't that be:

Butt, butt, butt!!!

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

MrJayremmie said:


> Its a good list. LA is too high (because i don't think Bynum should be considered one of any trio yet). And Detroit is too high...
> 
> Portland shouldn't be on that list because Greg Oden hasn't played yet, so you can't justifiably put them there(even though i think he will be awesome).


At this point, Bynum is as much about potential as Oden. The difference is Oden has a higher upside. Bynum has played at a repectable level for less than half a season (35 games, 23 as starter). Prior to that, he stunk. If Bynum's 35 decent games gets the Lakers in 2nd place, Oden should get the Blazers in the top 10.

It's just a stupid list, but it would be nice if there was some consistency.

BNM


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Who cares. I don't think Blazers are top 10 anyways. Not now anyways.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Boob-No-More said:


> MrJayremmie said:
> 
> 
> > Its a good list. LA is too high (because i don't think Bynum should be considered one of any trio yet). And Detroit is too high...
> ...


Only problem with that logic is.....Even if Oden shows that he's better than Bynum, you guys are still quite a ways behind LA on the whole. 

Kobe 10x > Roy 
Gasol 5x > Aldridge

Philly is way too high @ #10 tho. I would probably bump Orlando to 10, and have Portland @ 11 or so, and then philly. Detroit is a bit high.......they have more of a big 4 then a big 3.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Gasol 5x > Aldridge


LMAO. Thats why he owns Gasol when they play each other?



> Even if Oden shows that he's better than Bynum, you guys are still quite a ways behind LA on the whole.


Nobody said our trio is higher than LAs...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blue Magic said:


> Kobe 10x > Roy


Kobe is much better than Roy. 10x is clearly idiotic.



> Gasol 5x > Aldridge


This isn't even moderately supportable. Gasol was slightly better than Aldridge in terms of production, and I'd take Aldridge's defense over Gasol's. The two players are extremely close.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Blue Magic said:


> Only problem with that logic is.....Even if Oden shows that he's better than Bynum, you guys are still quite a ways behind LA on the whole.
> 
> Kobe 10x > Roy
> Gasol 5x > Aldridge


Read what I wrote - slowly this time. I NEVER said the Blazer trio deserved to be ahead of the Lakers (or even close to them). I said if Bynum's 35 games of decent play gets the Lakers ranked 2nd then the Blazers deserve to be in the top 10 based on Oden's potential.

And there's no way Gasoft is 5X > Aldridge. He's better than Aldridge right now, but it's a lot closer than you say, and Aldridge is improving faster while Gasol has peaked.

BNM


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

People implying that Oden being better then Bynum, somehow means that LA is ranked too high is rediculous... How the hell does LA being that high, in anyway, mean that Portland should be higher(or LA should be lower) strictly becuz Oden > Bynum? I am simply stating that Roy and Aldridge aren't quite on the same level as a Kobe and Pau, so Oden possibly being a lil better then Bynum is moot when comparing the trios.....Your best player possibly being a bit better than LA's worst, has no bearing on whether LA should be ranked 1, 2, 3, 4 or wherever on that list.........That argument just doesnt hold any water.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

When you say LA, do you mean Lamarcus Aldridge or Los Angeles? Lamarcus needs a cooler abbrevation, IMO.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

^ Los Angeles


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

Blue Magic said:


> Your best player possibly being a bit better than LA's worst,.


What are you talking about?

The player rankings would be something like this:

Kobe
Roy
Gasol
Lamarcus
Oden 
Bynum

Our best player is the second best player of the group, not "slightly better than LA's worst player". 




Blue Magic said:


> has no bearing on whether LA should be ranked 1, 2, 3, 4 or wherever on that list


Oden/Bynum and Lamarcus/Gasol are equalizers. So, the question is if Kobe is THAT much better than a fellow All-Star, Roy, justifying the Blazers at #13 and the Lakers at #2. 

Maybe, but not IMO.


----------



## HAAK72 (Jun 18, 2007)

ATLien said:


> When you say LA, do you mean Lamarcus Aldridge or Los Angeles? Lamarcus needs a cooler abbrevation, IMO.


...I always use "LMA"


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> likewise :biggrin: :cheers:


DaRizzle, was there a thread for sig of the year that I missed, cause although I like yours a lot, I think mine is better. And at least mine is bball related.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

yes there was...Its in the "Everything but basketball" forum


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> yes there was...Its in the "Everything but basketball" forum


Sucks that i missed it, and i don't post much out of this forum, so people didn't get to see and vote on my total awesomeness :twave:


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

I won in a landslide :biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blue Magic said:


> Kobe 10x > Roy
> *Gasol 5x > Aldridge*


hahahahahahahahahhaha
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
no.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Blue Magic said:


> People implying that Oden being better then Bynum, somehow means that LA is ranked too high is rediculous... How the hell does LA being that high, in anyway, mean that Portland should be higher(or LA should be lower) strictly becuz Oden > Bynum? I am simply stating that Roy and Aldridge aren't quite on the same level as a Kobe and Pau, so Oden possibly being a lil better then Bynum is moot when comparing the trios.....Your best player possibly being a bit better than LA's worst, has no bearing on whether LA should be ranked 1, 2, 3, 4 or wherever on that list.........That argument just doesnt hold any water.


Again, please go back and read what I wrote. I never said LA should be lower and I never said Oden was better than Bynum (I did say he had higher upside). What I said was if LA was ranked 2nd based on Bynum's potential, then Portland should be in the top 10 based on Oden's equal (or greater) potential. That's all.

BNM


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

http://blog.oregonlive.com/blazers/2008/07/the_biggest_of_the_big_3s.html\

Holy ****....homer valley.....


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

You cant compare Oden and Bynum in that way. For sake of argument Ill concede that Oden can/will be at Bynum's level but *right now* Bynum has actually shown something at the NBA level.

...All Oden has shown is he can foul out of a summer league game...when you get 10 fouls!!! :biggrin:
(I know that doesnt mean jack, just havin fun)


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

B-Roy said:


> http://blog.oregonlive.com/blazers/2008/07/the_biggest_of_the_big_3s.html\
> 
> Holy ****....homer valley.....


linky no worky


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

DaRizzle said:


> linky no worky


http://blog.oregonlive.com/blazers/2008/07/the_biggest_of_the_big_3s.html#more

Really?


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

fixed


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

DaRizzle said:


> You cant compare Oden and Bynum in that way. For sake of argument Ill concede that Oden can/will be at Bynum's level but *right now* Bynum has actually shown something at the NBA level.


When you say Oden "can/will be at Bynum's level" are you referring purely to the next season or over the course of his career?

Oden is a far better prospect than Bynum. Unless things go dreadfully awry, Oden will be significantly better than Bynum eventually.

For the coming season, I'd agree. Oden could well be as good as Bynum, but it is not a certainty.


----------



## OdenRoyLMA2 (May 23, 2008)

Blue Magic said:


> Kobe 10x > Roy
> Gasol 5x > Aldridge


If you're going to troll our board, then at least know what you're talking about

This almost made me fall out of my chair. Gasol & Kobe are better than Aldridge & Roy, but gimme a break.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

^Next season...I really dont get how you can say that Oden is a better prospect. Sure Oden has loads of potential but Bynum has already shown that he can be a top big man in the NBA. Potential doesnt always pan out in the NBA


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> Oden is a far better prospect than Bynum. Unless things go dreadfully awry, Oden will be significantly better than Bynum eventually.


Cmon dude...while it could be possible, that is a total homer remark....which is fine if you acknowledge that it is :cheers:


----------



## OdenRoyLMA2 (May 23, 2008)

^^ I do think Oden will turn out to be better than Bynum, but not _significantly_ better like it will be a giant mismatch.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Boob-No-More said:


> Again, please go back and read what I wrote. I never said LA should be lower and I never said Oden was better than Bynum (I did say he had higher upside). What I said was if LA was ranked 2nd based on Bynum's potential, then Portland should be in the top 10 based on Oden's equal (or greater) potential. That's all.
> 
> BNM


LA's not ranked 2nd "based on Bynum's potential" tho......they're ranked 2nd essentially because of Kobe Bryant...... Where as Portland, on the other hand, is banking on Oden to be a superstar from day one to even be in this discussion. Never did I say you personally claimed Oden > Bynum, but it feels like you implied that Oden's potential should put Portland in the top-ten soley based off of the Oden vs Bynum comparisons. Replace Bynum with Odom, and LA still has a top 10 trio.....It's not because of Bynum bro, it's because of Kobe......so unless you guys get a LeBron, or a TMac, or a Kobe calibre player, this point is moot. Roy is solid, but right now he's not on the same level as a Kobe so that's where the seperation comes in........It has little to do with Oden vs Bynum, so I dont see why you guys would make such a big fit about that. Now if Oden proves to be that superstar we all believe him to be, and Roy & Aldridge continue to improve, then i can see u guys moving up the list, but as of right now you guys dont have a player of Kobe's calibre so accept your ranking and move on......


----------



## OdenRoyLMA2 (May 23, 2008)

^^good post. You could have just posted something like that the first time around you know...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

DaRizzle said:


> Cmon dude...while it could be possible, that is a total homer remark....which is fine if you acknowledge that it is :cheers:


What are you talking about? Oden has been talked about as a great NBA prospect for years, Bynum was only talked about in his draft year. Oden is being called the best big man prospect since Duncan, a big man prospect like Ewing and Shaq were.

How on Earth is it "homerish" to say he's a much better prospect than Bynum and therefore expected to be significantly better? It's scouting consensus. Are all NBA scouts Blazers homers?


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

OdenRoyLMA2 said:


> If you're going to troll our board, then at least know what you're talking about
> 
> This almost made me fall out of my chair. Gasol & Kobe are better than Aldridge & Roy, but gimme a break.


LOL.....I was exaggerating man, but I was just trying to make a point. Right now I think we can all agree that Kobe > Roy & Gasol > LMA.......That's why LA's ranked significantly higher than Portland. I dont know how you guys turned this Oden vs Bynum affair, cuz at this stage of their respective careers, that holds little wait in this discussion. LA's is ranked higher based on Kobe moreso than Oden vs Bynum. Period. Get over it. Im sorry you didn't make the top ten or whatever but there comes a time where u just need to be real.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blue Magic said:


> LA's is ranked higher based on Kobe moreso than Oden vs Bynum. Period. Get over it.


You still haven't answered the question: Who claimed Portland's trio should be ranked above LA's?

I appreciate your enthusiasm in arguing with nobody, but you might want to turn your attentions to debating something somebody actually said.


----------



## OdenRoyLMA2 (May 23, 2008)

Minstrel said:


> I appreciate your enthusiasm in arguing with nobody, but you might want to turn your attentions to debating something somebody actually said.


lol, +1


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> You cant compare Oden and Bynum in that way. For sake of argument Ill concede that Oden can/will be at Bynum's level but right now Bynum has actually shown something at the NBA level.


to dream the impossible dream... 

Both are coordinated and have good all around basketball skills. Bynum is a little bit bigger but I see Greg as being on a different level athletically. Being a good player doesn't only happen with NBA experience, for a large part it's the athletic talents/makeup a guy has been blessed with. 

Not an exact comparison, but Brad Dougherty vs Hakeem. I don't think they'll be viewed as on the same level ever. Prior to game 1 of the 2008/9 season is Bynum's time to shine.

STOMP


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

I dunno, I think the list is pretty spot on. Our Blazers, LMA, Roy and Oden look nice on paper as a "top level" trio, but still have a helluva lot to prove before anyone can start listing them amongst the elite.

Having said that I like their chances to be on that list within the next two years.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

Philly is kind of weak considering they've never played together. Andre Miller is underrated, but shouldn't be part of a "Big-3". Otherwise the list is pretty good. There are a lot of trio combinations in the league. Portland will be on there soon. You could argue for Orlando maybe. Utah when Okur is on.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> You still haven't answered the question: Who claimed Portland's trio should be ranked above LA's?
> 
> I appreciate your enthusiasm in arguing with nobody, but you might want to turn your attentions to debating something somebody actually said.


JUST TO CLARIFY. I never said.......that anyone said........that Portland should be higher then LA(or Oden is better than Bynum). People have implied that the gap shouldn't be as big, and they point to Oden vs Bynum as the reason why. They think that LA is ranked where they becuz of "Bynum's Potential" for some delusional reason, and I just said the seperation comes from Kobe/Pau > Roy/LMA....Bynum vs Oden has little signifigance in this discussion as we have barely seen Bynum play @ a consistently high level, and we have yet to see Oden play at all.....Why dont u guys just try to use some reason here instead of acting like i'm the stupid one, when in fact you guys are the ones in a pointless debate that is going nowhere..........U can argue Bynum vs Oden all day if you want to, but that is basically irrelevant when the team ranked #2 or whatever w/ Bynum also has the league MVP.......and the team lookin in w/ Oden, only has Roy. Of course, the team with the MVP is gonna be ranked a bit higher.........Why u guys think u should be significantly higher, looking at LA's big 3......idk.


----------



## OdenRoyLMA2 (May 23, 2008)

Why don't you just leave our board then? You sound stressed.

Who cares what we think anyway? this is afterall a *blazers* forum, aka homerville. I doubt we'll be convinced otherwise.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

I will leave. Everyone keeps sayin I said **** that I never said and then they try to pick a fight for no reason...... I was just trying to make a point, but CLEARLY im not welcome here. pce


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

B-Roy said:


> http://blog.oregonlive.com/blazers/2008/07/the_biggest_of_the_big_3s.html\
> 
> Holy ****....homer valley.....


McGrady lonely can handle Blazers big 3. 22 wins in a row included Blazers.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

pfft...if being welcomed here was a pre-req for posting, I'd never post here.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

I'd rank the Blazers in the top 10 on the sheer fact that all of those "big 3" compos listed (except for the Celtics) were exposed for glaring weaknesses in the last playoffs. Bynum being considered part of a "big 3" is just silly. He's fat, slow and played about one good month in the NBA.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Thanks for your amazing insight BS...No McLady?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Blue Magic said:


> JUST TO CLARIFY. I never said.......that anyone said........that Portland should be higher then LA(or Oden is better than Bynum). People have implied that the gap shouldn't be as big, and they point to Oden vs Bynum as the reason why. They think that LA is ranked where they becuz of "Bynum's Potential" for some delusional reason, and I just said the seperation comes from Kobe/Pau > Roy/LMA


posters have pointed out that LA pretty handily kicked Pau's butt in their head to heads this year. Roy was an All-Star and hardly had his lunch handed to him in the Laker mathups vs Kobe. 

Easy on the use of the word delusional.

STOMP


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

It's not about head-to-heads bro, it's about how they fair against the entire league. Kobe was league MVP, led his team to the finals etc.....Roy is solid, but lets not get carried away. Last year, I think its fair to say Pau > LMA.... I cant comment on their head-to-head matchups, but im pretty confident in that statement. GO vs Bynum is moot, as Oden has yet to even lace it up for a single game........You guys have a nice young team n everything, but lets just be real. LA is ranked where they are because of Kobe Bryant, period...Not because of Bynum's "potential" :krazy:..... You guys can debate GO vs Bynum all day but at the end of the day, they have Kobe and you have Roy. That's the difference.. I'm tired of wasting my time here. You guys dont deserve to move up just simply because Oden's potential may be "a little" higher than Bynum's potential, when one guy has yet even play and one team has Kobe and other team has Roy.....If you genuinely feel that ur team deserved team ranked higher soley because LA is ranked higher & GO is potentially > Bynum, then that, quite frankly, is delusional. Im just being real..... Im sorry, but give me a damn break. You can come up with a better reason than that, cuz that is just a WEAK arguement....


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Blue Magic said:


> It's not about head-to-heads bro, it's about how they fair against the entire league. Kobe was league MVP, led his team to the finals etc.....Roy is solid, but lets not get carried away. Last year, I think its fair to say Pau > LMA.... I cant comment on their head-to-head matchups, but im pretty confident in that statement. GO vs Bynum is moot, as Oden has yet to even lace it up for a single game........You guys have a nice young team n everything, but lets just be real. LA is ranked where they are because of Kobe Bryant, period


how old is Kobe? As someone who hoops regularly and has aged past 30, I assure you it doesn't get easier. It's not the ability it's the recovery. 


> Not because of Bynum's "potential" :krazy:..... You guys can debate GO vs Bynum all day but at the end of the day, they have Kobe and you have Roy. That's the difference.. I'm tired of wasting my time here. You guys dont deserve to move up just simply because Oden's potential may be "a little" higher than Bynum's potential, when one guy has yet even play and one team has Kobe and other team has Roy.....If you genuinely feel that ur team deserved team ranked higher soley because LA is ranked higher & GO is potentially > Bynum, then that, quite frankly, is delusional. Im just being real..... Im sorry, but give me a damn break. You can come up with a better reason than that, cuz that is just a WEAK arguement....


Mostly you're ranting to crickets here but since when is Oden's potential a "little" higher then Bynum's? He's a Dwight Howard type athlete who's 2" taller, proportionally heavier and shoots 80% from the FT line. You're welcome to stick your neck out as far as you like betting against Greg. Tell us more...

STOMP


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Shawn Bradley was taller and shot over 90% FT one year :biggrin:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> Shawn Bradley was taller and shot over 90% FT one year :biggrin:


he barely made it to the line in 91-92 season, but to his credit he shot well over his respectable career 72%. I'm pretty sure Greg is going to make it to the line a lot more then 64 times next year. He's stated his goal is 83%

STOMP


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

STOMP said:


> how old is Kobe? As someone who hoops regularly and has aged past 30, I assure you it doesn't get easier. It's not the ability it's the recovery.
> 
> Mostly you're ranting to crickets here but since when is Oden's potential a "little" higher then Bynum's? He's a Dwight Howard type athlete who's 2" taller, proportionally heavier and shoots 80% from the FT line. You're welcome to stick your neck out as far as you like betting against Greg. Tell us more...
> 
> STOMP


Once again, your fabricating what i said.......How am i betting against Greg?? That's just you guys looking to provoke something out of nothing....... I said GO vs Bynum is moot, as GO has yet to even play......there is a difference.....And Bynum is no bum either, so u shouldn't get offended by that comparison.....He was putting up BIG #'s before he went down and they are both 20 yrs old....Yes, GO had alot more hype, but there max potential isn't THAT far apart imo......Only time will tell the better player here is what im sayin, so some of you need off your high-horses and just be real. 

And Kobe is 29 w/ 12 yrs experiance to Roy's 24 w/ 2........ I'll still take Kobe, thank you. :wink:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blue Magic said:


> Yes, GO had alot more hype


For a reason. He's considered a much rarer prospect.



> but there max potential isn't THAT far apart imo


Well, Oden's "potential" is a Hall of Fame center, like a David Robinson. If you feel that is similar to Bynum's potential, you're in a very, very small minority.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

You have to take into account that Kobe has had basically 15 years of NBA ball on his body (including playoffs).

As for Bynum and Oden's "max potential" not being that far apart, you probably might want to check with those who actually do scouting for a living. Bynum wasn't know about much before his draft. Oden was known years before. Oden was considered one of the best prospects to come along in a LONG time. Bynum had 20 or so good games in the NBA and people (read: Laker fans) seem to think he's on par with Dwight Howard, or could match the potential that Oden has.

I know it sounds like hyperbole, but if you were to ask every single GM in the NBA who they'd rather have, Bynum or Oden, they would take Oden.

I know that Laker fans don't want to hear that, or admit to it, but it is true. I also realize that it's my "opinion", but it's pretty much true. Let's not act like Bynum has dominated games here. He's a talent, no doubt. But he's not the "once in a generation" center that Oden has the potential to be. 

If, by some weird loophole, Oden and Bynum were in the 2008 NBA draft..Oden would go # 1 easily. Without even question (and before the knee injury is brought up, Bynum also has a knee issue). This isn't a case of being # 1 in a weak draft (like, Kwame, Andrea Bargnani or Andrew Bogus). 

Hell, Oden would have been #1 in 06, 07 and 08. No other #1 pick (outside of LeBron James) can make that claim in the last 10 years.

When the Blazers got the #1 pick in 07, it sent shockwaves around the rest of the NBA. The sports media was pissed that a potential superstar was in the NW. Here was potentially a HUGE name for the NBA, going to a market where games start at 10:00 pm EST.

I doubt anyone would be worried if Bynum went to a small market team. No one in the media or fans outside of LA would care. It wouldn't be a NBA landscape changing move. Bynum wasn't supposed to (and _isn't_) supposed to be a major cog in a championship run. Oden is, and was. And almost by himself.

Hell, put Bynum in Atlanta, and no one cares. Put Oden in Atlanta, and the NBA and the sports media cares.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Blue Magic said:


> It's not about head-to-heads bro, it's about how they fair against the entire league. Kobe was league MVP, led his team to the finals etc.....Roy is solid, but lets not get carried away. Last year, I think its fair to say Pau > LMA.... I cant comment on their head-to-head matchups, but im pretty confident in that statement. GO vs Bynum is moot, as Oden has yet to even lace it up for a single game........You guys have a nice young team n everything, but lets just be real. LA is ranked where they are because of Kobe Bryant, period...Not because of Bynum's "potential" :krazy:..... You guys can debate GO vs Bynum all day but at the end of the day, they have Kobe and you have Roy. That's the difference.. I'm tired of wasting my time here. You guys dont deserve to move up just simply because Oden's potential may be "a little" higher than Bynum's potential, when one guy has yet even play and one team has Kobe and other team has Roy.....If you genuinely feel that ur team deserved team ranked higher soley because LA is ranked higher & GO is potentially > Bynum, then that, quite frankly, is delusional. Im just being real..... Im sorry, but give me a damn break. You can come up with a better reason than that, cuz that is just a WEAK arguement....


Yet again you failed to read what I wrote (or at least comprehend it). My point wasn't about Bynum vs. Oden, or the Lakers trio vs. the Blazers trio. I'll try one more time.

The article is about the top trios in the league. The author listed Kobe, Gasol and Bynum as the 2nd best trio in the league. Ok, Kobe I get. He's arguably (with LeBron) the best single in the league. Kobe and Gasol are _possibly_ the 2nd best duo in the league (but after that finals performance, I'd say if they are 2nd, it's a distant 2nd). Then he throws Bynum in as the third member (and obviously weakest) of the trio. Why? What has Bynum accomplished? He had an awful rookie season (1.6 PPG and 1.0 RPG on .0402 FG% and 0.296 FT%), a lackluster 2nd season (7.8 PPG and 5.9 RPG - those aren't even Joel Przybilla numbers) and a decent 35 games (13.1 PPPG and 10.12 RPG) in his 3rd season. 35 games at 13.1 PPG hardly qualifies him as a dominant player. Now, if it was me making the list, I would have included Lamar Odom over Andrew Bynum as part of the Lakers trio. Odom is a much more proven player and he, unlike Bynum, he was actually around for the entire season and the play-offs. But, for _some_ reason, the author chose to include Bynum over Odom in his highly rated Laker trio. Why did he do that? One word: *potential*. The author of the article rated the Lakers trio 2nd based partially on Bynum's *potential* (over Odom's proven performance). He looked at Bynum and determined he has the *potential* to someday be a better player than Lamar Odom. If his list was based purely on actual performance, he would have chosen Odom.

OK, now here's my point - if he valued Bynum's potential (after 35 decent games in the NBA) enough to consider him part of the 2nd best trio in the league, why didn't he give equal weight to Greg Oden's potential? My contention is that if he would have the Blazers would have been in the top 10 trios. Yes, Oden is unproven, but so is Bynum (35 decent games doesn't make you a proven commodity IMHO). Roy made the all-star team in his 2nd season in the league, Aldridge was one of the most improved players in the league last season, and Oden has the _*potential*_ to be the most dominant big man in the game. Again, I'm not saying they should be ranked anywhere near the Lakers trio (yet), but if the author is including potential in his evaluation process (which he clearly did in Bynum's case) then the Blazers should be in the top 10 based on Roy and Aldridge's performance and Oden's *potential*.

That's all. No putting down the Lakers trio, no comparing the Blazers and the Lakers, not even comparing Bynum and Oden - just criticizing the author's inconsistent methods when compiling the list. I'm not a big potential myself (I prefer "is" over "might be" myself). I'm just saying the author should be consistent in his methodology.

BNM


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

> You have to take into account that Kobe has had basically 15 years of NBA ball on his body (including playoffs).
> 
> As for Bynum and Oden's "max potential" not being that far apart, you probably might want to check with those who actually do scouting for a living. Bynum wasn't know about much before his draft. Oden was known years before. Oden was considered one of the best prospects to come along in a LONG time. Bynum had 20 or so good games in the NBA and people (read: Laker fans) seem to think he's on par with Dwight Howard, or could match the potential that Oden has.
> 
> ...


They both could've came straight out of HS(Oden would've if he could've) so clearly Bynum has more potential then you imply. He was projected as more of a project, but if developed, many thought he could be a great big. As evidence from last year, he is realizing that potential. And he HAS dominated games......Before his injury, he was putting up #'s like 25 & 17 against MIL and 28 & 12 against PHX, just for a reference. Kobe was picked @ 13, but he turned out better then AI and Ray Allen and the like......Bynum being picked @ 10 has no bearing on whether he'll be better or worse then Bogut who went #1. Having hype and realizing ur max potential are two different things.....Will Oden be successful? yeah, probably.....but him being #1 with alot of hype doesn't necessarily mean his max potential is eons better then another talented big like Bynum. Hell, at the time, Oden probably would've been drafted ahead of guys like Dwight, LeBron, Yao etc.....Now will he be better than those guys? we shall see. Bynum has shown that he's capable of playing at a high level despite where he was picked......Oden still has to give us a glimpse or show us that he can translate his game to the NBA and play @ a high level. Even in the summer league games he played in he was foul happy and seemed to get fatigued really easily...Now I believe he can and will realize his potential, but i dont think that his max is THAT much higher than a guy like Bynum or some even say it's higher than Dwights.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Dan said:


> Hell, put Bynum in Atlanta, and no one cares. Put Oden in Atlanta, and the NBA and the sports media cares.


Don't tease me bro!


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Blue Magic said:


> He was putting up BIG #'s before he went down


BIG #'s? Please. Zach Randolph would be embarrassed if he put up Bynum's 13.1/10.2. The kid improved. I'll give him that. But if you're calling what he did in those 35 games BIG #'s you're seriously overstating your case for Bynum.

But again, my point wasn't about who is better. It was about the author's inconsistent methodology (valuing Bynum's potential, but discounting Oden's).

BNM


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blue Magic said:


> They both could've came straight out of HS(Oden would've if he could've) so clearly Bynum has more potential then you imply.


since you didn't quote , I don't know if you meant me or someone else. I'll assume me. *oh sure, edit your post and quote me! Make me look like I don't know how to read!*

I did not imply he doesn't have potential. I'm saying that the difference between the two is a WHOLE lot more than you think it is.


> He was projected as more of a project, but if developed, many thought he could be a great big. As evidence from last year, he is realizing that potential. And he HAS dominated games......Before his injury, he was putting up #'s like 25 & 17 against MIL and 28 & 12 against PHX, just for a reference. Kobe was picked @ 13, but he turned out better then AI and Ray Allen and the like


Iverson was taken #1, but Allen wasn't. Allen wasn't talked about as one of the best prospects in decades (and I've heard "best prospect in 30 years").



> ......Bynum being picked @ 10 has no bearing on whether he'll be better or worse then Bogut who went #1. Having hype and realizing potential are two different things.....Will Oden be successful? yeah, probably.....but him being #1 with alot of hype doesn't necessarily mean his max potential is eons better then another talented big like Bynum.


actually, in this case it kind of does. Oden has been considered a different beast all together. 

It's like saying that I have these two players. 1 is a guy who has the potential to be an all time great. He's tall, fast, great defensively, and a beast.

The other is a guy who is tall, not as fast, or great defensively, and raw. He could be an all star player.

One is Oden, the other is Bynum. 

It's not saying that Bynum sucks. It';s just saying that Karl Malone is a LOT better than Tom Chambers. Charles Barkley is a lot better than Buck Williams (that one hurt to say). It's saying that Moses Malone is better than Brad Daugherty.



> Hell, at the time, Oden probably would've been drafted ahead of guys like Dwight, LeBron, Yao etc.....


Not sure about LeBron.



> Now will he be better than those guys? we shall see. Bynum has shown that he's capable of playing at a high level despite where he was picked......


He's shown it in a MAX of 35 games. That's not exactly "shown".



> Oden still has to show us that he can translate his game to the NBA and play @ a high level.


And after the pre-season, he will have.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Blue Magic said:


> They both could've came straight out of HS(Oden would've if he could've) so clearly Bynum has more potential then you imply.


The difference is that if Oden would have entered the NBA draft after his SOPHOMORE year in high school he would have been the consensus No. 1 pick in the draft. Bynum entered the draft after his senior year and was picked 10th. That doesn't make Bynum a stiff, by any stretch of the imagination. It just means, as you correctly stated, he was viewed as a project. Greg Oden has NEVER been viewed as a project.

BNM


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Boob-No-More said:


> Yet again you failed to read what I wrote (or at least comprehend it). My point wasn't about Bynum vs. Oden, or the Lakers trio vs. the Blazers trio. I'll try one more time.
> 
> The article is about the top trios in the league. The author listed Kobe, Gasol and Bynum as the 2nd best trio in the league. Ok, Kobe I get. He's arguably (with LeBron) the best single in the league. Kobe and Gasol are _possibly_ the 2nd best duo in the league (but after that finals performance, I'd say if they are 2nd, it's a distant 2nd). Then he throws Bynum in as the third member (and obviously weakest) of the trio. Why? What has Bynum accomplished? He had an awful rookie season (1.6 PPG and 1.0 RPG on .0402 FG% and 0.296 FT%), a lackluster 2nd season (7.8 PPG and 5.9 RPG - those aren't even Joel Przybilla numbers) and a decent 35 games (13.1 PPPG and 10.12 RPG) in his 3rd season. 35 games at 13.1 PPG hardly qualifies him as a dominant player. Now, if it was me making the list, I would have included Lamar Odom over Andrew Bynum as part of the Lakers trio. Odom is a much more proven player and he, unlike Bynum, he was actually around for the entire season and the play-offs. But, for _some_ reason, the author chose to include Bynum over Odom in his highly rated Laker trio. Why did he do that? One word: *potential*. The author of the article rated the Lakers trio 2nd based partially on Bynum's *potential* (over Odom's proven performance). He looked at Bynum and determined he has the *potential* to someday be a better player than Lamar Odom. If his list was based purely on actual performance, he would have chosen Odom.
> 
> ...


But Bynum has show more than "just" potential. Like I said in the post above, 25 & 17 against MIL and 28 & 12 against PHX, that is actually called getting it done and dude is only 20 years old too. He has given reason to be looked at the way he is.... Where at this point, Oden is still ALL speculation. Sure we expect him to be great, but until he laces it up and puts together solid stretch of games, we cant automatically just call him a "superstar". Oden is ALL potential @ this point......Bynum has aready given us a taste. Im pulling for Oden to be great, but at this point he is still unproven.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

2 games does not = getting it done


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

...


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Boob-No-More said:


> Yet again you failed to read what I wrote (or at least comprehend it). My point wasn't about Bynum vs. Oden, or the Lakers trio vs. the Blazers trio. I'll try one more time.
> 
> The article is about the top trios in the league. The author listed Kobe, Gasol and Bynum as the 2nd best trio in the league. Ok, Kobe I get. He's arguably (with LeBron) the best single in the league. Kobe and Gasol are _possibly_ the 2nd best duo in the league (but after that finals performance, I'd say if they are 2nd, it's a distant 2nd). Then he throws Bynum in as the third member (and obviously weakest) of the trio. Why? What has Bynum accomplished? He had an awful rookie season (1.6 PPG and 1.0 RPG on .0402 FG% and 0.296 FT%), a lackluster 2nd season (7.8 PPG and 5.9 RPG - those aren't even Joel Przybilla numbers) and a decent 35 games (13.1 PPPG and 10.12 RPG) in his 3rd season. 35 games at 13.1 PPG hardly qualifies him as a dominant player. Now, if it was me making the list, I would have included Lamar Odom over Andrew Bynum as part of the Lakers trio. Odom is a much more proven player and he, unlike Bynum, he was actually around for the entire season and the play-offs. But, for _some_ reason, the author chose to include Bynum over Odom in his highly rated Laker trio. Why did he do that? One word: *potential*. The author of the article rated the Lakers trio 2nd based partially on Bynum's *potential* (over Odom's proven performance). He looked at Bynum and determined he has the *potential* to someday be a better player than Lamar Odom. If his list was based purely on actual performance, he would have chosen Odom.
> 
> ...


Your post is WAY off BNM, sorry....First you mention Bynum's first two seasons. That is a very weak argument because Phil Jackson does not play rookies...especially 18 year olds. He didnt have close to NBA conditioning but he showed flashes (a play here or there)of what he could do in the very small time he played.

Bynum was dominating once Phil put him into the starting lineup 3 weeks into the season. The more they gave it to him the more he produced. He was getting his without ANY plays being called for him. The Lakers had forgot how to use a good center.

IMO those 35 games showed a lot. He was a rebounding, shot blocking, dunking madman....notice how I didnt say 20 footers like how a guard would have to keep up. He was leading the league in FG% so how could he not sustain something close to that. Dunks and chippies arent something you really can slump in.

Bynum absolutely belongs in there over Odom. Odom has no heart at all. He's like a baseball player who hits all his homeruns when his team is up 12-3...never in the crunch. He bricks FT's and AIRBALLS open 15 footers to win the game(yes that happened).

Bynum knows how to put his signature on the game on both ends of the court, and LITERALLY the only thing holding him back was them not giving him the ball near enough times.
__________________


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Doesn't play rookies? Explain why Farmer played 72 games then? Or Walton?

Maybe he doesn't play crappy rookies.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Dan said:


> Doesn't play rookies? Explain why Farmer played 72 games then? Or Walton?
> 
> Maybe he doesn't play crappy rookies.


Thats easy! Smush Parker would be your answer for Jordan Farmar...too easy

As for Luke Walton...That was during the Malone/Payton year. The needed somebody who wasnt an idiot as the 5th player. Deavon George ,who got the first crack, is an idiot. Luke came in and knew how to set up the 4 hall of famers the right way. Shaq was raving about him at the time.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Blue Magic said:


> But Bynum has show more than "just" potential. Like I said in the post above, 25 & 17 against MIL and 28 & 12 against PHX, that is actually called getting it done and dude is only 20 years old.


Cherry picking the two best games of his career doesn't prove anything. Darius Miles as a 23-year old scored 47 points and grabbed 12 boards in a game. OMG! He's the next Kobe! Sergio Rodriguez, as a 20-year old Rookie scored 23 points and had 10 assists in a game. OMG! He's going to be BETTER than Steve Nash! (Nash didn't have a game like that until the last game of his 4th season in the league at the age of 26).

Yeah, Bynum had some good games, but he also had some not-so-great ones mixed in there, too (2 PTS and 2 REB against Denver, 4 PTS and 4 REB against Houston, 8 PTS and 2 REB against Boston, etc.). He's shown flashes, but until he can show consistent performance over more than a month at a time, he's not proven. Promising, yes. Proven, no.

BNM


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Dan said:


> 2 games does not = getting it done


Obviously, he had more then two good games, I just didn't feel like writing them all out.....23 & 13 against Ind...24 & 11 and 17 & 16 against Phi.....20 & 11 and 17 & 16 against GSW......I could keep going..Point is, he has put in work. At this point, he has probably already exceeded many ppl's expectatios.....including yours apperently...



Boob-No-More said:


> Cherry picking the two best games of his career doesn't prove anything. Darius Miles as a 23-year old scored 47 points and grabbed 12 boards in a game. OMG! He's the next Kobe! Sergio Rodriguez, as a 20-year old Rookie scored 23 points and had 10 assists in a game. OMG! He's going to be BETTER than Steve Nash! (Nash didn't have a game like that until the last game of his 4th season in the league at the age of 26).
> 
> Yeah, Bynum had some good games, but he also had some not-so-great ones mixed in there, too (2 PTS and 2 REB against Denver, 4 PTS and 4 REB against Houston, 8 PTS and 2 REB against Boston, etc.). He's shown flashes, but until he can show consistent performance over more than a month at a time, he's not proven. Promising, yes. Proven, no.
> 
> BNM


Riggght.....And Oden hasnt played one game, yet he's Moses Malone?!?


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

DaRizzle said:


> IMO those 35 games showed a lot. He was a rebounding, shot blocking, dunking madman....


Who averaged 13 PPPG and 10 RPG. Andrew Bogut put up better numbers than that, and he managed to do it over a complete season. I don't hear anyone claiming Andrew Bogut is the next dominant big man.

I know Laker fans like to make Odom the scapegoat, but he put up better numbers than Bynum (14.2 PPG 10.6 RPG) and managed to do it over 77 games compared to Bynum's 35. And as far as Odom disappearing when the games matter the most - what has Andrew Bynum accomplished in the play-offs? He's never even made an an impact in February, let alone June.

Again, Bynum has the POTENTIAL to be a better player, but if the list was based on actual performance, Odom should have been part of the Lakers trio.

BNM


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

ugh...Bogut's situation is so ridiculously different...Im going to bed, see you tomorrow sucka! :biggrin:


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Blue Magic said:


> At this point, he has probably already exceeded many ppl's expectatios.....including yours apperently...


Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that.



Blue Magic said:


> Riggght.....And Oden hasnt played one game, yet he's Moses Malone?!?


Never said that either. If your only response to my posts it to make things up and pretend I said them I'll just bow out now and let you continue on both sides of the argument.

BNM


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

> Who averaged 13 PPPG and 10 RPG. Andrew Bogut put up better numbers than that, and he managed to do it over a complete season. I don't hear anyone claiming Andrew Bogut is the next dominant big man.
> 
> I know Laker fans like to make Odom the scapegoat, but he put up better numbers than Bynum (14.2 PPG 10.6 RPG) and managed to do it over 77 games compared to Bynum's 35. And as far as Odom disappearing when the games matter the most - what has Andrew Bynum accomplished in the play-offs? He's never even made an an impact in February, let alone June.
> 
> ...


I still disagree with that..... Bynum + Pau > Odom + Pau.... Better D, more imposing, better reb....Now, Bynum + Pau + LO + Kobe.....thats a championship calibre team imo...



Boob-No-More said:


> Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And I was talking to both you AND Dan......i look at you guys as one in the same.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I agree that Bynum was a weak addition for a "big 3".. because as of right now, he shouldn't be considered part of a big 3. You can put him there on potential but then you should put Miami and Portland up also, on potential with Beasley and Oden.

I think LA has more of a big 2, and then Odom and Bynum make them a good big 4, but i think to have them at 2 or 3 (i forget where) for a big 3 is stupid.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Blue Magic said:


> Once again, your fabricating what i said.......How am i betting against Greg?? That's just you guys looking to provoke something out of nothing....... I said GO vs Bynum is moot, as GO has yet to even play......there is a difference.....And Bynum is no bum either, so u shouldn't get offended by that comparison.....He was putting up BIG #'s before he went down and they are both 20 yrs old....Yes, GO had alot more hype, but there max potential isn't THAT far apart imo......Only time will tell the better player here is what im sayin, so some of you need off your high-horses and just be real.


apparently I'm yet another poster you lump in with the rest. Why not treat us as individuals? 

You are betting against Greg when you limit his upside potential to just Andrew Bynum. Many respected basketball types outside this forum and Blazer fandom have stated this opinion for years. Talent is talent even before it is displayed in the league. Continue to bury your head in the dirt if thats how you keep it real but one guy has been spoken of as having All-Star potential the other with having All Time potential. Greg was compared favorably to All Time Centers like Russell Malone & Hakeem well before the Blazers won the lotto.

Greg's hype is based on what he's shown since a young age. Exceptional coordination strength/explosiveness and size for a Big put him on a different level then AB... those traits don't become fact once he plays in the regular season.


> And Kobe is 29 w/ 12 yrs experiance to Roy's 24 w/ 2........ I'll still take Kobe, thank you. :wink:


it's a tragedy that Brandon wasted those 4 years in college playing Pac-10 ball. Too bad he didn't go strait to the league to get some experience... maybe he wouldn't have struggled so much if he had. 

And just to help your quest to keep it real, Brandon turned 24 a week ago, Kobe turns 30 within a month.

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blue Magic said:


> Obviously, he had more then two good games, I just didn't feel like writing them all out.....23 & 13 against Ind...24 & 11 and 17 & 16 against Phi.....20 & 11 and 17 & 16 against GSW......I could keep going..Point is, he has put in work. At this point, he has probably already exceeded many ppl's expectatios.....including yours apperently...


apparently this concept is hard for you to grasp. I'm not saying he's going to suck, but he's not going to be as good as Oden's potential can be. There's a big difference in what I'm saying and what you're trying to argue against.

Saying that Bynum won't be as good as Oden isn't saying that I had low expectations. I'm saying that he won't be as good. 



> Riggght.....And Oden hasnt played one game, yet he's Moses Malone?!?


It was a comparison of their potential, of that like Moses Malone and Brad Daugherty. Where the difference will be that obvious between Oden (Moses) and Bynum (Brad).


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

LOL! This is halarious. Lol @ everyone who says Bynum is unproven and lol @ everyone who would take Lamar over Bynum. And Bynum is 7-0 285 which makes him bigger than Dwight AND Greg......I just think alot of people are underrating Bynum more than anything. He was turning into a BEAST right before he went down last year. 

As far Bynum vs Oden tho, we shall see.......I dont think they will be as far apart as many on here believe. 

Bynum vs. GO

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CG7GBmXYH2M&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CG7GBmXYH2M&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG7GBmXYH2M

Bynum's last game before the injury(abusing Bogut)....hate on it.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1cczyva9GlI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1cczyva9GlI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blue Magic said:


> As far Bynum vs Oden tho, we shall see.......I dont think they will be as far apart as many on here believe.


Yes, lots of people also said LeBron James wouldn't be all that special. Those people, oddly, have melted away into the shadows.

You're obviously entitled to any opinion you like, but there's really no basis for it. I assume you're just attempting to be a contrarian. I don't think there's much chance that you've identified something that basically all professional scouts missed. Scouting consensus is that Oden is one of the special big man prospects of all-time, while Bynum is a talented project. There's a big difference between those two appraisals.

Nobody (except you, perhaps) sees Bynum's reasonable upside as a top-tier Hall of Famer. Many people believe Oden's reasonable upside (not guaranteed, obviously) is a top-tier Hall of Famer.

Oden has been compared to players like David Robinson and Patrick Ewing since he was a freshman in high school. Nobody took much notice of Bynum until his senior season. These aren't equivalent prospects.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

I was shocked the other day when I happened to browse through the Lakers' forum. I guess I don't watch much Laker games, but they pretty much valued Bynum the same Orlando and Portland value Howard and Oden.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Bynum was a steal at the #10 draft position - many team, including the Bucks, Atlanta and Portland would have been much better had they drafted him when they had a chance - but the kid, while good, is Tyson Chandler with better offense and worse defense. He will be a good center for many years to come if he can keep his health - but in his 3rd "breakout" year he was about as good as Howard was in his rookie year without hall-of-fame tuition. This, right there, should tell you all you need to know about what to expect from Bynum.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> Yes, lots of people also said LeBron James wouldn't be all that special. Those people, oddly, have melted away into the shadows.


So when is Harold Miner aka:"Baby Jordan" HOF ceremony coming up? :smoothcriminal:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

DaRizzle said:


> So when is Harold Miner aka:"Baby Jordan" HOF ceremony coming up? :smoothcriminal:


Nicknames =/= scouting consensus.

Good try, though.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

At age 18/19, it's too young to realize how great a player will become. I do think that Bynum is a very good player, who will put up all-star caliber numbers during his time in the league. I think he is a step down behind Dwight/Oden, but he will be a very good center pending his health. 

You have to figure that his mentoring by Kareem has helped a lot, though I wouldn't expect Bynum to play a whole year shooting 63% from the FG like he did last year. Overall, Oden is a better prospect, but Bynum is nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## OdenRoyLMA2 (May 23, 2008)

Once Oden is in his 3rd year I bet you a million he will be putting up better than 13/10.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

^lol...thats fine and all but you guys just dont understand the road Bynum has taken....If you just look at 13/10 then Ill agree its nothing to really brag about but Bynum is way much more than his stats indicate


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Bynum shot a very high percentage and didn't play that many minutes. His stats are impressive, specially considering his teammates and how young he is.

I can't wait to watch them play each other. I kind of hope it isn't the first game so they can get some rust off, but with Mike Rice hinting that there will be some "hate in teh schedule early in the year".. i have a feeling we might be playing LA opening day. Oh well.

We should lay off Bynum, imo. I think everybody knows that potentially Oden can be better, and even be something very very special, but until then its just all talk. I think we got our point across (and i think it was somewhat mis-understood).


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9efsJwJxYEk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9efsJwJxYEk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

That is the funniest **** ever. When Shaq dunked on him... damn... that was nasty. Bynum fell down, lmao.

Bynum's dunk wasn't great, but that spin move was sick (evne if it was vs a slow, aging Shaq). The funniest part (other than when the commentator said "O'neal with the stuff over Bynum that Bynum will remember for the rest of his life") of that part in the vid was when Bynum was hopping back to the defensive end and purposely bumped into Shaq, lmao.

One thing about Bynum i don't like is when he does stuff like that. And like when he yelled at his teammate and told him to give him the ****in' ball... i just found that retarded. Someone like Oden or Howard won't be doin' that.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> Thats easy! Smush Parker would be your answer for Jordan Farmar...too easy


So the reason Bynum didn't play is because the mighty Kwame Brown was that much better? 

Too easy!



DaRizzle said:


> ^lol...thats fine and all but you guys just dont understand the road Bynum has taken....If you just look at 13/10 then Ill agree its nothing to really brag about but Bynum is way much more than his stats indicate


Then how come the Lakers were as good or better just slotting Pau Gasol in in Bynum's place, when Gasol had never even played the mythical triangle ever and is widely considered a big softie?

If Bynum = Gasol without any practice, then I don't think many people will be comparing him to Oden for long.

BESIDES WHICH, let's see if Bynum can sustain momentum. We thought Theo Ratliff was DPOY the first season he arrived in Portland.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

MrJayremmie said:


> like when he yelled at his teammate and told him to give him the ****in' ball... i just found that retarded. Someone like Oden or Howard won't be doin' that.


I actually loved that enthusiasm he showed when he said that...Sasha should have gave him the ball, it was the right thing to do and Bynum knew it


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> I actually loved that enthusiasm he showed when he said that...Sasha should have gave him the ball, it was the right thing to do and Bynum knew it


Well i think he should have gone to the huddle and told Sasha that, not yell it on the court and then go yell at him in the huddle. But i suppose some people like when kobe yells at/chews out his teammates, and i'm not a fan of that either. I don't think you should show up your teammates like that.

But i heard that he is a hothead and has an attitude problem and gets in fights (verbal obviously) with lots of people. I'm not a fan of that kind of stuff, and wouldn't want him on my team like that, honestly. But he is still maturing.

edit - but i'm with you that he should have given him the ball.

edit 2 - and i agree that i like the enthusiasm also.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> One thing about Bynum i don't like is when he does stuff like that. And like when he yelled at his teammate and told him to give him the ****in' ball... i just found that retarded.


Hey, Kobe is a mentor in SO many ways.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

If I had to choose between Bynum and Gasol assuming they are both 100% and only one could stay....I choose Bynum, really.

He can rebound better, defend better, and will score just as much given the opportunity...Im sure Ill get **** for that comment but just you watch


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> If I had to choose between Bynum and Gasol assuming they are both 100% and only one could stay....I choose Bynum, really.


Bynum has benefited enormously from being the only big guy in the Lakers' system. The great majority of his points have come from dunks off passes rather than shots he's worked for. If Pau is playing PF, he's going to get the post ups. Now, Bynum will still benefit from passes, because Pau is an excellent passer - almost as good as Odom was at PF, but if Phil has a choice between a post up for Pau, who, besides having a much better post up game, is a much better passer, and Bynum, it's not going to be Bynum.

And if Phil had to choose, he'd choose Pau, precisely for that passing ability.



> He can rebound better, defend better, and will score just as much given the opportunity...Im sure Ill get **** for that comment but just you watch


He can defend better because he's a better shot-blocker - but not much. And if he's a better rebounder, again, it's pretty dang close. The major difference is in Pau's passing and all-round game smarts.

If Odom's still on your team this next season, it should be interesting. Odom's far more talented than Bynum, and I have a feeling Bynum's minutes will get squeezed.

By the way, you should change your sig. Photoshop Kobe's face for the guy's and Vujacic's for whatshername's and you've got something.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

meru said:


> If Odom's still on your team this next season, it should be interesting. Odom's far more talented than Bynum, and I have a feeling Bynum's minutes will get squeezed.


:lol::lol::lol: ...that is all


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

meru said:


> By the way, you should change your sig. Photoshop Kobe's face for the guy's and Vujacic's for whatshername's and you've got something.


Ive actually thought about doing something along those lines but Im a total noob when it comes to making stuff like that


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

OdenRoyLMA2 said:


> Once Oden is in his 3rd year I bet you a million he will be putting up better than 13/10.


You do realize that Oden and Bynum are the same age, right? Bynum just has 2 1/2 more years of experience under his belt. In Oden's 3rd year he will be 23, and his body, much more mature, where after Bynum's 3rd year, he is only 20 & his body is still developing so you cant really base it soley off of "look @ their 3rd yrs"......

At the end of the day, we had the Keem, Ewing, DRob, Deke era....the Shaq, Zo, TD, KG era...Now we're entering the D12, Yao, Oden, Bynum era.....All these bigs are gonna be great, and are most likely gonna have their moments and marks in their careers. Bynum has shown that he is a capable 20/10/2(blks) NBA Center and for his age, he is ahead of alot of other great bigs. For example, Duncan wasn't hyped coming out of HS nor he wasn't the most athletic guy in the world, but with a year of college ball under his belt, he honed his skills and *by the time he turned 22 *he was considered by almost everyone as an all-pro and a likely future HoF'er. 

Taking a raw kids expectations at 17 years old, and basically expecting him to not be able to exceed those expectations as he grows or not exceed his own hype (especially after the way he was playing before he went down last year) is naive. He has shown what he is capable of in the NBA, period. Oden has not quite done that yet, despite the hype... Are they both gonna be great? sure. Can, and Will, Oden be the better player? Probably. We dont quite have a gauge on how great Oden will be yet tho, so until we actually see him take the court this point is moot. Will he be on level of Hakeem? Or more like that of Ewing or DRob? Will just be more of a defensive beast like Mutombo? or like Zo? We dont know these things yet......We dont know what level of great he is, or what limitations he might have... We at least have an IDEA right now of what to expect from the A-train and his future development. We have a taste of him, where as with Oden, it's just ALL pure speculation @ this point. Some might think he could be the GOAT, others might look @ him as bust waiting to happen.....he needs to put in some work 1st before he gets that due respect. Bynum has, Oden hasn't....that's the difference at this point.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blue Magic said:


> Bynum has shown that he is a capable 20/10/2(blks) NBA Center


No, he hasn't shown that. Having some big games (amid other awful games) doesn't show that. Otherwise, Brandon Roy has shown that he is a capable 30/6/6 player, just like Kobe. After all, he had some games like that.

This is why we have "averages." A player is not as good as his best game or as bad as his worst game.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

instead of simply focusing on bynum's raw numbers (13/10), it's relevant that he was actually 13th in the entire league in PER. now, it was only 35 games, and he played 29 mpg, but a 19 year old, legit 7' big man who plays strong interior defense, with a PER of 23 is pretty rare. bynum as a prospect today is a different animal than bynum as a prospect coming out of h.s.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kflo said:


> instead of simply focusing on bynum's raw numbers (13/10), it's relevant that he was actually 13th in the entire league in PER. now, it was only 35 games, and he played 29 mpg, but a 19 year old, legit 7' big man who plays strong interior defense, with a PER of 23 is pretty rare. bynum as a prospect today is a different animal than bynum as a prospect coming out of h.s.


Is PER really that relevant over such a small sample? Just in my glancing at player PERs over the years, it seems like such small partial seasons like that are ripe for bizarre looking PERs.

In Bynum's case, I'd be especially suspicious. From observation and from reports, Bynum did the vast majority of his scoring though "garbage baskets"...put-backs, wide-open dunks, busted plays. While they count the same as baskets from careful post efforts, they don't scale up the same. A player who can create his own shot has a reasonable chance of being able to increase his production as given more opportunities. But there are only so many "garbage" opportunities. Bynum getting the majority of his scoring and scoring efficiency that way doesn't suggest he can maintain that PER as an actual go-to player.

If he remains a "22 PER player" by scoring only 13 PPG on put-backs and such, it will be a rather empty PER. Whether he can be a 22 (or better) PER player as an actual offensive option against set defenses is very much in question.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> No, he hasn't shown that. Having some big games (amid other awful games) doesn't show that. Otherwise, Brandon Roy has shown that he is a capable 30/6/6 player, just like Kobe. After all, he had some games like that.
> 
> This is why we have "averages." A player is not as good as his best game or as bad as his worst game.


No, it is not like that at all really. Brandon Roy scored over 30 pts *once* last year... Bynum had multiple 20/10/2's in a 35 game stretch and was only getting more consistant as the season went on. His "awful" games were more of an exception than the norm. You wish it was like that :wink:, but it's not like that.....In the near future, we are much more likely to see a spike like that in Bynum's #'s than in Roy's. One is younger and in a different stage of development, sorry.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Is PER really that relevant over such a small sample? Just in my glancing at player PERs over the years, it seems like such small partial seasons like that are ripe for bizarre looking PERs.
> 
> In Bynum's case, I'd be especially suspicious. From observation and from reports, Bynum did the vast majority of his scoring though "garbage baskets"...put-backs, wide-open dunks, busted plays. While they count the same as baskets from careful post efforts, they don't scale up the same. A player who can create his own shot has a reasonable chance of being able to increase his production as given more opportunities. But there are only so many "garbage" opportunities. Bynum getting the majority of his scoring and scoring efficiency that way doesn't suggest he can maintain that PER as an actual go-to player.
> 
> If he remains a "22 PER player" by scoring only 13 PPG on put-backs and such, it will be a rather empty PER. Whether he can be a 22 (or better) PER player as an actual offensive option against set defenses is very much in question.


remember, his 13 ppg is in only 29 mpg. it's 18 pts/40. i think it's a dramatic oversimplification to paint him as a tyson chandler type of offensive player. and remember, he's a 19 year old 7 footer. with some post ability already. he led the league in ts%. certainly that would come down with more opportunities, but he has upside ability on production. 

discount it if you want. i don't think you'll find too many comparables to bynum's production at 19, even if it's limited. 23 PER is pretty rare for any player, even in smaller samples. from a 19 year old 7' interior presence it makes you take notice.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

I think Minstrel, and maybe others, just feel threaten by Bynum or something, cuz i really dont see any other reason NOT to acknowledge the kids progress and development......This kid is gonna be good. I think reasonable people can at least agree that 13/10 is not gonna be the kid's peak @ this stage of his career. The only thing that I could really see hindering his growth @ this point is maybe injuries.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kflo said:


> remember, his 13 ppg is in only 29 mpg. it's 18 pts/40. i think it's a dramatic oversimplification to paint him as a tyson chandler type of offensive player.


I don't think he's a Tyson Chandler type of talent, offensively. Just that that was his main form of offense last season. I think he'll become a much more polished offensive player, but last season's PER doesn't help much in the projections because he accomplished his scoring "the wrong way" (that is, not the way he'll have to do it to be an excellent player in the NBA).



> discount it if you want. i don't think you'll find too many comparables to bynum's production at 19, even if it's limited. 23 PER is pretty rare for any player, even in smaller samples. from a 19 year old 7' interior presence it makes you take notice.


I think "discounting it" is rational. 22 PER is solid star level. Bynum didn't have that sort of impact, at least in my opinion. And I think my explanation gets at why. 

That said, I think Bynum is legitimate talent. He's extremely projectible in terms of tools, and his rebounding and defense were very promising. All I've been arguing in this thread is that his talent level is not seen as comparable to Oden's, and I don't think that's any stretch. I think that that's scouting consensus.

I think Bynum has All-Star upside. I think Oden has Hall of Fame upside. Upside is not guaranteed, but it separates them as talents.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blue Magic said:


> I think Minstrel, and maybe others, just feel threaten by Bynum or something, cuz i really dont see any other reason NOT to acknowledge the kids progress and development


I think your reading skills are poor or something, since I've said nothing of the sort.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blue Magic said:


> You wish it was like that :wink:, but it's not like that.....In the near future, we are much more likely to see a spike like that in Bynum's #'s than in Roy's. One is younger and in a different stage of development, sorry.


Wow, your reading comprehension skills are quite pathetic. I wasn't comparing Roy and Bynum, or suggesting that Roy's numbers are going to "spike." I was saying that characterizing a player by his best games has no bearing on objective analysis.


----------



## OdenRoyLMA2 (May 23, 2008)

Roy also had more than one 30 pt. game last season, just fyi.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> Wow, your reading comprehension skills are quite pathetic. I wasn't comparing Roy and Bynum, or suggesting that Roy's numbers are going to "spike." I was saying that characterizing a player by his best games has no bearing on objective analysis.


I know what u were suggesting, I just didnt agree with it.....It had nothing to do with my reading comprehension, everything to do with u giving a poor analogy.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

bynum is very special, probably the third best young big man in the game, and not too far behind. he is VERY strong, and has a nasty streak. his 13/10 is also accompanied by almost 3 BLOCKS PER GAME. in limited minutes. no doubt if he was a primary option his stats would go up a bunch.

i cant really understand anyone saying that bynum isnt a great, outstanding, amazing young player.

But i still think that oden will be much better, and as a rookie.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blue Magic said:


> I know what u were suggesting, I just didnt agree with it.....It had nothing to do with my reading comprehension, everything to do with u giving a poor analogy.


The analogy was fine. You're simply inconsistent since you have an agenda. Evaluating Roy by his best games doesn't make sense. But evaluating Bynum by his best games is the only logical thing to do!

To be clear, I am saying it makes no sense in BOTH cases. I am NOT advocating evaluating Roy by his best games. Before your next post claims that I think Roy is a 30 PPG scorer.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

kflo said:


> remember, his 13 ppg is in only 29 mpg. it's 18 pts/40. i think it's a dramatic oversimplification to paint him as a tyson chandler type of offensive player. and remember, he's a 19 year old 7 footer. with some post ability already. he led the league in ts%. certainly that would come down with more opportunities, but he has upside ability on production.
> 
> discount it if you want. i don't think you'll find too many comparables to bynum's production at 19, even if it's limited. 23 PER is pretty rare for any player, even in smaller samples. from a 19 year old 7' interior presence it makes you take notice.


Bynum is not 19. He was 20 before opening night LAST season and will be 21 before this season starts. That's still young, but you keep overstating your case by pretending he's a teenager when he's almost two full years removed from being 19. If you can't even get his age right, it makes me wonder what other errors your posts contain. 

At 19, Bynum had a PER of 15.4 in less than 22 MPG. That's not bad, but it doesn't make him the teen prodigy you claim him to be. A PER of 15.4 at the age of 19 is hardly unprecidented. Dwight Howard had a PER of 17.2 in 82 games at 32.6 MPG - better production at almost 50% more minutes. Kevin Garnett and Moses Malone both had higher PERs and significantly more minutes at 19 as well - and those guys were all roookies at 19. Bynum as a rookie had a PER of 7.4 

You guys have a right to be excited about Bynum's progress last season, but overstating your case and making basic factual errors diminishes your pro-Bynum arguments.

BNM


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> I think your reading skills are poor or something, since I've said nothing of the sort.


I never said.....that you SAID anything bro. I think ur the one with poor comprehension skills here...... 

My beef is that seemly everything you implied, or did in fact say about Bynum, up to that point was in a doubting tone and you seemed to downplay or disregard his potential and upside. How has he NOT shown the capability to be a 20/10 big, when he is only 20 years old and was putting together several 20/10 games before he went down with the injury.....He HAS shown that capability, as he was essentially doing that in the 35 games last season.......As the season went on, his #'s only got more consistent as he became more of a focal point. You just spent so much energy trying to downgrade his impact and inevitable improvement, that it makes me feel like you feel threatened by him for whatever reason. I see 20/10 in his future. I guess that's too far fetched tho...



> The analogy was fine. You're simply inconsistent since you have an agenda. Evaluating Roy by his best games doesn't make sense. But evaluating Bynum by his best games is the only logical thing to do!
> 
> To be clear, I am saying it makes no sense in BOTH cases. I am NOT advocating evaluating Roy by his best games. Before your next post claims that I think Roy is a 30 PPG scorer.


Please, tell me my agenda..... 

I just think you guys over here get offended too easily... I make one comment about Bynum's ceiling being not that far behind Greg's and people are ready to fight! Please, relax ppl. It is not mutually exclusive.... Greg and Bynum can BOTH be great players.. And I can see Roy as 25-26 ppg scorer @ best.....dont know why that is relavent tho as these two are at completely different stages in their development....


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Is PER really that relevant over such a small sample? Just in my glancing at player PERs over the years, it seems like such small partial seasons like that are ripe for bizarre looking PERs.
> 
> In Bynum's case, I'd be especially suspicious. From observation and from reports, Bynum did the vast majority of his scoring though "garbage baskets"...put-backs, wide-open dunks, busted plays. While they count the same as baskets from careful post efforts, they don't scale up the same. A player who can create his own shot has a reasonable chance of being able to increase his production as given more opportunities. But there are only so many "garbage" opportunities. Bynum getting the majority of his scoring and scoring efficiency that way doesn't suggest he can maintain that PER as an actual go-to player.
> 
> If he remains a "22 PER player" by scoring only 13 PPG on put-backs and such, it will be a rather empty PER. Whether he can be a 22 (or better) PER player as an actual offensive option against set defenses is very much in question.



I have to disagree. For him to maintain a 22 PER over the entire season while being a 3rd or 4th option on offense, he would have to be doing a number of other things very well. 

To seriously contend, what do the Lakers need from Bynum? Do they actually need him to become a go-to scorer?


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Oldmangrouch said:


> To seriously contend, what do the Lakers need from Bynum? Do they actually need him to become a go-to scorer?


Really all they need is 8/10/1.8blks.....but he is gonna do so much more.

Ive never seen so many opposing players avoid the paint since Shaq's heyday. Players are scared to go at him.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Whats this arguement about? lol. Everyone is saying the same thing here. Bynum looked good last year, Greg has the potential to be and will probably be better...

Bayless > Oden and Bynum anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

^**** that!!! We have almost 3 more months of these pointless ramblings!!! Dont wuss out now!


Bynum>Oden!!!! Agh!!!!!


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

NO **** THAT! Bynum couldn't hold Oden's JOCK!!!!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blue Magic said:


> My beef is that seemly everything you implied, or did in fact say about Bynum, up to that point was in a doubting tone and you seemed to downplay or disregard his potential and upside.


No, if you'll read my post to kflo, I said that I think Bynum has All-Star upside. How is that downplaying and doubting him, "bro"?

dude u seem totally offended that all nba scouts see greg oden as totally better than bynum. i mean relax, bro its all good. dont get hyper. bynum can still b good u know. its not mutually exclusive. bynum can b real good and oden can b BETTER. like what if bynum was dwight howard good and oden was shaquille oneal good? wouldnt that still be totaly great for bynum? chill, dude. just cuz nba scouts think oden is a lot better doesnt mean bynum wont be good. he could be and prolly will. thaz all im saying. we cool?

lol


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MrJayremmie said:


> NO **** THAT! Bynum couldn't hold Oden's JOCK!!!!


But why would he want to?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> I have to disagree. For him to maintain a 22 PER over the entire season while being a 3rd or 4th option on offense, he would have to be doing a number of other things very well.


PER is minutes adjusted and has scoring efficiency as a big factor. You can conceivably play 9 minutes a game, score 2 points and have 20+ PER. Context does matter. All 20+ PERs aren't created equal.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> NO **** THAT! Bynum couldn't hold Oden's JOCK!!!!


Phooey. Neither of them could lift Kevin Love's jock with a forklift! He is gonna be the next Dave Cowens/Dan Issel! He will be the first guy since Unseld to win ROY and MVP in the same season!

I am gonna go take my meds now. :crazy:


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Phooey. Neither of them could lift Kevin Love's jock with a forklift! He is gonna be the next Dave Cowens/Dan Issel! He will be the first guy since Unseld to win ROY and MVP in the same season!


!!


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> PER is minutes adjusted and has scoring efficiency as a big factor. You can conceivably play 9 minutes a game, score 2 points and have 20+ PER. Context does matter. All 20+ PERs aren't created equal.


I agree. My point is that PER is still vulnerable to small sample size. If a guy only plays 800 minutes, he may have an "empty" PER. The more minutes he plays, the less likely it is he will post a high PER unless he is actually making a substantial contribution.

I'm not saying Bynum certainly will maintain a 20+ PER over 80 games. I'm simply saying that *if he does*, it won't be a fluke. He will have to earn it.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> dude u seem totally offended that all nba scouts see greg oden as totally better than bynum. i mean relax, bro its all good. dont get hyper. bynum can still b good u know. its not mutually exclusive. bynum can b real good and oden can b BETTER. like what if bynum was dwight howard good and oden was shaquille oneal good? wouldnt that still be totaly great for bynum? chill, dude. just cuz nba scouts think oden is a lot better doesnt mean bynum wont be good. he could be and prolly will. thaz all im saying. we cool?
> 
> lol


lol wtf.... I honestly could care less which one is better. Like i have said from jump, Bynum vs Oden is moot to me right now anyways..... Those rankings were based more on Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol, then the potential of Bynum or Oden..... With you tho, it just baffled me how one can assume Oden is gonna be a HoF talent, yet doesnt think Bynum isn't even capable of 20/10/2 in his prime... Why would he not be? becuz the experts didn't project him as a 20/10 player in HS....? or becuz he only averaged 13/10 when he was 20 years old?? Or is it becuz your threatened that he may take some of the shine away from your boy.....??? I assumed it's the latter... I just dont get the logic as to why not, as he has already put together a nice looking resume.



> No, if you'll read my post to kflo, I said that I think Bynum has All-Star upside. How is that downplaying and doubting him, "bro"?


Well, u said that after my post in which i said "up to this point".... In general tho, I just have trouble following the logic here.....He's not capable of 20/10/2, but yet he has all-star upside? Talkin' about inconsistent..........


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blue Magic said:


> In general tho, I just have trouble following the logic here.....He's not capable of 20/10/2, but yet he has all-star upside? Talkin' about inconsistent..........


In general, though, you don't read well. I never said he's not capable of it. I said he hasn't SHOWN it already, as you claimed.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

uh...in the literal sense...yes he has


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

DaRizzle said:


> uh...in the literal sense...yes he has


Well, giving stat lines as a performance level generally refers to per game averages. He hasn't shown he can score 20 points per game. If being "a 20/10/2 player" means that he can do it in certain games, then sure.

Plenty of players can do it in individual games.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

It's funny that Bynum's potential was so evident that last summer Kobe Bryant was openly contemptuous that Lakers Brass didn't trade him for Jason Kidd. Anyone remember his exact words? I believe he said the name "Andrew Bynum" as if it were an unprintable expletive. Odd that his own teammate did not see the budding greatness there.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Kobe is a basketball player, not a GM


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Bynum is not 19. He was 20 before opening night LAST season and will be 21 before this season starts. That's still young, but you keep overstating your case by pretending he's a teenager when he's almost two full years removed from being 19. If you can't even get his age right, it makes me wonder what other errors your posts contain.
> 
> At 19, Bynum had a PER of 15.4 in less than 22 MPG. That's not bad, but it doesn't make him the teen prodigy you claim him to be. A PER of 15.4 at the age of 19 is hardly unprecidented. Dwight Howard had a PER of 17.2 in 82 games at 32.6 MPG - better production at almost 50% more minutes. Kevin Garnett and Moses Malone both had higher PERs and significantly more minutes at 19 as well - and those guys were all roookies at 19. Bynum as a rookie had a PER of 7.4
> 
> ...


my mistake on his age. the key point was his PER at a young age, not that he was 19. the same holds for 20. you mention howard and his superior PER at 19, but he actually had a lower PER at 20, and was not far from bynum last year (his only season with a PER over 22).


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> I don't think he's a Tyson Chandler type of talent, offensively. Just that that was his main form of offense last season. I think he'll become a much more polished offensive player, but last season's PER doesn't help much in the projections because he accomplished his scoring "the wrong way" (that is, not the way he'll have to do it to be an excellent player in the NBA).


dwight howard last year had 84% of his shots from inside, 68% assisted. bynum 80%, 58% assisted. both had 2% on tips (tyson chandler had 14%). the rest is jump shots, and bynum shot 36% to howard's 25%. he can be quite an excellent player continuing to do what he did. particularly on the team he actually happens to play for, where he will have a luxury for years. 




Minstrel said:


> I think "discounting it" is rational. 22 PER is solid star level. Bynum didn't have that sort of impact, at least in my opinion. And I think my explanation gets at why.


bynum had a tremendous impact, which is why the needed to replace him with pau gasol to keep pace. 



Minstrel said:


> That said, I think Bynum is legitimate talent. He's extremely projectible in terms of tools, and his rebounding and defense were very promising. All I've been arguing in this thread is that his talent level is not seen as comparable to Oden's, and I don't think that's any stretch. I think that that's scouting consensus.
> 
> I think Bynum has All-Star upside. I think Oden has Hall of Fame upside. Upside is not guaranteed, but it separates them as talents.


and i won't argue that bynum has better upside than oden. but his ceiling is also pretty high.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

meru said:


> It's funny that Bynum's potential was so evident that last summer Kobe Bryant was openly contemptuous that Lakers Brass didn't trade him for Jason Kidd. Anyone remember his exact words? I believe he said the name "Andrew Bynum" as if it were an unprintable expletive. Odd that his own teammate did not see the budding greatness there.


does that matter today? today he wouldn't consider it.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

kflo said:


> my mistake on his age. the key point was his PER at a young age, not that he was 19. the same holds for 20. you mention howard and his superior PER at 19, but he actually had a lower PER at 20


Huge sample size difference. At 20 Howard played in all 82 games and averaged 36.8 MPG, compared to Bynum's 35 games at 28.8 MPG. Given the choice, I'd take Howard's PER of 19.3 in over 3000 minutes of PT over Bynum's 22.6 PER in barely 1000 minutes.

You may want to lay off the Howard comparisons until Bynum has performed at an above average level for more than 35 games. Howard has been in the league four years and hasn't missed a single game and has started 327 of the 328 games he's played in. He has had four very productive seasons. Bynum has less than 1/2 a season of comparable performance.

BNM


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Huge sample size difference. At 20 Howard played in all 82 games and averaged 36.8 MPG, compared to Bynum's 35 games at 28.8 MPG. Given the choice, I'd take Howard's PER of 19.3 in over 3000 minutes of PT over Bynum's 22.6 PER in barely 1000 minutes.
> 
> You may want to lay off the Howard comparisons until Bynum has performed at an above average level for more than 35 games. Howard has been in the league four years and hasn't missed a single game and has started 327 of the 328 games he's played in. He has had four very productive seasons. Bynum has less than 1/2 a season of comparable performance.
> 
> BNM


i believe it was you who brought up howard here, not me. again, the point is that there's certainly promise and evidence he's going to be very good. again, you won't find many comparables at his age with his stats and size/skill.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kflo said:


> dwight howard last year had 84% of his shots from inside, 68% assisted. bynum 80%, 58% assisted. both had 2% on tips (tyson chandler had 14%). the rest is jump shots, and bynum shot 36% to howard's 25%. he can be quite an excellent player continuing to do what he did. particularly on the team he actually happens to play for, where he will have a luxury for years.


I'm not saying you can't be an excellent player scoring most of your points inside. I was saying that the types of points he got, as far as I saw and consistent with what I read, were largely of the gimme variety...wide open dunks, put-backs and those sorts of things. Not offense he created against set defense.

Do the Lakers need him to become a great post player to be successful? No. They don't need him at all to be successful, as last year showed. For him to be a star, he needs to be able to create his own offense. Unless he's going to be a Dikembe Mutombo type of star, where the majority of his value comes from rebounding and defense. That wasn't my conception of his talents, though.



> bynum had a tremendous impact, which is why the needed to replace him with pau gasol to keep pace.


They didn't "keep pace" with Gasol...they became a much better team. The Gasol trade transformed them from mid-seed to top seed. Prior to that trade, no one was talking about the Lakers as championship contenders. That hardly speaks to Bynum's impact being tremendous. I think he was valuable, but hardly star-level impact.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

kflo said:


> again, the point is that there's certainly promise and evidence he's going to be very good.


Which brings us back full circle to my original point. Until he performs at an above average level for more than 35 games, Andrew Bynum is mostly about upside and potential - the promise that he'll be very good. You got a taste of it for 35 games last season, and that has you salivating for what "could be". And my original point is the author of the article considered Bynum's potential based on those 35 games when comprising his list, but discounted Oden's even greater upside. Like Laker fans, he put a VERY strong premium on that very small 35 game sample size.

So, at this point, Bynum has a 35 game head start on Oden, but Oden has greater upside. Hardly seems significant enough for the author of the article to make a distinction between the two. But, it must be significant, because 10 pages later, we're still discussing it.

BNM


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

LOL! :no:


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> I'm not saying you can't be an excellent player scoring most of your points inside. I was saying that the types of points he got, as far as I saw and consistent with what I read, were largely of the gimme variety...wide open dunks, put-backs and those sorts of things. Not offense he created against set defense.


again, his dunk and tip % on attempts was almost identical to dwight howard. with a lower assisted %. 



Minstrel said:


> Do the Lakers need him to become a great post player to be successful? No. They don't need him at all to be successful, as last year showed. For him to be a star, he needs to be able to create his own offense. Unless he's going to be a Dikembe Mutombo type of star, where the majority of his value comes from rebounding and defense. That wasn't my conception of his talents, though.


his offense is already better than deke's ever was. again, he scored 18 pts/40 with the top ts% in the league. he already creates more of his own offense than i think you give him credit for. 



Minstrel said:


> They didn't "keep pace" with Gasol...they became a much better team. The Gasol trade transformed them from mid-seed to top seed. Prior to that trade, no one was talking about the Lakers as championship contenders. That hardly speaks to Bynum's impact being tremendous. I think he was valuable, but hardly star-level impact.


lakers were 24-11 with bynum last year, and had won 15 of their last 18 before he got hurt. and they were the top seed in the west. gasol put them back on the track they were on when bynum got hurt. if they got better, it wasn't materially better.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Which brings us back full circle to my original point. Until he performs at an above average level for more than 35 games, Andrew Bynum is mostly about upside and potential - the promise that he'll be very good. You got a taste of it for 35 games last season, and that has you salivating for what "could be". And my original point is the author of the article considered Bynum's potential based on those 35 games when comprising his list, but discounted Oden's even greater upside. Like Laker fans, he put a VERY strong premium on that very small 35 game sample size.
> 
> So, at this point, Bynum has a 35 game head start on Oden, but Oden has greater upside. Hardly seems significant enough for the author of the article to make a distinction between the two. But, it must be significant, because 10 pages later, we're still discussing it.
> 
> BNM



maybe the primary significant difference is kobe/gasol? 

and bynum was very good last year. the promise is that he'll be great. i'm not salivating about anything. i'm commenting on a 20 year old 7' inside presence who happened to have a 22.6 PER last season, even if it was only 35 games.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kflo said:


> again, his dunk and tip % on attempts was almost identical to dwight howard. with a lower assisted %.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


F!

Well, you make good points, kflo. Perhaps Bynum was better than I thought, last year. In any case, I did say that I feel Bynum has All-Star upside, so I do think highly of his ability.

Really, the only reason I joined this discussion was that I don't think he's the same caliber of talent as Oden. And I felt that way long before I knew Oden would be a Blazer.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> F!
> 
> Well, you make good points, kflo. Perhaps Bynum was better than I thought, last year. In any case, I did say that I feel Bynum has All-Star upside, so I do think highly of his ability.
> 
> Really, the only reason I joined this discussion was that I don't think he's the same caliber of talent as Oden. And I felt that way long before I knew Oden would be a Blazer.


i haven't broken out the F! in a long time, mr m. good to get one thrown at me for a change!


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

I don't have a problem with the Blazers not being in the top 10 considering one of their three hasn't played an NBA game yet, it would be almost unfair to rank them there on anything but a message board (where it's ok to say homer things because you'll be able to brag about them later!).

I have mentioned this many, many times, but I do find it funny that people are having wet dreams on the daily about Bynums 30 something games last season, but refuse to say Greg Oden can amount to anything simply because he hasn't played an NBA game yet. I personally don't think we learned anything about Bynum in those 30 games that we didn't already know (assuming you thought he would develop). Just like I don't think we'll learn anything new about Oden in his first 30 games. All these players are very well scouted. But my main point is that, if people can go out on a limb and anoint Bynum as something he hasn't really earned yet, I don't have a problem with people doing the same with Oden. A good player is still a good player, even if they haven't played an NBA game yet.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

kflo said:


> *maybe the primary significant difference is kobe/gasol? *


:clap:

Good luck getting them to understand this though.......

I said that basic concept on page one, but they dont want to hear that.........And hear we are 11 pages and runnin'.........:no:...They think that LA's only ranked where they because of "Bynum's potential" for whatever reason. Bynum is a solid young player but they are ranked where they are because they have the MVP. It's no that hard to figure out.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

GregOden said:


> I don't have a problem with the Blazers not being in the top 10 considering one of their three hasn't played an NBA game yet, it would be almost unfair to rank them there on anything but a message board (where it's ok to say homer things because you'll be able to brag about them later!).
> 
> I have mentioned this many, many times, but I do find it funny that people are having wet dreams on the daily about Bynums 30 something games last season, but refuse to say Greg Oden can amount to anything simply because he hasn't played an NBA game yet. I personally don't think we learned anything about Bynum in those 30 games that we didn't already know (assuming you thought he would develop). Just like I don't think we'll learn anything new about Oden in his first 30 games. All these players are very well scouted. But my main point is that, if people can go out on a limb and anoint Bynum as something he hasn't really earned yet, I don't have a problem with people doing the same with Oden. A good player is still a good player, even if they haven't played an NBA game yet.


I hate being the last post on a page, I feel like nobody reads my **** then.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Blue Magic said:


> :clap:
> 
> Good luck getting them to understand this though.......
> 
> I said that basic concept on page one, but they dont want to hear that.........And hear we are 11 pages and runnin'.........:no:...They think that LA's only ranked where they because of "Bynum's potential" for whatever reason.


Your complete lack of reading comprehension continues to astound me. No one ever made the statements you claim about Bynum and his influence on the rankings. I never even said the Lakers didn't deserve to be ranked 2nd. After all, they went to the NBA finals, so ranking their trio second to the NBA champion Boston Celtics makes logical sense.

What doesn't make logical sense is including Andrew Bynum in their trio. He was NOT part of the team that went to the finals. He didn't play a second of ball after mid-January, let alone have anything to do with their play-off success. Lamar Odom did. He scored more, had more rebounds and had more assists than Bynum - and he did it over an entire season (and has done so over previous seasons as well). I know many Laker fans hate Odom (so do I, but for different reasons) and blame him for losing to the Celtics, but the fact is, if this list is based on actual performance, Odom should have been part the the Lakers trio, not Bynum. The ONLY reason to include Bynum in the Lakers trio over Odom is that Bynum has the *POTENTIAL* to be a better player. By selecting Bynum (and his 35 games of above average play) over Odom, the author made it clear he valued POTENTIAL and considered it when compiling his list of best trios.

Now here's the part you seem to have the most trouble comprehending (and note: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAKERS) - if POTENTIAL is considered when compiling this list, Portland deserves to be in the top 10. They don't deserve to be in the top five, or even the top eight, but based on their youth, performance to date (for Roy and Aldridge) and untapped POTENTIAL (Oden), they deserve to be top 10.

That's all I've been saying all along. Can you at least acknowledge your read it this time and kind of understand it, sort of? You keep putting words in my mouth, confusing me with other posters and making sweeping (and inaccurate) generalizations and that's contributed significantly to why this thread has grown to 11 pages.

BNM


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

> I don't have a problem with the Blazers not being in the top 10 considering one of their three hasn't played an NBA game yet, it would be almost unfair to rank them there on anything but a message board (where it's ok to say homer things because you'll be able to brag about them later!).
> 
> I have mentioned this many, many times, but I do find it funny that people are having wet dreams on the daily about Bynums 30 something games last season, but refuse to say Greg Oden can amount to anything simply because he hasn't played an NBA game yet. I personally don't think we learned anything about Bynum in those 30 games that we didn't already know (assuming you thought he would develop). Just like I don't think we'll learn anything new about Oden in his first 30 games. All these players are very well scouted. But my main point is that, if people can go out on a limb and anoint Bynum as something he hasn't really earned yet, I don't have a problem with people doing the same with Oden. A good player is still a good player, even if they haven't played an NBA game yet.


^ It's not about Greg Oden vs Andrew Bynum really....... It's about the fact that Bynum has showcased his skills on the NBA level, and at this point, Oden hasn't. We're basing what we think about Bynum on what he HAS done in the NBA, where as with Oden it's still ALL speculation......Bynum put up a bunch of double-doubles and about 4 or 5 20/10 games in only a 35 game stretch. That's nothing to sneeze @ for a 20 yr old 7 foot 285 pound prospect, and to say that in his prime he could be 20/10 isn't really going out on that far of a limb at this point. At the moment, Oden hasn't done anything, so we can assume he will be great, but until he showcases that on the next level, there will always be that element of doubt. That doesn't mean Oden will amount to nothing.... It just means that we dont know HOW great he's gonna be......We really dont have any gauge on how his strengths & weaknesses will translate.....With Bynum, we know these things.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

Blue Magic said:


> ^ It's not about Greg Oden vs Andrew Bynum really....... It's about the fact that Bynum has showcased his skills on the NBA level, and at this point, Oden hasn't. We're basing what we think about Bynum on what he HAS done in the NBA, where as with Oden it's still ALL speculation......Bynum put up a bunch of double-doubles and about 4 or 5 20/10 games in only a 35 game stretch. That's nothing to sneeze @ for a 20 yr old 7 foot 285 pound prospect, and to say that in his prime he could be 20/10 isn't really going out on that far of a limb. At the moment, Oden hasn't done jack, so we can assume he will be great, but until he showcases that on the next level, there will always be that element of doubt. That doesn't mean Oden will amount to nothing.... It just means that we dont know HOW great he's gonna be......We really dont have any gauge on how his strengths & weaknesses will translate.....


jesus christ man

edit: good edit.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blue Magic said:


> ^ It's not about Greg Oden vs Andrew Bynum really....... It's about the fact that Bynum has showcased his skills on the NBA level, and at this point, Oden hasn't.


so we're agreed. LaMarcus is a lot better than Bynum.



> We're basing what we think about Bynum on what he HAS done in the NBA, where as with Oden it's still ALL speculation......Bynum put up a bunch of double-doubles and about 4 or 5 20/10 games in only a 35 game stretch.


he also had 11 games of 10 or fewer points.



> That's nothing to sneeze @ for a 20 yr old 7 foot 285 pound prospect, and to say that in his prime he could be 20/10 isn't really going out on that far of a limb. At the moment, Oden hasn't done jack, so we can assume he will be great, but until he showcases that on the next level, there will always be that element of doubt. That doesn't mean Oden will amount to nothing.... It just means that we dont know HOW great he's gonna be......We really dont have any gauge on how his strengths & weaknesses will translate.....


in reality, we don't know how good Bynum will be either, as it's not like he has a huge sample size either. 5 games over 20, 11 games 10 and udner.

19 games at or below his average. Including 7 games in single digits. So he was actually more likely to score *below* 10 points as he was likely to score over 20.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Boob-No-More said:


> Your complete lack of reading comprehension continues to astound me. No one ever made the statements you claim about Bynum and his influence on the rankings. I never even said the Lakers didn't deserve to be ranked 2nd. After all, they went to the NBA finals, so ranking their trio second to the NBA champion Boston Celtics makes logical sense.
> 
> What doesn't make logical sense is including Andrew Bynum in their trio. He was NOT part of the team that went to the finals. He didn't play a second of ball after mid-January, let alone have anything to do with their play-off success. Lamar Odom did. He scored more, had more rebounds and had more assists than Bynum - and he did it over an entire season (and has done so over previous seasons as well). I know many Laker fans hate Odom (so do I, but for different reasons) and blame him for losing to the Celtics, but the fact is, if this list is based on actual performance, Odom should have been part the the Lakers trio, not Bynum. The ONLY reason to include Bynum in the Lakers trio over Odom is that Bynum has the *POTENTIAL* to be a better player. By selecting Bynum (and his 35 games of above average play) over Odom, the author made it clear he valued POTENTIAL and considered it when compiling his list of best trios.
> 
> ...


You act like im an idiot. I've understood what you said from page one. Bynum just simply, is and will be, more valuable than Odom, period. I would think that any knowledgeable fan would know that by default. A true center is more valuable than a SF/PF hybrid, regardless of if he played only 35 games @ high level then got injured(and do u think he would've gotten worse a the season went on....?). Bynum didn't have to play in the playoffs for his value to be > Odom's. Bynum/Pau > Odom/Pau, is a given for the simple fact that Bynum can be a defensive anchor and Odom cannot. It's not brain surgery. And Bynum's potential had little to do with that ranking. If Bynum doesn't develop anymore of his potential or if he only plays @ the same level next year as he did in those 35 games, THEIR RANKING WOULD STILL BE THE SAME BECAUSE LA STILL HAS KOBE BRYANT. Can you comprehend that. Portland shouldn't jump into the top ten just because "Oden's Potential" > "Bynum's potential".....That is a moot point, which you seem to think is major issue in the rankings when it is not.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Dan said:


> so we're agreed. LaMarcus is a lot better than Bynum.


Lol, dont get me started....



> he also had 11 games of 10 or fewer points.


He had 18 double-doubles out 35 games........It can be spun however you want it to be, so i dont even care at this point. You look @ the bad, i'm looking @ the good.



> in reality, we don't know how good Bynum will be either, as it's not like he has a huge sample size either. 5 games over 20, 11 games 10 and udner.
> 
> 19 games at or below his average. Including 7 games in single digits. So he was actually more likely to score *below* 10 points as he was likely to score over 20.


like I said above, it can be spun however........I believe he can be a 20/10 player and that's just my opinion. However, I still think it's a moot point in this discussion.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Blue Magic said:


> You act like im an idiot. I've understood what you said from page one. Bynum just simply, is and will be, more valuable than Odom, period. I would think that any knowledgeable fan would know that by default. A true center is more valuable than a SF/PF hybrid, regardless of if he played only 35 games @ high level then got injured(and do u think he would've gotten worse a the season went on....?). Bynum didn't have to play in the playoffs for his value to be > Odom's. Bynum/Pau > Odom/Pau, is a given for the simple fact that Bynum can be a defensive anchor and Odom cannot. It's not brain surgery. And Bynum's potential had little to do with that ranking. If Bynum doesn't develop anymore of his potential or if he only plays @ the same level next year as he did in those 35 games, THEIR RANKING WOULD STILL BE THE SAME BECAUSE LA STILL HAS KOBE BRYANT. Can you comprehend that. Portland shouldn't jump into the top ten just because "Oden's Potential" > "Bynum's potential".....That is a moot point, which you seem to think is major issue in the rankings when it is not.


OMG, I give up. You once again, TOTALLY misunderstood my point. Yes, Bynum has more *POTENTIAL* than Lamar Odom. I've NEVER disputed that. In fact, I've said it OVER, and OVER and OVER in this thread. I even put it in bold a number if times on the off chance you may actually notice that I said it.

Yet, here you go again "arguing" with me about how and why Bynum has more potential than Odom. What exactly are you "arguing" about? I've said the exact same thing repeatedly. It was a major part of my original argument and thanks to you, I've repeated it many, many times. You're so hellbent on "arguing" you don't even realize when we are in agreement. I give up. Good lord. Trying to discuss this in a rational, logical manner with you is worse than banging my head against a brick wall.

BNM


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Boob-No-More said:


> OMG, I give up. You once again, TOTALLY misunderstood my point. Yes, Bynum has more *POTENTIAL* than Lamar Odom. I've NEVER disputed that. In fact, I've said it OVER, and OVER and OVER in this thread. I even put it in bold a number if times on the off chance you may actually notice that I said it.
> 
> Yet, here you go again "arguing" with me about how and why Bynum has more potential than Odom. What exactly are you "arguing" about? I've said the exact same thing repeatedly. It was a major part of my original argument and thanks to you, I've repeated it many, many times. You're so hellbent on "arguing" you don't even realize when we are in agreement. I give up. Good lord. Trying to discuss this in a rational, logical manner with you is worse than banging my head against a brick wall.
> 
> BNM


Wow, are you please be an adult about this? I said that the potential doesnt matter.....it is a moot point. That was my position on page 1, and is my position now.... You're the one saying Portland deserves to in the top 10 cuz based on Oden's potential and are tying that in with Bynum somehow....remember?? :krazy: if anyone's making stuff up, it's u bro. I feel like i'm talking to an infant.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

:dancingpadlock:


----------

