# Merged: Adam Morrison's numerous achievements / draft potential



## SlamJam (Nov 27, 2004)

rank the following 1 to 3 in terms of how good you think morrison will be in the nba:

morrison
wally s.
glenn robinson


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: rank morrison*

wally s.
glenn robinson
morrison

I would like to say I think these are odd players to compare Morrison to, but this is your thread.


----------



## aizn (Jun 19, 2005)

*Re: rank morrison*

wally is doing phenomenal this year. glenn robinson was good in his old days and morrison is unproven.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*

Morrison
Sczerbiak
Robinson


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*

Glenn Robinson only lead a Purdue team in his junior year with Cuonzo Martin to the Elite where they lost to Grant Hill.

Glenn Robinson was a better college player then Morrison in my opinion. He in the Big Ten no less when the Fab Five was there, Jim Jackson and OSU were great, Indiana and Calbert Cheaney.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

*Re: rank morrison*

Big Dog
Morrison
Szerbiak

I don't have any basis for putting Morrison and Szerbiak where they are, it's just a hunch.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



HKF said:


> Glenn Robinson only lead a Purdue team in his junior year with Cuonzo Martin to the Elite where they lost to Grant Hill.
> 
> Glenn Robinson was a better college player then Morrison in my opinion. He in the Big Ten no less when the Fab Five was there, Jim Jackson and OSU were great, Indiana and Calbert Cheaney.


i agree, robinson was more of a presence in the middle back then, morrison is a perimiter player, i would compare his game to guys like reggie miller,mike miller and rip hamilton. people forget how great glenn robinson was in college(not you for sure).


----------



## bruno34115 (Apr 14, 2003)

*Re: rank morrison*

I think that Morrison is going to be an upper tier SF that is on the all star teams most years so he is at the top of my list.


----------



## tbp82 (Dec 7, 2005)

*Re: rank morrison*



bruno34115 said:


> I think that Morrison is going to be an upper tier SF that is on the all star teams most years so he is at the top of my list.




hahahahahahahahahahahahahah......................I don't care that he plays the most replacable position in the NBA (SG/SF) but an all-star most years. The guy probably won't start. Anyway back to the point. Based on college only 

1) Glenn Robinson
2) Adam Morrison
3) Wally

Based on NBA vs. Morrison potential

1) Wally
2) Robinson
3) Morrison


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*

Based on college performance:
1) Robinson
2) Morrison
3) Wally

Morrison for some reason reminds of Bernard King when i see him play: the wierd body control and angle to his shot. He might be a better pro then the other two but I want to see what he does against better defenders (He did do well against Ager who I think will be a good defender in the NBA)


----------



## bruno34115 (Apr 14, 2003)

*Re: rank morrison*



tbp82 said:


> hahahahahahahahahahahahahah......................I don't care that he plays the most replacable position in the NBA (SG/SF) but an all-star most years. The guy probably won't start. Anyway back to the point. Based on college only


Wouldn't be such a radical statement if he wasn't white IMO.


----------



## vadimivich (Mar 29, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*

Big Dog was simply awesome for quite a little while, and was a much better college player than Morrison (that's saying something too - Morrison can ball).

People pile on Big Dog now, but there was a point where he was one of the best players around.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

*Re: rank morrison*

Definatley Big Dog. Lets not forget his 97-98 season. 23.4ppg, 5.5rpg, 2.8apg, 1.25spg, .47FG%. I will be very suprised if Morrison has a season as good as that.


----------



## AZwildcats4 (Feb 9, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*



tbp82 said:


> hahahahahahahahahahahahahah......................I don't care that he plays the most replacable position in the NBA (SG/SF) but an all-star most years. The guy probably won't start.



And you know this how...? If thats your opinion fine, but why are you acting like he made some ridiculous statement? Your opinion does not = fact. Its quite possible that Morrison will be a perennial all-star. There is a reason he is being projected as a top 5 pick.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



HKF said:


> Glenn Robinson only lead a Purdue team in his junior year with Cuonzo Martin to the Elite where they lost to Grant Hill.
> 
> Glenn Robinson was a better college player then Morrison in my opinion. He in the Big Ten no less when the Fab Five was there, Jim Jackson and OSU were great, Indiana and Calbert Cheaney.


In my opinion, it could be debatable if Morrison was averaging 20 ppg, considering the conference he is playing in, but the guy is putting up 29 ppg. Plus, he put up 43 each against Michigan State (albeit in 3OT) and Washington and 34 against Memphis.

Morrison may not have world class athleticism, but he has the charisma, basketball IQ, creativity, competitiveness, and the heart (with his diabetes) to become ROY if he enters the draft this year.

Of course, we'll have to see how far Gonzaga goes in the NCAA tournament...


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

*Re: rank morrison*

Glenn might have had the better college career, but that's not what this thread is about. College ball doesn't always translate to the NBA. To be honest, I personally believe that Morrisons success will be based almost entirely on what team he goes to.

He can't drippble well enough to play 2, he's doesn't have good enough perimiter D to play 3, and he's not a good enough rebounder to play 4 in the NBA. Which is why I believe he would fit in PERFECTLY with a fast tempo team, because it's more about transition D than rebounding. If the Suns drafted him, and he stayed with them his entire career, he could be the best person picked in this draft. But if he goes somewhere where he is expected to be a big time scorer, and leader for them...let's just say I wouldn't want to be a fan of THAT team (watch the Hawks draft him, just what they need...another SF haha).


----------



## Burn (Feb 2, 2003)

*Re: rank morrison*



TwinkieTowers said:


> In my opinion, it could be debatable if Morrison was averaging 20 ppg, considering the conference he is playing in, but the guy is putting up 29 ppg. Plus, he put up 43 each against Michigan State (albeit in 3OT) and Washington and 34 against Memphis.


Big Dog averaged 30 and 10


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

*Re: rank morrison*

Exactly.

The Big Dog was a beast in college. 30-10 on one of the best teams in the nation and in a tough conference.

How can anyone put Wally World ahead of the Big Dog (college or NBA)?

The Big Dog was one of the best scorers in the NBA. He averaged 20 ppg for 8 seasons and has a career scoring average of 20.7 ppg. Imagine if he didn't have to share the ball with Ray Allen and Sam Cassell? 

There's no question that he didn't live up to his hype but the guy was a legitimate multiple all-star player.

Can Morrison be better? Who knows? Maybe. But even in college Big Dog was in another level than Morrison. He was expected to go #1 in a draft class that included Hill and Kidd. There is still debate whether Morrison would go #1 this year which looks to be a very weak draft class even at the top 3.



HKF said:


> Glenn Robinson only lead a Purdue team in his junior year with Cuonzo Martin to the Elite where they lost to Grant Hill.
> 
> Glenn Robinson was a better college player then Morrison in my opinion. He in the Big Ten no less when the Fab Five was there, Jim Jackson and OSU were great, Indiana and Calbert Cheaney.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*

I don't think a player can be "on a different level" than a guy who is averaging 30 ppg. Maybe Robinson was better, but not by much.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

*Re: rank morrison*

Are you kidding me? Big Dog was much better than Morrison in college. Did you watch Big Dog? He was unstoppable and he played in a tough conference. It's one thing to put up 30 in the Big Ten and another to put up 29 in the WCC. Big Dog in college was in a different level than Morrison. The separation is as much IMO as Tim Duncan and Shawn Marion. Big Dog was also a beast in the NCAA tournament. He averaged 31.4 ppg for his college career in the NCAA tournament. Like I said, Big Dog was the *consensus* #1 pick in a draft class that included Hill and Kidd. Morrison is a debatable #1 in a weak draft class. 



Jonathan Watters said:


> I don't think a player can be "on a different level" than a guy who is averaging 30 ppg. Maybe Robinson was better, but not by much.


----------



## Burn (Feb 2, 2003)

*Re: rank morrison*

Robinson was probably one of the top 5 college players of the last 15 years. Whereas Morrison is one of the top 5...of this year


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



Burn said:


> Robinson was probably one of the top 5 college players of the last 15 years. Whereas Morrison is one of the top 5...of this year


More like top 2

1. Glenn
2. Adam morrison
3. Wally


----------



## vadimivich (Mar 29, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*

Um, JW - you seriously think that Morrison is close to Bid Dog's level? Dog was putting up 30 and 10 in a very deep NCAA against an extremely tough league - not to mention tearing it up in the tournament. While Morrison is nasty, he's not on the same level as what Big Dog was doing.

People act like Big Dog's career was a total bust too, but the guy went to a number of all-star games and averaged 20+ for his career - he was a very good player.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*

So if Morrison averages 30 ppg in the tourney this March, will people change their minds? He averaged 26 ppg last season in the tourney, and I am still amazed that people aren't willing to admit how truly dominant a player he is. I saw Big Dog in the early 90's, but that was a decade ago. If you haven't sat down and analyzed tape from Robinson's career at Purdue, I highly doubt you have any business making a distinction between Morrison and Robinson. 

I've followed college basketball very closely my entire life, but got really serious about it around 1999. Nobody has come close to what Adam Morrison (and to a lesser extent, JJ Redick) are doing this season.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

*Re: rank morrison*

If you saw the Big Dog then you would know he was in another level as a college player. Like I said and will say again, Big Dog was the *consensus* #1 pick in a draft class than included Hill and Kidd who were both highly touted NBA prospects and had great college careers. Morrison as #1 this year in a *weak* draft class is debatable. 

Plus, I watched Big Dog so that whole if you didn't down and analyze BS means nothing. What is that a personal jab at me. lol. If you can't see that the Big Dog was in a different level than Morrison when he was in college just tells me you don't analyze very good. You think just because you work for an amateur draft site your word should be taken above all others? Then the guys at NBAdraft.net who touted Ivan as a top 10 pick are right as well.



Jonathan Watters said:


> So if Morrison averages 30 ppg in the tourney this March, will people change their minds? He averaged 26 ppg last season in the tourney, and I am still amazed that people aren't willing to admit how truly dominant a player he is. I saw Big Dog in the early 90's, but that was a decade ago. If you haven't sat down and analyzed tape from Robinson's career at Purdue, I highly doubt you have any business making a distinction between Morrison and Robinson.
> 
> I've followed college basketball very closely my entire life, but got really serious about it around 1999. Nobody has come close to what Adam Morrison (and to a lesser extent, JJ Redick) are doing this season.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



Gilgamesh said:


> If you saw the Big Dog then you would know he was in another level as a college player. Like I said and will say again, Big Dog was the *consensus* #1 pick in a draft class than included Hill and Kidd who were both highly touted NBA prospects and had great college careers. Morrison as #1 this year in a *weak* draft class is debatable.


Glenn Robinson was a better draft prospect. That isn't what I was disagreeing with.



> Plus, I watched Big Dog so that whole if you didn't down and analyze BS means nothing. What is that a personal jab at me. lol. If you can't see that the Big Dog was in a different level than Morrison when he was in college just tells me you don't analyze very good. You think just because you work for an amateur draft site your word should be taken above all others? Then the guys at NBAdraft.net who touted Ivan as a top 10 pick are right as well.


My writing has nothing to do with anything. I was on here offering up my opinion long before I wrote for DX. If you were waiting for somebody to take a "personal jab" at you, then maybe what I wrote was a "personal jab." Or maybe I'm just pointing out that we are dealing with the foggy memories of a 10 year old. 

Adam Morrison is dominating the college level like nothing I have ever seen since I believe my opinion become reliable, and to say that Glenn Robinson was better at the college level because he played in a better conference is a tired argument. If you've followed Adam Morrison at all, you know that he plays better against top competition. He would be averaging 30 in the Big Ten right now, and the Big Ten of the mid-nineties.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

*Re: rank morrison*



Gilgamesh said:


> Plus, I watched Big Dog so that whole if you didn't down and analyze BS means nothing. What is that a personal jab at me. lol. If you can't see that the Big Dog was in a different level than Morrison when he was in college just tells me you don't analyze very good. You think just because you work for an amateur draft site your word should be taken above all others? Then the guys at NBAdraft.net who touted Ivan as a top 10 pick are right as well.


He's not exactly pushing his word upon anyone, nor is he being nearly as aggressive or defensive as you. If you have a bone to pick with Jonathan, do it, but do it in a private message. No need to get personal and take jabs at draftexpress or it's contributors. Perhaps it's a slight tinge of jealousy? A little off topic here, but if you consider it an amateur site, may I ask which sites you consider professional? Last time I checked, personal opinions were allowed on here Gilgamesh, no need to judge someone for their opinion when it differs from your own.

As for the Robinson, Morrison debate I'd take Robinson too. But we all saw what a great pro he turned out to be. It's great to look back at the '94 draft and say that Robinson was drafted #1 in a strong class, but we don't have the fortune of hindsight for the 2006 draft yet. All indications are it's not as strong, and doesn't have the same great college players. But that really has little to do with the greatness of 1 player. Morrison could always (not saying he necessarily is) be playing during a mediocre year for college talent.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: rank morrison*

I never saw much of Wally when he was at Miami Ohio except in the tournament so it's pretty hard for me to evaluate him as a college player against anyone.I would say that as individual talents Robinson and Morrison are about even with Morrison being a better scorer and the Big Dog having a better all around game.

If you want to talk about inherent value then it's clearly the Big Dog because he was such a skilled passer who could run the Purdue offense from the low post or the high post and do almost whatever the team needed in a particular game.Morrison is far more of a pure gunner.

My personal opinion is that if Charlotte won the lottery that they might possibly opt to take Morrison first because he really fills their greatest need.To me it comes down to whether or not you believe Aldridge will be able to play center in the NBA.If he can then you have to take him and you probably have to take him first no matter what.

I keep hearing about the things Morrison can't do and I know that he has many shortcomings,but he can really score and there aren't many teams that can't use someone who can light up the scoreboard.The Bobcats could take Morrison and use him exactly the way he's used at Gonzaga and he would give them exactly what they lack.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

*Re: rank morrison*

I respect his opinion. I just don't respect the fact that he had to resort to saying something like "If you haven't sat down and analyzed tape from Robinson's career at Purdue, I highly doubt you have any business making a distinction between Morrison and Robinson." I take that as a personal jab at disregarding my opinion.

Also look at his last reply to me: "Or maybe I'm just pointing out that we are dealing with the foggy memories of a 10 year old." Tell me that isn't a personal jab. Please.

Plus DraftExpress is run by people who post their opinions which like you said is not that much different than the people here. When I saw Jon post what he did about sitting down and analyzing tape I took that as he meant "hey I work for a draft site so my opinion is more valuable and reliable". If I interpreted that quote wrong than I apologize but nevertheless it is still a personal jab and his quote in his second reply proves it. Like I said, the guys at nbadraft.net post their opinions as well and we all know the Ivan fiasco. Lets also not forget that draftcity was once run by a 17 year old so Jon's second quote suddenly makes my opinion unreliable due to my age? Think about what he implying because it would apply to you too lachlan and you are according to your profile younger than me. Last I check isn't Givony only 24 years old or somewhere around there?

Like I said I don't know anybody who doesn't think Big Dog was a much better college player than Adam Morrison.

Seriously, Jon I respect your opinion although I disagree and to resort to using personal jabs to disregard my opinion is in my opinion pathetic but I won't argue about personal things on this board because the other poster is right that should be reserved for PM but I will defend myself if I need to. But seriously end of this rant between me and Jon. Apology to the mods. 

Plus, Morrison is dominating a weak conference. Although I do believe that Morrison is a better player, Redick's season has been much more impressive and his 35 point performance tonight proves it and brings his PPG the same as Morrison's.

Also, lachlan I never said Morrison won't be a better pro player than Big Dog. Nobody has a crystal ball. Even pro scouts don't...look at Skita, look at Darko, we can go on and on.

But like you and I would say and 95% or more of people who have watched Big Dog and Morrison in college we all know who the better was.

I must also add that I think DraftExpress is a good site. Those guys work hard especially Givony. But their opinions are just that opinions. Don't forget all the Ramos hype. Opinions are subjective and open to scrutiny. DraftExpress is a good draft site to read other people's opinions as is this board. One is not more legitimate than the other if both sources saw the players being evaluated. In the end, the best way to judge is to see yourself but sites like DraftExpress is a good secondary resource and the quality of writing particularly with Givony is better than some pro sites.



Lachlanwood32 said:


> He's not exactly pushing his word upon anyone, nor is he being nearly as aggressive or defensive as you. If you have a bone to pick with Jonathan, do it, but do it in a private message. No need to get personal and take jabs at draftexpress or it's contributors. Perhaps it's a slight tinge of jealousy? A little off topic here, but if you consider it an amateur site, may I ask which sites you consider professional? Last time I checked, personal opinions were allowed on here Gilgamesh, no need to judge someone for their opinion when it differs from your own.
> 
> As for the Robinson, Morrison debate I'd take Robinson too. But we all saw what a great pro he turned out to be. It's great to look back at the '94 draft and say that Robinson was drafted #1 in a strong class, but we don't have the fortune of hindsight for the 2006 draft yet. All indications are it's not as strong, and doesn't have the same great college players. But that really has little to do with the greatness of 1 player. Morrison could always (not saying he necessarily is) be playing during a mediocre year for college talent.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

*Re: rank morrison*

Definitely see where you're coming from Gilgamesh, but we all know that anyone can get their hands on footage from past generations nowadays. I have never judged someones post depending on age, as I don't think it really matters. What matters is the quality of the post, the accuracy, and the ability to incoporate facts with opinion.

There were definitely jabs at you in there too, and it's ignorant of Jonathan to judge a post based upon the age in the side column. The age of the poster does not equate to a good post, nor does it mean that you or I couldn't have done a few searches and watched hours of Robinson gametape.

With that being said, I think we can let it all die.

As for Morrison vs. Robinson, it's no question in my opinion. Reddick vs. Morrison is up for debate, and I'd love to see a Duke vs. Gonzaga game in the tourney this year. Of course, it probably won't give us an answer to the question but we will get to see them match up closely. Gonzaga's competition is nothing to sneeze at, they are ranked #5, but the conference is weak and they've had far too many close games against bad teams (ie. St. Mary's, San Diego, Saint Louis). Actually now that I think about it I don't understand why they're ranked so high, They've lost to Memphis, Connecticut, and Washington and have only beaten 2 ranked teams. Michigan State and Maryland. The WCC conference is extremely weak too. But Gonzaga is being carried by Morrison, whereas Duke has an array of the best talent alongside Reddick.

I'm one that believes that talented players alongside you does more for your game than having lesser talent around. That might sound obvious, but many people will say Reddick has less touches because of the quality of players around him, and visa versa for Morrison. I disagree, the offense will be designed to use the best player available, and for both teams it's Reddick and Morrison. Coach K is not going to design an equal amount of plays for each player. Reddick is the catalyst, but recieves less double and triple teams than Morrison because the opposition does not have the oppurtunity to double from the post or the wing. It's the exact opposite for Morrison, with Batista being the only other real option in my opinion. Williams and co. for Duke help Reddick get more open looks, whereas Morrison does not really have help to anywhere near the same extent.

By the way, I'll agree about the pro scouts. Most of it is plain old luck, because when it comes down to it they can't project a players drive and determination through tests, questions or their ability on the court. And that's the real difference between players such as Skita and Nowitzki, sure it's skill but that skill's developed through hard work and drive. Whatever anyone says it's not God given.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*

I can't believe people are actually arguing that Morrison is a better college player than (or even as good as) Glenn Robinson. 

Robinson absolutely dominated a very tough conference when college basketball was infinitely deeper than now.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

*Re: rank morrison*

A Reddick vs Morrison matchup would be very interesting and a marketing dream. 

Reddick is tearing up the ACC but I still don't think that his game will translate well in the NBA. Morrison is IMO a better draft prospect but Reddick will be the National Player of the Year. The guy simply comes up big and yesterday's game against UNC showed that. He is arguably the greatest shooter college has ever seen. The guy's been unbelievable. 



Lachlanwood32 said:


> As for Morrison vs. Robinson, it's no question in my opinion. Reddick vs. Morrison is up for debate, and I'd love to see a Duke vs. Gonzaga game in the tourney this year. Of course, it probably won't give us an answer to the question but we will get to see them match up closely. Gonzaga's competition is nothing to sneeze at, they are ranked #5, but the conference is weak and they've had far too many close games against bad teams (ie. St. Mary's, San Diego, Saint Louis). Actually now that I think about it I don't understand why they're ranked so high, They've lost to Memphis, Connecticut, and Washington and have only beaten 2 ranked teams. Michigan State and Maryland. The WCC conference is extremely weak too. But Gonzaga is being carried by Morrison, whereas Duke has an array of the best talent alongside Reddick.
> 
> I'm one that believes that talented players alongside you does more for your game than having lesser talent around. That might sound obvious, but many people will say Reddick has less touches because of the quality of players around him, and visa versa for Morrison. I disagree, the offense will be designed to use the best player available, and for both teams it's Reddick and Morrison. Coach K is not going to design an equal amount of plays for each player. Reddick is the catalyst, but recieves less double and triple teams than Morrison because the opposition does not have the oppurtunity to double from the post or the wing. It's the exact opposite for Morrison, with Batista being the only other real option in my opinion. Williams and co. for Duke help Reddick get more open looks, whereas Morrison does not really have help to anywhere near the same extent.
> 
> .


----------



## CodyThePuppy (Nov 18, 2005)

*Re: rank morrison*

Arguably the best? STFU hater! JJ is CLEARLY the best shooter AND the best player the college game has seen at least since Wilt. Wilt might be better, but JJ is a better shooter than Wilt.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



CodyThePuppy said:


> Arguably the best? STFU hater! JJ is CLEARLY the best shooter AND the best player the college game has seen at least since Wilt. Wilt might be better, but JJ is a better shooter than Wilt.


:krazy:


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



HKF said:


> :krazy:


What? You think JJ's better than Wilt? Hey, I like JJ, but come on! :wink:


If you think that's crazy, just check out his posts in the ACC and College Hoops forums.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

*Re: rank morrison*

This is why I find Duke homers so annoying. :biggrin: 



CodyThePuppy said:


> Arguably the best? STFU hater! JJ is CLEARLY the best shooter AND the best player the college game has seen at least since Wilt. Wilt might be better, but JJ is a better shooter than Wilt.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



Gilgamesh said:


> This is why I find Duke homers so annoying. :biggrin:



Hey, I'm a Duke homer!

What? Is there something wrong with comparing JJ Redick favorably to Wilt Chamberlain?


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*

Truth, you keep posting about Morrison's crappy conference. 

I keep replying that Morrison actually plays better against better competition, and you won't defend yourself. Why is that?


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



Jonathan Watters said:


> Truth, you keep posting about Morrison's crappy conference.
> 
> I keep replying that Morrison actually plays better against better competition, and you won't defend yourself. Why is that?



Because there isn't a sufficient population to make a definitive statement. Sure, he had great games against Mich State and Memphis, but his performance against UCONN was lackluster.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



The Truth said:


> Because there isn't a sufficient population to make a definitive statement. Sure, he had great games against Mich State and Memphis, but his performance against UCONN was lackluster.



Truth, you know i usually agree with most of your posts but i have to give morrison a mulligan against uconn(he still outplayed gay). the zags were coming off a marathon against msu and they were pretty drained. having followed adam since the state championship game in highschool i can say definitively that he plays his best against the illinois,okla states and arizonas of the world.


----------



## superdude211 (Apr 3, 2004)

*ESPN The Adam Morrison Sweepstakes*

<!-- hasAccess this is not a premium story -->





> First, I have a scoop for you: A well-placed source tells me that Isiah Thomas is prepared to trade Channing Frye and Penny Hardaway to Denver for Kenyon Martin and Earl Watson, but only if Martin agrees to an MRI on his surgically repaired knee. If Martin's knee is in good shape, the Knicks are calling off the deal. If the knee is in rough shape, the deal is on. If the knee is in such terrible shape that the doctor says something like, "Wow, there's a good chance K-Mart might walk with a limp for the rest of his life," the Knicks will throw in an unconditional No. 1 in 2009 as well as Nate Robinson and $3 million dollars. So stay tuned.
> 
> In the meantime, here's another look at the NBA's "Big Picture," where I count down all 30 teams from "worst chance of winning the title" to "best chance of winning the title." I'll even separate them into categories for you. Without further ado...


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060208


----------



## Gtown07 (Dec 10, 2003)

*Re: ESPN The Adam Morrison Sweepstakes*

Simmon's article has nothing to do with the upcoming NBA Draft. He just says that the worst two teams in the league are in that sweepstakes. 

However everyone should read the article. Bill Simmons is the reason to go on espn.com


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



rainman said:


> Truth, you know i usually agree with most of your posts but i have to give morrison a mulligan against uconn(he still outplayed gay). the zags were coming off a marathon against msu and they were pretty drained. having followed adam since the state championship game in highschool i can say definitively that he plays his best against the illinois,okla states and arizonas of the world.



But it's one thing to play great against good teams a few times a year, and an entirely different thing to do it every game of the season.

JJ plays against good teams every game out, and these teams have seen him at least 6 times over the past few years (the new additions to the ACC excepting). These teams and coaches have the opportunity of past experiences against JJ to prepare a defensive game plan. 

As far as Glenn Robinson, he played in a FAR SUPERIOR NCAA atmosphere. The best teams that he played were FAR BETTER than even the best teams that Morrison played in the non-conference schedule. 

Morrison is absolutely a great player. If I've implied otherwise at any time, it was completely unintentional. I just think that what Redick has accomplished this season (and Robinson in 94) is more impressive.

But I wouldn't argue at all if Morrison and Redick were to share the NPOTY award.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



The Truth said:


> But it's one thing to play great against good teams a few times a year, and an entirely different thing to do it every game of the season.
> 
> JJ plays against good teams every game out, and these teams have seen him at least 6 times over the past few years (the new additions to the ACC excepting). These teams and coaches have the opportunity of past experiences against JJ to prepare a defensive game plan.
> 
> ...



i'm probably more inclined to take redick over morrison as poy but this is the draft board and i would take morrison based on pro potential. i may be a little biased my son graduated from GU, i'm still on their mailing list.i like redick but i think he'll have trouble matching up against the hamiltons and the mcgradys and co. on a nightly basis. i actually hope i'm wrong.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



The Truth said:


> Because there isn't a sufficient population to make a definitive statement. Sure, he had great games against Mich State and Memphis, but his performance against UCONN was lackluster.


Lackluster? Come on. He had 4 NBA-level athletes chasing him all night, an entire defense revolving around helping the guy guarding him, and he still managed to score 18. It is also probably his *only* performance against an NCAA Tournament-caliber team in the past two seasons where he has failed to reach his average production for that season.

Over the past two seasons, Morrison has played a conference slate's worth of games against high-major caliber competition. Morrison is significantly better both in terms of efficiency and production in those games. The only reason you aren't acknowledging the significant rise in play is because it doesn't fit your argument.

The "he plays in a bad conference" argument just doesn't hold any water, but I doubt that will stop you from using it in the future if Morrison vs Redick is the subject.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



Jonathan Watters said:


> The "he plays in a bad conference" argument just doesn't hold any water, but I doubt that will stop you from using it in the future if Morrison vs Redick is the subject.


I addressed this in my previous post.

You're never going to prove to me otherwise because Morrison is never going to play a FULL season against major conference competition where all the teams have prior experience guarding him.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*

Last year as a Sophmore Adam put up 26 against championship game bound Illinois team and then against future #1 seed Washington team he put up 28......

He elevates his game to the level of his opponents without a doubt.....and the UCONN game was within 24 hours after he played 52 minutes and scored 43 points against Michigan St. not to mention the athletic UCONN defenders keying in on his every move...


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



The Truth said:


> I addressed this in my previous post.
> 
> You're never going to prove to me otherwise because Morrison is never going to play a FULL season against major conference competition where all the teams have prior experience guarding him.


You just aren't going to respond, because you can't. You have no argument, and you have addressed nothing. 

And if you honestly think that playing the guy twice would make any sort of difference, you need to find a new sport to watch. No player in the country, including Redick, is prepared for half as much as Morrison. No player gets more attention from opposing defenses. And he doesn't even need an offense around him. Almost everything he does is freelance. Coaches have come away talking about how their players defended him well, but were helpless. You honestly think playing a second time would make any difference? 

These types of arguments only further enforce my belief that you are not a basketball fan, you are just a Duke fan.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: ESPN The Adam Morrison Sweepstakes*

Why is there a sweepstakes for a player that does not even warrant a #1 pick? It seems to me any team in the top 10 picks has shot at getting him.


----------



## sevenwithcheese (Feb 8, 2006)

*Re: ESPN The Adam Morrison Sweepstakes*



ralaw said:


> Why is there a sweepstakes for a player that does not even warrant a #1 pick? It seems to me any team in the top 10 picks has shot at getting him.


Agreed. I don't get it.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



Jonathan Watters said:


> You just aren't going to respond, because you can't. You have no argument, and you have addressed nothing.
> 
> And if you honestly think that playing the guy twice would make any sort of difference, you need to find a new sport to watch. No player in the country, including Redick, is prepared for half as much as Morrison. No player gets more attention from opposing defenses. And he doesn't even need an offense around him. Almost everything he does is freelance. Coaches have come away talking about how their players defended him well, but were helpless. You honestly think playing a second time would make any difference?
> 
> These types of arguments only further enforce my belief that you are not a basketball fan, you are just a Duke fan.



Please, the sanctimonious lecturing is a bit old, ya dig?

Morrison gets a ton of defensive attention, but SO DOES REDICK.

And yes, playing a team for the 6th time DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it so.

Dude, you have some strange, pent up animosity towards me. I'm not exactly sure why you're throwing such a fit in this thread. I said I think Morrison is a fantastic player and I wouldn't be upset if he and JJ were to share NPOTY. Is that so unreasonable?

I also said that Glenn Robinson was a better college player, and I don't understand how that's so controversial.

And as I've said before, I don't give a **** what kind of fan you think I am. I'm not interested in measuring up to any JonathanWatters college basketball fandom threshold. I'm just wondering why _you_ give a **** about what kind of fan I am.

edit: BTW, if you think Morrison is more deserving of NPOTY than JJ at this point of the season, I'd love to hear an argument.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*

Jason Conley led the nation in scoring as a freshman at VMI (30 ppg). A lot of people argued that his scoring average was a result of playing mediocre competition, but that season, in his team’s biggest games, he scored 24 against Kentucky, 25 against Virginia, and 38 against Villanova. 

In Conley’s sophomore season he only played 10 games, averaging 22 ppg. That season, he scored 25 points against Tennessee.

During his sophomore season, Conley decided to transfer to the University of Missouri. A lot of people predicted that he would be a star at Missouri.

In his Junior season at Mizzou, Conley averaged 8 points per game in limited time.

In his Senior season at Mizzou, Conley averaged 10 pppg.

Now I’m not saying that Morrison’s numbers would dip even close to that that much if he were playing in a tougher conference, and Morrison is obviously twice the player Conley was. I’m just trying to demonstrate that you can’t assume that because a player plays well in limited games against tough competition, he would play that well over an entire season in a major conference.

That’s why I think JJ Redick’s season is more impressive. But please note, JJ Redick is having one of the best offensive seasons in the past 20 years of college basketball. To say Morrison hasn’t been as impressive as Redick to this point in the season is in NO WAY an insult to Morrison. He has been absolutely tremendous, and is definitely one of the two players worthy of consideration for NPOTY.


----------



## tbp82 (Dec 7, 2005)

*Re: ESPN The Adam Morrison Sweepstakes*

ESPN also has on thier big board Morrison at number #3 behind the recently rising Rudy Gay at Number #2 and the one bad game away from slipping out of the No. 1 spot Lamarcus Aldridge. Anyone on this board knows that my #1 guy is Aldridge but Gay has looked great recently and despite not having as much potential as an NBA player Morrison's numbers are hard to ignore. My top five based on how I rank the prospect would look like this.

1. Lamarcus Aldridge-barley hanging on here he can't continue to be in foul trouble and stay ahead of Gay but he bounced back well with 17 and 11 on Monday.

2. Rudy Gay-Freakish Athlete. Josh Smith 2 maybe? Is on the rise for sure with a legit chance to overtake Aldridge only reason he isn't number 1 is because teams usually draft big guys over wings.

3. Andrea Bargini-second best big man available according to most site also has chance to reach number 1.

4. Tyrus Thomas-Atheltic big man who with a few strong showings in workouts could rise even higher.

5. Adam Morrison-Having to play spectacular on the college level just to be considered a top pick. Could go as high as numeber #1 but could fall to the back of the lottery I think he will be better than expected in workouts by scouts but way lower than expected by most great white hope fans. Workouts will hurt him for sure but you can't ignore what he has accomplished.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*

This guy is getting too much hype.

If he ends up better then Big Dog or Wally Z then it would almost be a miracle. Both of those players made the all-star game. Wally Z is not a bad player. I see Morrison following the same statline in a best case scenario. I still consider Wally Z a better shooter.

People who say Morrison is close to Bird are crazy. Morrison isn't an exceptional shooter. What does he shoot from the line? 79%? Bird was in the high 80's and low 90's during the NBA. 

Also, he plays for Gonzaga and the system gives him all the plays he wants. If he goes to the NBA and gets all these shots with the whole team revolving around him then he might score 25ppg. Will this happen? Not in this lifetime. This guy will never score 25ppg in the NBA. You can bank on that. The best this guy will ever be is Wally Z. If he becomes Big Dog then the Lord is with him.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*



> People who say Morrison is close to Bird are crazy. Morrison isn't an exceptional shooter. What does he shoot from the line? 79%? Bird was in the high 80's and low 90's during the NBA.


Uhhh so free throw shooting is the only measure of a great shooter?.....Adam's shooting over 50% from the field and nearly 45% from behind the 3 point line.....and last time I checked when was almost 80% a bad percentage?


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*



The Truth said:


> But please note, JJ Redick is having *one of the best offensive seasons in the past 20 years* of college basketball.


Redick is having an outstanding offensive season, but to claim it is one of the best in the past 20 years is going a bit too far. In fact, I wouldn't even classify Redick's offensive exploits as better than fellow Devil Jason Williams in his sophomore year or Laettner/Ferry in their final seasons.

As for non-Duke players, Glenn Robinson, Manning, Shaq, Payton, Larry Johnson, and David Robinson all had superior seasons to Redick. Antawn Jamison, Iverson, Brand, Kidd, Webber, Donyell Marshall, Ray Allen, and Kenny Anderson, among others, had great offensive seasons as well.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*

I think we will have to wait unitl the tourney to truly assess his ability. I think it won't matter. He's a winner.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



Hoopla said:


> Redick is having an outstanding offensive season, but to claim it is one of the best in the past 20 years is going a bit too far. In fact, I wouldn't even classify Redick's offensive exploits as better than fellow Devil Jason Williams in his sophomore year or Laettner/Ferry in their final seasons.
> 
> As for non-Duke players, Glenn Robinson, Manning, Shaq, Payton, Larry Johnson, and David Robinson all had superior seasons to Redick. Antawn Jamison, Iverson, Brand, Kidd, Webber, Donyell Marshall, Ray Allen, and Kenny Anderson, among others, had great offensive seasons as well.


I said it's one of the best *offensive* seasons in the past 20 years.

And I'll stand by that.

I didn't say it was the best. I didn't say it was one of the top 3...just one of the best. 

Let's not forget, he's already scored 30+ points 10 times this season, of which he scored 40+ points 3 times. Barring injury, he is going to be the ACC's all-time leading scorer and the NCAA career 3 point leader.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*

NCAA Scoring Leaders 

2005	Keydren Clark
2004	Keydren Clark
2003	Ruben Douglas
2002	Jason Conley
2001	Ronnie McCollum
2000	Courtney Alexander
1999	Alvin Young
1998	Charles Jones
1997	Charles Jones
1996	Kevin Granger
1995	Kurt Thomas
*1994	Glenn Robinson*
1993	Greg Guy
1992	Brett Roberts
1991	Kevin Bradshaw
1990	Bo Kimble
1989	Hank Gathers
1988	Hersey Hawkins
1987	Kevin Houston
1986	Terrance Bailey

Out of the past 20 seasons, only *one* player has led the nation in scoring playing in a major conference! And since a vast majority of the best players play in the major conferences, this only demonstrates how much more difficult it is to maintain a high scoring average in a major conference versus a mid-major or minor conference. This also explains why I think Redick’s performance this season and Robinson’s season in 1994 are more impressive than Morrison’s.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: rank morrison*



Hoopla said:


> Redick is having an outstanding offensive season, but to claim it is one of the best in the past 20 years is going a bit too far. In fact, I wouldn't even classify Redick's offensive exploits as better than fellow Devil Jason Williams in his sophomore year or Laettner/Ferry in their final seasons.
> 
> As for non-Duke players, Glenn Robinson, Manning, Shaq, Payton, Larry Johnson, and David Robinson all had superior seasons to Redick. Antawn Jamison, Iverson, Brand, Kidd, Webber, Donyell Marshall, Ray Allen, and Kenny Anderson, among others, had great offensive seasons as well.


If you believe that then I'll assume you would say the same for Morrison's season?


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*



The Truth said:


> I said it's one of the best offensive seasons in the past 20 years.


I understood that you were only discussing offense, as I stated such in my earlier post.



> I didn't say it was the best. I didn't say it was one of the top 3...just one of the best.


When I hear the phrase "one of the best", especially in this context, at worst I think top 5 or 6. Maybe we are using different definitions - which rough figure were you implying?



> Let's not forget, he's already scored 30+ points 10 times this season, of which he scored 40+ points 3 times. Barring injury, he is going to be the ACC's all-time leading scorer and the NCAA career 3 point leader.
> 
> Out of the past 20 seasons, only one player has led the nation in scoring playing in a major conference! And since a vast majority of the best players play in the major conferences, this only demonstrates how much more difficult it is to maintain a high scoring average in a major conference versus a mid-major or minor conference. This also explains why I think Redick’s performance this season and Robinson’s season in 1994 are more impressive than Morrison’s.


Redick is scoring a tremendous amount; I'm not denying that. But a few points:

1. Scoring doesn't equal offense; it is only a part of offense. Redick is a below average ball-handler and an average passer at best. He also relies heavily on picks/screens. So while he produces points incredibly well, it is important to realize that his offense dedicates a very high percentage of its effort to him.

2. Coach K leaves him in blowouts much longer than most other players. I can't give him credit for putting points up when the game is out of hand, while other stars usually sit on the bench. So his points per minute isn't as good as his points per game would suggest.

3. Most of the players I mentioned are big men, which is not a coincidence. Their post up game is easier to build an offense around and they are much more efficient scorers - many of them had FG%s over 60%.

If you want to narrow it down to the best scorers or SGs, then certainly Redick would rank more favorably. Or if you want to further narrow it to best shooter, I would consider Redick to be the best one college basketball has seen since Alford and Mullin. But as an offensive player, like I stated earlier, he isn't even having the best season in school history.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*



ralaw said:


> If you believe that then I'll assume you would say the same for Morrison's season?


Yes, because I think Redick and Morrison are very close to one another.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



Hoopla said:


> I understood that you were only discussing offense, as I stated such in my earlier post.
> 
> 
> When I hear the phrase "one of the best", especially in this context, at worst I think top 5 or 6. Maybe we are using different definitions - which rough figure were you implying?
> ...


The goal of an offense is to score, and Redick scores a ton. I agree with you, however, that scoring a ton of points doesn't necessarily mean that someone is a great offensive player.

Redick is scoring more than anyone has scored in the ACC for a very long time. Right now he's shooting just over 50%, which is extremely uncommon for a shooting guard who is the focal point of the offense. Also, Redick doesn't turn the ball over an outrageous number of times. 

So why should we discount his scoring because he supposedly relies on screens? If he scores the ball efficiently, and the goal of any offensive game plan is to score the ball efficiently, the fact that his teammates set screens for him and runs plays for him should in no way discount the season he's having. 

How is that any different from Wake Forest utilizing Tim Duncan in their offense by dumping the ball in to him on the low post? In both cases, the offense is being run to get Redick/Duncan the ball in a position to score.

And besides all that, I disagree with the premise of your statement that Redick "heavily relies" on screens. He has become incredibly adept at creating for himself (as witnessed Tuesday night against UNC) and getting to the line, both of which are evidenced by the significant reduction in the number of his 3 point attempts as a percentage of his total field goal attempts this season. The players defending him overplay his outside shot so much that Redick has learned to exploit the overcommitment to create shots for himself.





> 2. Coach K leaves him in blowouts much longer than most other players. I can't give him credit for putting points up when the game is out of hand, while other stars usually sit on the bench. So his points per minute isn't as good as his points per game would suggest.


In Duke's biggest blowout of the season (Seton Hall), Redick played only 29 minutes, in which he scored 18 points. In the Texas game, he was pulled with 3 minutes left to play, which I think is perfectly reasonable because Texas was the #2 team in the nation and K wanted to make sure they were completely buried before pulling Redick. In the Valpo blowout, Redick was taken out in the second half, and only played 33 minutes. Against UNC-Greensboro, Redick played only 32 minutes, against Bucknell he played only 33 minutes (scoring only 22 points). In the Virginia blowout, Redick played only 34 minutes (scoring 40 points on only 13 attempts from the floor).

I think you may be mistaken in this assertion. As I have shown, Redick's numbers were significantly reduced in blowout games.



> 3. Most of the players I mentioned are big men, which is not a coincidence. Their post up game is easier to build an offense around and they are much more efficient scorers - many of them had FG%s over 60%.
> 
> If you want to narrow it down to the best scorers or SGs, then certainly Redick would rank more favorably. Or if you want to further narrow it to best shooter, I would consider Redick to be the best one college basketball has seen since Alford and Mullin.


But there’s a reason those big men typically aren’t among the high scorers; their scoring depends on the ability of the guards to get them the ball, which also explains why big men aren’t usually the focal point of an offense down the stretch of key games. Now I know that you will argue that Redick relies on his teammates to get him shots as well, but I think that he’s displayed this year that he can provide offense down the stretch, and create for himself. 

Also, if you are going to take into account typically higher field goal percentages for big men, you also have to consider JJ’s 3 point production. JJ is shooting 44% on 3s this year. 44% from 3s is more efficient than 60% from the floor. Out of 20 shots, JJ shooting 44% is going to create 26.4 points on average, whereas your big man shooting 60% from the floor on 20 shots is going to create 24 points on average.

Then you also have to consider free throw percentage. JJ is going to be far more efficient from the line than your 60% shooting big man.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*

I thought about the suggestion that an outstanding offensive year for a big man would be more impressive than Redick’s season because the big man would presumably score more efficiently, as the field goal percentage would be higher. 

So I decided to do a little statistical analysis comparing Redick this season to Duncan’s senior season at Wake. Hang in there, this gets a bit complicated.

edit: See my revised calculation later in the thread.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

*Re: ESPN The Adam Morrison Sweepstakes*



tbp82 said:


> 3. Andrea Bargini-second best big man available according to most site also has chance to reach number 1.


Have you actually seen him play, or are you just rating him on what you've read on draft websites?


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



The Truth said:


> Please, the sanctimonious lecturing is a bit old, ya dig?
> 
> Morrison gets a ton of defensive attention, but SO DOES REDICK.
> 
> And yes, playing a team for the 6th time DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it so.


Considering that most teams have no more than 1 or 2 players that have played Redick six times, I really don't see how it is relevent. A lot of teams don't even have the same coaches. The fact of the matter is that Morrison isn't the type of guy you can coach or strategize to stop. The kind of shots he hits would be horrible shots for any other player. He either makes the shots, or misses them. Defense doesn't really affect Morrison, and that is why he is considered a top 3 pick in the upcoming draft despite not having the footspeed to warrant that type of selection. 

I'm calling this argument what it is: you saying anything to back up a conclusion you came up with before you looked at the facts. 



> Dude, you have some strange, pent up animosity towards me. I'm not exactly sure why you're throwing such a fit in this thread. I said I think Morrison is a fantastic player and I wouldn't be upset if he and JJ were to share NPOTY. Is that so unreasonable?


It absolutely the height of unreasonable to try and argue that Morrison playing in the WCC reduces his accomplishments when he's a significantly better player against top competition. Do you even watch Morrison? 



> And as I've said before, I don't give a **** what kind of fan you think I am. I'm not interested in measuring up to any JonathanWatters college basketball fandom threshold. I'm just wondering why _you_ give a **** about what kind of fan I am.


If you don't care what I think, you don't need to get ornery and start swearing. I call spade a spade. If you don't want to be called out as a Duke propaganda mouthpiece, don't act like one. 



> edit: BTW, if you think Morrison is more deserving of NPOTY than JJ at this point of the season, I'd love to hear an argument.


Because Morrison goes 1-on-5 for for every shot he makes. Defenses send three guys at him all the time. He has to work incredibly hard just to catch the ball. Redick gets his points within an offense, but what does he isn't getting all those screens and plays called for him? Morrison could go out there with four junior highers and shoot 50% from the floor. 

Redick gets attention, but not close to the attention that Morrison gets. He still has space to operate. Morrison is stuffed every time down the floor, and still dominates. 

Redick has started to create his own shot. Some of the things he did down the stretch were pretty amazing. Morrison has been doing that and more for two years, and nearly every shot he takes is just as difficult as that off the dribble dagger that Redick hit late in the UNC game. Morrison does those types of things in his sleep. 

The reality is that most of this stuff comes from watching both players play extensively over the past two seasons. I really doubt you have seen a whole lot of Morrison this year, but I am sure that even if you had, you wouldn't admit just how good he has been this season for the simple reason that he might just be better than a player that goes to the school that you cheer for.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*

How many games did VMI win against high caliber competition when Conley was there? Were any of the games you mention even close? It might just be a _little_ different than Morrison singlehandedly keep his team competitive/beating several of the top 10 teams in the nation this year.

Of course, you probably knew this before you posted...



The Truth said:


> Jason Conley led the nation in scoring as a freshman at VMI (30 ppg). A lot of people argued that his scoring average was a result of playing mediocre competition, but that season, in his team’s biggest games, he scored 24 against Kentucky, 25 against Virginia, and 38 against Villanova.
> 
> In Conley’s sophomore season he only played 10 games, averaging 22 ppg. That season, he scored 25 points against Tennessee.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*



The Truth said:


> So why should we discount his scoring because he supposedly relies on screens? If he scores the ball efficiently, and the goal of any offensive game plan is to score the ball efficiently, the fact that his teammates set screens for him and runs plays for him should in no way discount the season he's having.


Take for instance the famed Antawn Jamison game where he scored something like 35 points despite touching the ball for only 50 seconds. That is remarkable efficiency; it's not solely about shooting percentages. Redick uses up much more time on the shot clock, and if he realizes that he doesn't have a good shot, the other options on his team have less time to work with and have to start from scratch. Redick's scoring doesn't occur perfectly within the flow of Duke's offense. Of course his scoring is so good that Duke makes space for it, but that doesn't mean that his scoring is an ideal environment for his teamates to thrive.



> How is that any different from Wake Forest utilizing Tim Duncan in their offense by dumping the ball in to him on the low post? In both cases, the offense is being run to get Redick/Duncan the ball in a position to score.


It's different because Wake Forest isn't getting the ball to Duncan just to score. Duncan was the foundation of that offense, as a great post man has the ability to be. Extra attention paid to Duncan eventually hurt defenses without him having to score. Redick doesn't have the same affect, outside of his scoring.



> And besides all that, I disagree with the premise of your statement that Redick "heavily relies" on screens. He has become incredibly adept at creating for himself (as witnessed Tuesday night against UNC) and getting to the line, both of which are evidenced by the significant reduction in the number of his 3 point attempts as a percentage of his total field goal attempts this season. The players defending him overplay his outside shot so much that Redick has learned to exploit the overcommitment to create shots for himself.


You're right that he doesn't rely on screens as much as he did last year. But he still relies on them and has them run for him much more than most any other player. And he has absolutely expanded his game from last year, which he deserves plenty of credit for.



> In Duke's biggest blowout of the season (Seton Hall), Redick played only 29 minutes, in which he scored 18 points. In the Texas game, he was pulled with 3 minutes left to play, which I think is perfectly reasonable because Texas was the #2 team in the nation and K wanted to make sure they were completely buried before pulling Redick. In the Valpo blowout, Redick was taken out in the second half, and only played 33 minutes. Against UNC-Greensboro, Redick played only 32 minutes, against Bucknell he played only 33 minutes (scoring only 22 points). In the Virginia blowout, Redick played only 34 minutes (scoring 40 points on only 13 attempts from the floor).


I've seen a decent amount of games where Redick is in the game with 4/5 minutes left and the game is in Duke's favor by a wide margin. The Texas game was over far before the 3 minute mark. And those figures you give aren't exactly low; he's still getting taken out later than another team's player would. He's averaging 37 minutes per game on a team that is 22-1 and is outscoring opponents by an average of 17 points per game. I'm not saying that Coach K is classless or anything, but just that we can't only look at ppg figures when Redick clearly has the advantage of playing more minutes.



> But there's a reason those big men typically aren't among the high scorers; their scoring depends on the ability of the guards to get them the ball, which also explains why big men aren't usually the focal point of an offense down the stretch of key games. Now I know that you will argue that Redick relies on his teammates to get him shots as well, but I think that he's displayed this year that he can provide offense down the stretch, and create for himself.


Guards getting them the ball is a minor criteria, as long as they are your standard big men with a post-up game. And down the stretch of key games, big men do get the ball if they are the star of their team (unless you are talking about an inbounding situation with 2 seconds left).


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*



The Truth said:


> So let’s consider 20 field goal attempts. For every 20 field goal attempts, Redick and Duncan will shoot:
> 
> Redick – 8.52 ft (20 x 0.426) 10 3pt (20 x 0.5)
> Duncan – 13.96 ft (20 x 0.698) 1.14 3pt (20 x 0.057)
> ...


Hmm...you are double counting the 3 pointers. 3 pointers are a subset of field goals, which was the first item you calculated. So you need to change the value of the 3 pointer to 1 point each, because 2 of the points are already included under field goals. Based on this and sticking with your 20 FG attempts standard:

Redick = 20.2 + 7.41 + 4.4 = 32.01
Duncan = 24.4 + 8.93 + .3 = 33.63

Again, I'm not taking anything away from Redick. To have a chance at the 50% FG/40% 3 pointers/90% FT mark is a remarkable achievement, although oddly enough the FTs are where he will have the most difficulty.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



Hoopla said:


> Hmm...you are double counting the 3 pointers. 3 pointers are a subset of field goals, which was the first item you calculated. So you need to change the value of the 3 pointer to 1 point each, because 2 of the points are already included under field goals. Based on this and sticking with your 20 FG attempts standard:
> 
> Redick = 20.2 + 7.41 + 4.4 = 32.01
> Duncan = 24.4 + 8.93 + .3 = 33.63
> ...


No no no....

I actually realized that my calculation was flawed right after I posted it. Your calculation is flawed, though, too. You can't just add 1 point on for 3 pointers, because on 3 pointers, 2 of the 3 points are being calculated at their overall field goal percentage.

I have a new calculation that calculates points based on 10 shots. I have separated their 2 point attempts and 3 point attempts and isolated the 2 point fg % and their 3 point fg percentage.

So take Redick, for example. Out of every 10 shots, 5 are 3 pointers, 5 are 2 pointers. Then I also calculated how many free throw attempts he gets for every 10 shot attempts. Then I multiplied these numbers by the respective percentages and the value of the points to arrive at total points per 10 shot attempts.

See the results of the calculation in the post below.


And btw, that Antawn Jamison game you mentioned was one of the most impressive college games I've ever seen, and Antawn Jamison is one of the best college players I've ever witnessed. However, if you want to point to one game in particular, I thought Redick's game against UVA this year was just as impressive; 40 points on 13 field goal attempts in 34 minutes.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*

Okay, here's the revised scoring efficiency stat. As of 2/10/06

JJ Redick
Out of every 10 shots Redick takes, exactly 5 are 2 pt shots and 5 are 3 pt shots. For every 10 field goals Redick attempts, he attempts 4.26 free throws.

On 10 field goals, JJ averages:

(5 2 pt fga) x (.569 2 pt fg %) x (2 points) = 5.69

(5 3 pta) x (.44 3 pt %) x (3 points) = 6.60

(4.26 fta) x (.87 ft %) x (1 point) = 3.71

Total points per 10 field goal attempts = 16.0 


Tim Duncan

Out of every 10 shots Duncan took, 9.43 were 2 pt attempts and 0.57 were 3 pt attempts. For every 10 field goal attempts, Duncan attempted 6.99 fts.

On 10 field goals, Duncan averaged:

(9.43 2 pt fga) x (.628 2 pt fg %) x (2 points) = 11.84

(0.57 3 pta) x (.27 3 pt %) x (3 points) = 0.462

(6.99 fta) x (.64 ft %) x (1 point) = 4.47

Total points per 10 field goal attempts = 16.72


Adam Morrison
Out of every 10 shots Morrison takes, 7.52 are 2 pt attempts and 2.48 are 3 pt attempts. For every 10 field goal attempts, Morrison attempts 4.57 fts.

On 10 field goals, Morrison averages:

(7.52 2 pt fga) x (.535 2 pt fg %) x (2 points) = 8.04

(2.48 3 pta) x (.43 3 pt %) x (3 points) = 3.20

(4.57 fta) x (.73 ft %) x (1 point) = 3.34

Total points per 10 field goal attempts = 14.58


This demonstrates that Duncan was a more efficient scorer per shot attempt than Morrison and Redick, but this of course ignores the fact that Redick and Morrison shoot—and score—in a higher volume than Duncan did.

There’s no denying the fact that all 3 of these players are very efficient scorers. Judgment enters this equation when you have to consider the magnitude in which volume matters. I would argue that Redick and Morrison’s offensive accomplishments this season are greater than Duncan’s because they score so much more than he did (7.6 points per game more). Because they are so efficient—though not quite as efficient as Duncan—because the fact that they are undoubtedly the number one scoring option on their respective teams, and also the most efficient scoring options, the added volume helps their teams that much more.

To try to clarify, let’s consider a different situation in which player A scores 8 points more than Duncan per game, but the added scoring comes at the cost of shooting 42% from the floor and 35% from 3s. In this case I would not consider the benefit of the higher volume because it obviously comes with the cost of poor offensive efficiency.

Conversely, you could probably search the country and find someone that has an incredibly high scoring efficiency per 10 shots, but only averages 10 points or so per game. Obviously at the decreased scoring volume, you can’t consider it a great offensive season.

I know this basically comes down to a judgment call, and in my judgment it’s fair to say that Redick’s offensive season is just as impressive as Duncan’s senior year.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



Jonathan Watters said:


> Considering that most teams have no more than 1 or 2 players that have played Redick six times, I really don't see how it is relevent. A lot of teams don't even have the same coaches. *The fact of the matter is that Morrison isn't the type of guy you can coach or strategize to stop. The kind of shots he hits would be horrible shots for any other player. He either makes the shots, or misses them. Defense doesn't really affect Morrison,* and that is why he is considered a top 3 pick in the upcoming draft despite not having the footspeed to warrant that type of selection.


In the section I bolded, you can insert Redick’s name for Morrison, and everything you said still applies.



> I'm calling this argument what it is: you saying anything to back up a conclusion you came up with before you looked at the facts.


I have provided facts. I’ve provided statistics. Since we will never know how Morrison’s numbers would be affected if he were to play a full season in a major conference, I provided the numbers of someone who dominated a lesser conference (and even played well against major conference teams in non-conference games) and then experienced a significant drop in scoring when he transferred to a major conference. 

Please remember, I did not claim that Morrison would experience a similar decrease; I only wanted to display that scoring a lot in a select number of games against major competition does not mean that a player can sustain the same level of offense when playing a full major conference season.

I then provided the past 20 national scoring leaders, out of which only one player played in a major conference. Considering that and the fact that a vast majority of the top players play in major conferences, it only supports my assertion that Redick’s scoring average is more impressive than Morrison’s (though Morrison’s is incredibly impressive).

If you don’t agree with that, that’s fine with me. But please stop saying that I’m not supporting my argument.




> It absolutely the height of unreasonable to try and argue that Morrison playing in the WCC reduces his accomplishments when he's a significantly better player against top competition. Do you even watch Morrison?


Please stop with the “you never see Gonzaga games” statements. You have absolutely no idea what games I watch.

I’ve said that Morrison is an incredible player. If we were to apply your logic to your assumption that I never watch Gonzaga games, my assertion that Morrison is an incredible player would also be discredited. I don’t know if I need to say this in *bold* or in all CAPS, but please note: IMO opinion Morrison is a great/fantastic/incredible player!



> If you don't care what I think, you don't need to get ornery and start swearing. I call spade a spade. If you don't want to be called out as a Duke propaganda mouthpiece, don't act like one.


Thanks for calling spades spades. Actually, I’d call it making assumptions. And the swearing was just casual conversation stuff. Saying “I don’t give a ****” is just casual talk…not in any way meant to indicate that I’m upset.



> Because Morrison goes 1-on-5 for for every shot he makes. Defenses send three guys at him all the time. He has to work incredibly hard just to catch the ball. Redick gets his points within an offense, but what does he isn't getting all those screens and plays called for him? Morrison could go out there with four junior highers and shoot 50% from the floor.


Now this is where you really start to lose me. Why is Morrison going 1 on 5 for every shot he gets somehow better than Redick scoring within the offense (which I don’t necessarily agree with)? I would argue that it’s _worse_, because he’s taking his teammates out of the offense. But regardless, if Redick scores a 3 after coming off a screen or Morrison scores by supposedly going “1-on-5,” they are both scoring within the offense. It’s just that Gonzaga’s offense is running a “1-on-5” and Duke’s offense is running Redick off a screen. The whole idea of “scoring within the offense” is such a common fallacy. The only way a player doesn’t score “within the offense” is if he makes a bucket for the other team.



> Redick gets attention, but not close to the attention that Morrison gets. He still has space to operate. Morrison is stuffed every time down the floor, and still dominates.


Actually, I would say Redick and Morrison receive very similar attention from opposing defenses. Sure, JJ has Shelden, but Morrison has Batista. And Duke doesn’t have a 3rd scoring option that scores as much as Raivio. So if JJ and Morrison score the same amount, and they account for nearly the same percentage of their respective teams’ scoring offense, why would Morrison get more attention from opposing defenses than Redick?



> Redick has started to create his own shot. Some of the things he did down the stretch were pretty amazing. Morrison has been doing that and more for two years, and nearly every shot he takes is just as difficult as that off the dribble dagger that Redick hit late in the UNC game. Morrison does those types of things in his sleep.


Redick didn't just hit the dribble dagger in the UNC game. He hit 3 3 pointers down the stretch of the UNC game. Remember, they were down by 5 (i believe) with under 4 mintutes to go. Then Redick took over.

And don't forget the FSU game. 

Actually, this season, I would say that Redick and Morrison have performed comparatively well in crunch time.


*I’m going to insert your response to my other post here:



> How many games did VMI win against high caliber competition when Conley was there? Were any of the games you mention even close? It might just be a little different than Morrison singlehandedly keep his team competitive/beating several of the top 10 teams in the nation this year.
> 
> Of course, you probably knew this before you posted...


VMI was terrible that year, but Conley didn’t have even close to as good as teammates as Morrison has. Conley had NOBODY. He didn’t have a Batista, he didn’t have a Raivio. Hell, he didn’t even have a Pargo. 

And, if you’re going to say that Morrison singlehandedly keeps his team competitive against top competition, the same can go for JJ. Like I said before, Morrison has just as much help on offense as JJ does.

And keeping his team competitive/beating several of the top 10 teams in the nation? They haven’t beaten a single top 10 team in the nation this season!



> The reality is that most of this stuff comes from watching both players play extensively over the past two seasons. I really doubt you have seen a whole lot of Morrison this year, but I am sure that even if you had, you wouldn't admit just how good he has been this season for the simple reason that he might just be better than a player that goes to the school that you cheer for.


Okay. You called me out for making unsupportable statements. I have since supported my statements with statistical data: I provided the Jason Conley example, the list of the top scorers over last 20 years, and I have now provided an in-depth and complex offensive efficiency statistic. Considering what you have said to this point in our discussion, it seems to me that ultimately, you’re supporting your opinion by asserting that your opinion is valid and my opinion isn’t, based on your assumption that I haven’t watched Morrison. You have also supported your argument by claiming that my opinion is biased and that I’m not a true college basketball fan, but just another Duke homer.

You asked me to support my statements. You claimed that they were unsupportable. You claimed that I was aware of the fact that they are unsupportable.

I supported those claims. And now you support your argument with a logical fallacy; your opinion is valid—and mine is invalid—because I’m a Duke fan and you’re a college basketball fan; because I’m biased and you’re completely objective. As much as I hate to point out, you’re arguing the debater, not the point of the actual debate.

Please, let me once more summarize my position. I think that Redick and Morrison are absolutely incredible offensive players. I believe that Redick’s accomplishments this year are slightly more impressive, but I would not have a problem with them sharing the NPOTY award.

Now, I believe that you think Redick is a great player as well. I also believe that you think Morrison is having a more impressive season. I don’t agree with you. However, as I think both players are pretty spectacular, I find that to be a reasonable opinion and position. What I can’t figure out is why you don’t consider my opinion to be a reasonable one, and why you seem to take such offense to the position I’ve taken.

We have a difference of opinion; however I believe that both opinions are reasonable. I’m not sure why you don’t.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*



The Truth said:


> And btw, that Antawn Jamison game you mentioned was one of the most impressive college games I've ever seen, and Antawn Jamison is one of the best college players I've ever witnessed. However, if you want to point to one game in particular, I thought Redick's game against UVA this year was just as impressive; 40 points on 13 field goal attempts in 34 minutes.


My point wasn't to only refer to one game. That game was the only one where I had actual documentation of the "time with the ball in hands" stat to support the point I was making. Jamison did have an incredible game, but it's not as if it was completely out of character.



> There’s no denying the fact that all 3 of these players are very efficient scorers. Judgment enters this equation when you have to consider the magnitude in which volume matters. I would argue that Redick and Morrison’s offensive accomplishments this season are greater than Duncan’s because they score so much more than he did (7.6 points per game more). Because they are so efficient—though not quite as efficient as Duncan—because the fact that they are undoubtedly the number one scoring option on their respective teams, and also the most efficient scoring options, the added volume helps their teams that much more.
> 
> To try to clarify, let’s consider a different situation in which player A scores 8 points more than Duncan per game, but the added scoring comes at the cost of shooting 42% from the floor and 35% from 3s. In this case I would not consider the benefit of the higher volume because it obviously comes with the cost of poor offensive efficiency.


I agree that these are all factors that need to be taken into account, as should points per minute, ability to create for others, ball-handling and other factors like I stated earlier.



> I know this basically comes down to a judgment call, and in my judgment it’s fair to say that Redick’s offensive season is just as impressive as Duncan’s senior year.


Duncan is an interesting player that I hadn't thought of, probably because he stands out as the best defensive player I've seen on the college level. I wouldn't rank him up with some of the other names in terms of offensive prowess but he certainly was a terrific offensive player, and it's fair to consider Redick's offensive season on par or even slightly superior to Duncan's.

Since I haven't actually mentioned who I would rank high, here is how I would rank the top 3 offensive seasons in the past 20 years:
1. Shaq, 1991
2. Larry Johnson, 1991
3. David Robinson, 1987

I also think Kidd and Payton had spectacular final collegiate seasons.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



Hoopla said:


> My point wasn't to only refer to one game. That game was the only one where I had actual documentation of the "time with the ball in hands" stat to support the point I was making. Jamison did have an incredible game, but it's not as if it was completely out of character.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I chose Duncan because he fit the big man description that you suggested, and I knew that he was an incredibly efficient scorer in college.

Actually, check out Christian Laettner's statistsics during his senior year. Factor in his percentages, and it's pretty incredible.

Payton would probably be very close to the top.

edit: Actually, I ran a few more calculations

LJ: 17.09
Laettner: 16.99
Duncan: 16.72
Redick: 16.0
Jamison: 15.55
Robinson: 15.24
Shaq: 15.16
Morrison: 14.58
Payton: 13.05

Obviously, Shaq's horrendous free throw shooting hurts him, and Payton had mediocre 3 point and ft percentages.

And of course, this calculation only considers scoring efficiency, so it doesn't take into account Payton's assists. I would actually tend to argue more on the side of Payton than Shaq.

Considering that these are some of the greatest offensive seasons in recent history, and that Redick's scoring volume is greater than every person on this list (except Morrison), I still feel comfortable saying, to this point of the season, JJ is having one of the best offensive seasons in the past 20 years.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



The Truth said:


> In the section I bolded, you can insert Redick’s name for Morrison, and everything you said still applies.


I challenge you to find a non-Duke fan that would support you on that. Redick does some of that, but not even close to the level of an Adam Morrison. Not even close. 



> I have provided facts. I’ve provided statistics. Since we will never know how Morrison’s numbers would be affected if he were to play a full season in a major conference, I provided the numbers of someone who dominated a lesser conference (and even played well against major conference teams in non-conference games) and then experienced a significant drop in scoring when he transferred to a major conference.


And played on a team that was horrendous. For all we know, he scored those points in garbage time. Morrison is actually winning games for his team. If you can't see a difference there, you aren't worth arguing with. 



> Please remember, I did not claim that Morrison would experience a similar decrease; I only wanted to display that scoring a lot in a select number of games against major competition does not mean that a player can sustain the same level of offense when playing a full major conference season.


So because Jason Conley played 4 games against major competition (several of which were against downright lousy teams), in which his team was blown out, that invalidates Morrison's 20 games? Please. 



> If you don’t agree with that, that’s fine with me. But please stop saying that I’m not supporting my argument.


You aren't. Jason Conley has nothing to do with Adam Morrison. 



> I’ve said that Morrison is an incredible player. If we were to apply your logic to your assumption that I never watch Gonzaga games, my assertion that Morrison is an incredible player would also be discredited. I don’t know if I need to say this in *bold* or in all CAPS, but please note: IMO opinion Morrison is a great/fantastic/incredible player!


Of course you do. Only an idiot would try to say that he's not. 



> Now this is where you really start to lose me. Why is Morrison going 1 on 5 for every shot he gets somehow better than Redick scoring within the offense (which I don’t necessarily agree with)?


Because it shows that he is doing it regardless of what kind of defense is being thrown at him. Remember how this argument started? 



> I would argue that it’s _worse_, because he’s taking his teammates out of the offense. But regardless, if Redick scores a 3 after coming off a screen or Morrison scores by supposedly going “1-on-5,” they are both scoring within the offense. It’s just that Gonzaga’s offense is running a “1-on-5” and Duke’s offense is running Redick off a screen. The whole idea of “scoring within the offense” is such a common fallacy. The only way a player doesn’t score “within the offense” is if he makes a bucket for the other team.


So that's why Redick is considered a top 3 pick, and Morrison is only a late lottery pick, right? If we are arguing about competition level, it absolutely matters how Morrison gets his shots. If he was a system type of a player, you might have an argument. He isn't. I highly doubt Michigan State has prepared for an individual player as much as they prepared for Morrison. Go ahead and read what opposing coaches are saying after they play Morrison. "We did everything we could to stop him, but we couldn't" is the line that everybody from Lorenzo Romar to whoever the heck coaches San Fransisco has said. They aren't saying "but only if we got the chance to play him again..."

Who knows if Redick would average 30 in a system with that doesn't constantly screen for him, and create space for him to operate. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Morrison can go out and get 30 on anybody. 



> Actually, I would say Redick and Morrison receive very similar attention from opposing defenses. Sure, JJ has Shelden, but Morrison has Batista. And Duke doesn’t have a 3rd scoring option that scores as much as Raivio. So if JJ and Morrison score the same amount, and they account for nearly the same percentage of their respective teams’ scoring offense, why would Morrison get more attention from opposing defenses than Redick?


Then all I can say is that you have no conception of what you are watching, if you watching Morrison at all.



> Redick didn't just hit the dribble dagger in the UNC game. He hit 3 3 pointers down the stretch of the UNC game. Remember, they were down by 5 (i believe) with under 4 mintutes to go. Then Redick took over.


I am aware of what Redick did that night. And I am telling you that Morrison takes those types of shots every time he shoots the ball. He never gets a clear path to the basket. He never gets an open look. Redick does. 



> VMI was terrible that year, but Conley didn’t have even close to as good as teammates as Morrison has. Conley had NOBODY. He didn’t have a Batista, he didn’t have a Raivio. Hell, he didn’t even have a Pargo.


You have already talked about how many of the top scorers come from small conferences. They play for crappy/mediocre teams. Morrison's team is winning game. Garbage time baskets when you are down by 20 in the first half don't count. You take any "top player" on a decent high level team and put them in the right situation at the next level down, and they are going to be able to score a lot. It doesn't mean their team is going to win though. Morrison wins games. 



> And keeping his team competitive/beating several of the top 10 teams in the nation? They haven’t beaten a single top 10 team in the nation this season!


Are you serious? It took a buzzer beater for UConn to beat them. They are the #1 team in the country. Michigan State will be ranked in the top 10 the next time the polls come out. They were beating Memphis well into the 2nd half. These aren't games where Morrison hit a few garbage buckets once the powerhouse team was up by 20. Morrison almost single-handedly kept Gonzaga in all three of those games. He won the Michigan State game by himself, and was the only player to show up against Memphis. 

Like I said before: have you been watching? 



> Okay. You called me out for making unsupportable statements. I have since supported my statements with statistical data: I provided the Jason Conley example, the list of the top scorers over last 20 years, and I have now provided an in-depth and complex offensive efficiency statistic. Considering what you have said to this point in our discussion, it seems to me that ultimately, you’re supporting your opinion by asserting that your opinion is valid and my opinion isn’t, based on your assumption that I haven’t watched Morrison. You have also supported your argument by claiming that my opinion is biased and that I’m not a true college basketball fan, but just another Duke homer.


You support your argument with an efficiency statistic that says they are just about even. You support your argument about Morrison's competition level by finding one player who played for a horrible team that happened get blown out by a Kentucky team, where he happened to score 20 some points. That isn't an argument. That's hot air. If that is an argument, you might as well try to convince me that the sky is green. 



> You asked me to support my statements. You claimed that they were unsupportable. You claimed that I was aware of the fact that they are unsupportable.
> 
> I supported those claims. And now you support your argument with a logical fallacy; your opinion is valid—and mine is invalid—because I’m a Duke fan and you’re a college basketball fan; because I’m biased and you’re completely objective. As much as I hate to point out, you’re arguing the debater, not the point of the actual debate.


I have called you out, yes. But don't try to act like I haven't been supporting my opinions. 



> Please, let me once more summarize my position. I think that Redick and Morrison are absolutely incredible offensive players. I believe that Redick’s accomplishments this year are slightly more impressive, but I would not have a problem with them sharing the NPOTY award.
> 
> Now, I believe that you think Redick is a great player as well. I also believe that you think Morrison is having a more impressive season. I don’t agree with you. However, as I think both players are pretty spectacular, I find that to be a reasonable opinion and position. What I can’t figure out is why you don’t consider my opinion to be a reasonable one, and why you seem to take such offense to the position I’ve taken.
> 
> We have a difference of opinion; however I believe that both opinions are reasonable. I’m not sure why you don’t.


Great. You wouldn't have a problem with Morrison and Redick sharing the award. Who would? I sort of feel like they both deserve the recognition as well, but I'm not reaching to the moon for something that supports the guy I happen to root for. 

My issue is with your argument about competition level to prove that Redick is having the better season. There is nothing to it, Jason Conley scoring 29 against a terrible Tennessee team that still won by 20 isn't helping you any.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



Jonathan Watters said:


> I challenge you to find a non-Duke fan that would support you on that. Redick does some of that, but not even close to the level of an Adam Morrison. Not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sorry. You're completely objective assessment of Morrison's is much superior to my obviously biased assessment.

I'm just a silly old biased Duke fan. I actually had a chip installed in my television to block out any non-Duke games.

I should have taken the advice I received in pm to ignore you. At least it's nice to know that I'm not the only one tired of your "I'm a college basketball expert, my opinion is fact" act. It's getting tiresome.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*



The Truth said:


> I'm sorry. You're completely objective assessment of Morrison's is much superior to my obviously biased assessment.
> 
> I'm just a silly old biased Duke fan. I actually had a chip installed in my television to block out any non-Duke games.
> 
> I should have taken the advice I received in pm to ignore you. At least it's nice to know that I'm not the only one tired of your "I'm a college basketball expert, my opinion is fact" act. It's getting tiresome.


Are you burnt out?


Burnt out of using the same old lame arguments to try and take away from Adam's game?.....

We'll see come tournament time who is the better player...Thats when the game matters the most and thats when great players elevate their games....


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*

I don't know if Reddick's game will carry over to the NBA at a significant level, but i have gained mass respect for the guy and i pursue Duke games now to watch him play. He is fun to watch at this level and he should be appreciated for it. I hope he finds a place in the NBA.

Upside Morrison is a hard edged 20 to 25 point scorer...downside he is the perimeter version of Andrew Bogut. I think he will be the first, but you never know.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*

The upside of Morrison is Wally Z and the downside is Mike Dunleavy, who isn't a bad player himself. Morrison will ball in the NBA, but people who keep saying he is going to be a multi level all-star are losing their minds. Carmelo Anthony is averaging 25 ppg in the NBA and he didn't make the all-star team. Is Adam Morrison better then Carmelo Anthony? If you think Adam Morrison is better then Carmelo Anthony then you are zagsfan or have Morrison in your avatar.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*

I don't believe Morrison is a lock NBA All-Star, or a better NBA prospect than Carmelo Anthony. Is he a better player right now than Carmelo Anthony was as a freshman? Absolutely.


----------



## DHarris34Phan (Oct 28, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*

JW, I went through the same things when aruging for Andrew Bogut last year before the draft. The only thing they could come up with (besides the skin color) was the fact that he didn't play in a big conference.

Both Bogut and Morrison both show that against even the highest levels of competitions, they are amazing players and show the skills that are making them stars in the small leagues. The small sample size against the Big Leagues (which really only have 4 or 5 GOOD teams nowadays) may turn some people off, but IMO, if a guy can play, he can play, and he will show it every oppurtunity he gets, which Bogut did last year and Morrison is doing right now.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

*Re: rank morrison*



Tom said:


> I don't know if Reddick's game will carry over to the NBA at a significant level, but i have gained mass respect for the guy and i pursue Duke games now to watch him play. He is fun to watch at this level and he should be appreciated for it. I hope he finds a place in the NBA.
> 
> Upside Morrison is a hard edged 20 to 25 point scorer...downside he is the perimeter version of Andrew Bogut. I think he will be the first, but you never know.


I think he's too talented, and too hardworking to NOT transfer. I mean, when you can shoot you can shoot...and thats what most people know JJ for. His shooting ability. But the thing I really enjoy about his game...is watching him get better and better year after year. He is, and probably will be one of the best players in my eyes...in college ball at least. Guy's gettin' up there in a lot of pretty prestigous records.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



zagsfan20 said:


> Are you burnt out?
> 
> 
> Burnt out of using the same old lame arguments to try and take away from Adam's game?.....
> ...



I'm not taking anything away from Adam's game. Where are you guys getting this?

I'm only saying that JJ Redick's performance has been more impressive. That's it. And from the statistic that I posted that demonstrates that Redick is having one of the best offensive seasons in the last 20 years of college basketball, that is hardly a slight.

BTW, I notice you haven't been talking about Raivio nearly as much this year. I wonder why.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: rank morrison*



The Truth said:


> I'm not taking anything away from Adam's game. Where are you guys getting this?


Don't sweat it The Truth, you are arguing with a guy (zagsfan) who believes Morrison is going to have an impact similar to Kobe, D. Wade etc in the league. Generally, I have learned with some people on these boards if you say something that that is not endearing about their favorite player you will be accused of taking shots at them. The fact is JJ Redick has been having just as much an impact on the NCAA that Morrison has had while consistently playing against better teams. This doesn't mean Redick has had a better year nor does it mean he will be a better pro, but it is simply is The Truth (no pun intended :biggrin


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*



The Truth said:


> LJ: 17.09
> Laettner: 16.99
> Duncan: 16.72
> Redick: 16.0
> ...


I would bet that Brand and Boozer (who IIRC shot over 65% on FGs) are up there with Johnson and Laettner. Williamson was an animal the year they won the championship, too, but I don't remember how well he shot FTs.



> And of course, this calculation only considers scoring efficiency, so it doesn't take into account Payton's assists. I would actually tend to argue more on the side of Payton than Shaq.


You could certainly argue that, but I'd still take Shaq's season because he both has the edge in scoring and also was the cornerstone of his offense.



> Considering that these are some of the greatest offensive seasons in recent history, and that Redick's scoring volume is greater than every person on this list (except Morrison), I still feel comfortable saying, to this point of the season, JJ is having one of the best offensive seasons in the past 20 years.


Again, you refer to scoring volume but aren't taking into account minutes played. Shaq put up over 27 ppg while playing only 31 minutes per night. Brand didn't crack 30 minutes per game. Johnson was at 32, as was Laettner.

And again, all you choose to discuss about Redick is his scoring. Payton was a great passer and many of the others had the offense run through them down low. Redick's function in his offense is to purely score; he isn't expected to regularly create opportunities for his teamates like the others do. And that is usually the case for SGs (and some SFs) too, which is why they weren't as good offensive players. Ray Allen was a SG and while he wasn't the scorer Redick was, he does make up some ground on the basis of him being a very good ball-handler and good passer (qualities usually pertaining to PGs).


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: rank morrison*



Hoopla said:


> I would bet that Brand and Boozer (who IIRC shot over 65% on FGs) are up there with Johnson and Laettner. Williamson was an animal the year they won the championship, too, but I don't remember how well he shot FTs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Regarding Brand and Boozer, they were incredibly efficient, but they only scored 18 points per game. Brand was one of many scoring options on one of the best offensive teams of the last 10 years, and Boozer was the 2nd option, sometimes 3rd.

Ray Allen only averaged 3.3 assists his last season (2.5 the prior season). 

I did mention in my post that my statistic didn't take into account Payton's passing. I also said that I would consider Payton's season to be one of the very best as well.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*



> Don't sweat it The Truth, you are arguing with a guy (zagsfan) who believes Morrison is going to have an impact similar to Kobe, D. Wade etc in the league.


When have I ever said that?....

I love when people make things up and then write them off as if I said them...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*



> BTW, I notice you haven't been talking about Raivio nearly as much this year. I wonder why.


He's having a bit of a down year, but its been difficult on him a good friend of his died suddenly of a brain anuerysm and he has battled a nagging hip injury all year....He'll be back to form come tourney time, I have no worries about that...


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: rank morrison*



 zagsfan20 said:


> When have I ever said that?....
> 
> I love when people make things up and then write them off as if I said them...



You are correct you never specifically said their names, but you implied as much than quickly backed of the comments and switched it to dominating games (which is a huge difference).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


zagsfan20 12/11/05 said:


> *He (Morrison) would be the first white player to dominate in a while.....*





ralaw 12/11/05 said:


> To dominate in the NBA he will have to be doing what Kobe, D. Wade, McGrady, Nash, etc are doing. Which I doubt will happen if nothing more than due to his style of play. Off the ball scorers never DOMINATE in the NBA they may play well, but they don't "dominate". Richard Hamilton comes closest to Morrison's style of play and he doesn't dominate.





zagsfan20 12/11/05 said:


> Reggie Miller was an off the ball scorer who could dominate and I would have to say I have seen Rip Hamilton dominate some games in the league...





ralaw 12/11/05 said:


> 1. Morrison doesn't play like Reggie Miller except for running of screens.
> 2. Morrison can't shoot anywhere near as well as Reggie Miller.
> 3. Morrison is more of a scorer while Reggie Miller is a shooter.
> 
> Yes, dominanting some games like Richard Hamilton does is way different from dominanting the league like Kobe, Wade, McGrady, etc. You said Morrison will dominate in the the NBA, which leads me to beleive you think he will be on par with Kobe, Wade, McGrady etc. As I said in today's NBA an off the ball scorer will have some good games, but they will not dominate.


basketballboards.net


----------



## bayoubach (Feb 13, 2006)

*Re: rank morrison*

A Morrison
G Robinson
Wally World


----------



## tbp82 (Dec 7, 2005)

*Re: ESPN The Adam Morrison Sweepstakes*

Only seen highlights of Bargini so most of my rating is based on those hightlights, the position he plays, and reading draft sites.


----------



## SWIFT THE SWATTER (Feb 14, 2006)

*Adam Morrison*

Okay, we have the crazy man with the mustache that can shoot 3-pointers (including from 10 feet behind the 3-point line), can drive and make a layup, can block shots, pass great, and beast up big guys when passed the ball down low. Who has the #1 draft pick? Should he be one? I think he should, but I want other opinions here.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

Who is this Adam Morrison guy and why does he have a 3 different threads about him?


----------



## SWIFT THE SWATTER (Feb 14, 2006)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

okay, i'll tell you. He's from Gonzaga University, and i think you should look up his stats, then come post about him. i live here in washington, so i see the games televised.


----------



## SWIFT THE SWATTER (Feb 14, 2006)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

here: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=15399


----------



## SWIFT THE SWATTER (Feb 14, 2006)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

that will take you to his stats


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

..

Redick is a solid player. I like him. I haven't noticed the mustache though.


----------



## SWIFT THE SWATTER (Feb 14, 2006)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

uh, dude, this is Adam Morrison we're talking about, not Redick.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

*Re: Adam Morrison*



SWIFT THE SWATTER said:


> uh, dude, this is Adam Morrison we're talking about, not Redick.



Oh .. my bad .. you mean the white guy on Duke right?


----------



## vadimivich (Mar 29, 2004)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the tall Italian kid ...


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

I don't know what you're talking about man, Morrison, Gonzaga's bald point guard, just doesn't seem like NBA Material to me. I've seen a few Gonzaga games and he just doesn't stand out. In fact, this Morrison isn't even as good as Blake Stepp.


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: Adam Morrison*








This is Adam Morrison









This is JJ.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

Apparantly SWIFT THE SWATTER isn't the only one who has no sense of irony.

Yes we know who Adam Morrison is, don't treat us like morons.


----------



## CrackerJack (Jul 2, 2005)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

if youn dont know the difference between morrison and reddick you should be shot or see an optometrist


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

JNice and Nim were just playing with you SWAT.



Nimreitz said:


> Yes we know who Adam Morrison is, don't treat us like morons.


----------



## SWIFT THE SWATTER (Feb 14, 2006)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

yeah, well, glad you understand. now, anyway, to the actual subject. so, should Morrison be a top 5 pick? If you saw this guy's game against USF, and you'll know what this guy's made of. I'm actually kind of jealous, 'cause I'm a UW fan, but still, this guy deserves something.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

..

All ****ting aside ... unless something drastic happens with this weak draft I'd definitely expect Morrison to go top 5. The only possibility of him not would maybe be a dreadful tournament or some teams developing some serious issues with his diabetes.


----------



## SWIFT THE SWATTER (Feb 14, 2006)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

You know, watching him in games sometimes, he seems to have an attitude sometimes also. Also, when you hear him answer questions after the game, he's a totally different guy than on the court. An odd person, but he gets his job done.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

Morrison uses his strength to bully people around. Not gonna work in NBA. He'll still do good in March and get picked high though.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

His game isn't gona translate much..

He won't have a size advantage in the NBA, and he doesn't have NBA athleticism.

He won't get much court time, because he's not going to be able to guard anybody.

He and JJ Redick are going to be classic examples of great college players but ****ty pros.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

*Re: Adam Morrison*



Nimreitz said:


> Apparantly SWIFT THE SWATTER isn't the only one who has no sense of irony.
> 
> Yes we know who Adam Morrison is, don't treat us like morons.


*edit: no personal insults*

That might solve the problem.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

*Re: Adam Morrison*



arenas809 said:


> His game isn't gona translate much..
> 
> He won't have a size advantage in the NBA, and he doesn't have NBA athleticism.


He's EASILY going to maintain a size advantage. First of all not many SF's are 6-8 or taller and even less have the ability to block a shot of a 6-8 guy shooting so high above his head. His release makes him more like a 7 footer which is going to easily beat out NBA defenders. 

His athleticism is much better then you make it out to be. 

If you actually want to comment on a player why not... I don't know... WATCH HIM PLAY. Because from what you said makes me believe you haven't.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

*Re: ESPN The Adam Morrison Sweepstakes*



tbp82 said:


> 2. Rudy Gay-Freakish Athlete. Josh Smith 2 maybe? Is on the rise for sure with a legit chance to overtake Aldridge only reason he isn't number 1 is because teams usually draft big guys over wings.


UGH! I would hate to be the team that wasted a #2 pick on Josh Smith 2. That would be HORRIBLE.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: ESPN The Adam Morrison Sweepstakes*



tempe85 said:


> UGH! I would hate to be the team that wasted a #2 pick on Josh Smith 2. That would be HORRIBLE.


Athleticism is were the comparison ends. Gay actually has some talent to go along with his athletic ability. If your team drafted Gay you might be upset for the first few games (due to his passive play), but once he got acclimated to the game and his teammates you will surely be impressed.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

Adam Morrison will and can play in the NBA. He has the talent, athleticism and mentality to play in the league and be a good solid *role* player, but he will not be anything special, but he is worth a top 5 pick though I would not draft him ahead of Aldridge or Gay under any circumstance. I can see him going to Charlotte or Portland and being an important piece to the puzzle.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

The way I see it now

JJ = Steve Kerr, maybe better

Morrison = Wally Szcerbiak


Both of those guys were/are good pro's...


I like JJ better because he is a better shooter. I would like a pure shooter on my team. Those guys are harder to find then scorers IMHO, especially one as good as JJ. A lot of people would rather have a scorer. I love a guy who is a pure shooter, they can fit into a role very well. 


I would take JJ over Morrison, but that's only because I like pure shooters for most NBA teams. Sometimes guys that are scorers need the ball more to be effective and it's hard to get touches for everyone at the NBA level because they are so highly skilled. A pure shooter can fill in the spots where the scorers don't. Give me the pure shooter!


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

Starting SF's in the NBA who are 6'8 or taller.

Lebron James - Cleveland (6'8)
Carmelo Anthony - Denver (6'8)
Josh Smith - Atlanta (6'8)
Rashard Lewis - Seattle (6'10)
Tayshaun Prince - Detroit (6'9)
Boris Diaw - Phoenix (6'9)
Lamar Odom - LA Lakers (6'10)
Mike Dunleavy Jr. - Golden State (6'9)
Charlie Villanueva - Toronto (6'11)
Peja Stojakovic - Indiana (6'9)
Luol Deng - Chicago (6'8)
Hedo Turkoglu - Orlando (6'10)
Jared Jeffries - Washington (6'11)
James Posey - Miami (6'8)
Shane Battier - Memphis (6'8)
Tracy McGrady - Houston (6'9)
Darius Miles - Portland (6'9) 
Wally Sczcerbiak - Boston (6'8)
Andre Kirilenko - Utah (6'9) 

Non 6-8 Starting SF's in the NBA

Richard Jefferson - New Jersey (6'7) 
Kyle Korver - Philadelphia (6'7)
Bruce Bowen - San Antonio (6'7)
Ron Artest - Sacramento (6'6)
Josh Howard - Dallas (6'6)
Trenton Hassell - Minnesota (6'6) 
Corey Maggette - LA Clippers (6'6)
Desmond Mason - Oklahoma City (6'5)
Bobby Simmons - Milwaukee (6'7)
New York Knicks (who knows?)
Charlotte (who knows?)

However, if you look at the teams who don't have 6'8 SF's (11), they are almost all filled with guys who make up for it with tremendous athleticism or are defensive oriented SF's. This shatters the myth that SF's are not 6'8 in the League. He's going to have a tougher time scoring no doubt.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Adam Morrison*



tempe85 said:


> *edit: no personal insults*
> 
> That might solve the problem.


I really have no idea what you could have said to me. Did you think most people don't know who Morrison is? He's been on the radar all year and most people here are NBA Draft buffs. We follow this stuff like crazy, I call it my New Year.

And you're wrong, Morrison doesn't have a special wing span that makes him shoot like a 7 footer, I have no idea where you got that from. And wings in the NBA don't have the athleticism to get up and contest his shot? WHAT!??! NBA Small Forwards are the most athletic players in the league! And this is a league with players like Nate Robinson. The shorter guys are more athletic that the taller guys too, Josh Howard, Desmond Mason, Bruce Bowen, Corey Maggette, and Ron Artest can't guard Morrison? Come on now. And the guys who can't guard him can out score him (Peja, Korver, Dunleavy).


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

*Re: ESPN The Adam Morrison Sweepstakes*

Bill Simmons is the greatest writer of our generation. But he chose the wrong name for the "sweepstakes" in this column, should have been LaMarcus Aldridge. Earlier in the year he used Rudy Gay and last year at some point I believed he used Marvin Williams.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: ESPN The Adam Morrison Sweepstakes*



Nimreitz said:


> *Bill Simmons is the greatest writer of our generation. * But he chose the wrong name for the "sweepstakes" in this column, should have been LaMarcus Aldridge. Earlier in the year he used Rudy Gay and last year at some point I believed he used Marvin Williams.


C'mon now. Let's not go nuts.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

*Re: ESPN The Adam Morrison Sweepstakes*



Nimreitz said:


> Bill Simmons is the greatest writer of our generation. But he chose the wrong name for the "sweepstakes" in this column, should have been LaMarcus Aldridge. Earlier in the year he used Rudy Gay and last year at some point I believed he used Marvin Williams.


 And Bill Walton is the greatest announcer in the history of western civilization...


----------



## SWIFT THE SWATTER (Feb 14, 2006)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

I don't know what Tempe said, 'cause i only see it edited, but all i said was that he has serious range when he's not guarded


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

*Re: Adam Morrison*

if the #1 team wants a big man, then no, if charlotte gets it, yes.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*

on 8/13 3 point shooting....

When was the last time a college player scored that many in a half?

People who say he won't adjust to the NBA are credulous.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*

Yet another Adma Morrison thread  

How many more separate Morrison and Redick threads are we going to have before the draft?


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*

Let's see Loyola Marymount has one win over a team with an RPI higher than 140 and you are excited because Gonzaga needed Adam Morrison to put up 44 so they could beat them?Is that the gist of this thread?

My god if Gonzaga were my favorite team that would depress the living hell out of me.


----------



## WhoDaBest23 (Apr 16, 2003)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*

I don't care if it was LMU, Morrison just had IT in the 2nd half today. He was going off like a madman, while getting hacked almost everytime he went at the rim. I think he missed more FTs in that 2nd half than he did FGs. He was hitting from everywhere, getting into it with the crowd a little. I loved it!


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*



Diable said:


> Let's see Loyola Marymount has one win over a team with an RPI higher than 140 and you are excited because Gonzaga needed Adam Morrison to put up 44 so they could beat them?Is that the gist of this thread?
> 
> My god if Gonzaga were my favorite team that would depress the living hell out of me.


I don't care what team it was...Tell me the last guy who scored 37 points in a half...? or 8 three pointers in a half....


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*

I mean it was Loyola Marymount. They're the second best team in the WCC and they're a horrible team this year. It's just not that impressive.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*



HKF said:


> I mean it was Loyola Marymount. They're the second best team in the WCC and they're a horrible team this year. It's just not that impressive.


37 points in a half...

tell me another player who has done it...I don't care what kind of league or team he was on....


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*

Ok then, Kobe Bryant.


----------



## Mogriffjr (Mar 5, 2005)

*Re: rank morrison*



compsciguy78 said:


> The upside of Morrison is Wally Z and the downside is Mike Dunleavy, who isn't a bad player himself. Morrison will ball in the NBA, but people who keep saying he is going to be a multi level all-star are losing their minds. Carmelo Anthony is averaging 25 ppg in the NBA and he didn't make the all-star team. Is Adam Morrison better then Carmelo Anthony? If you think Adam Morrison is better then Carmelo Anthony then you are zagsfan or have Morrison in your avatar.


Something about Morrison screams Dirk Nowitzki...

I think that's Morrison's upside...I think he has that much potential that he could be a #1 option on a team.

Or he could be a Keith Van Horn type...someone who comes off the bench who can score 15...


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*

After scoring 37 points in a half against powerhouse Loyala Maramount Morrison obviously is ready to take his game to the league and dominate.


----------



## liteface (Jun 25, 2004)

*Re: rank morrison*

I have not seen wally play much in the NBA. Seems that when he's being guarded, he is not that frifgtening.

Big Dog had a few great years in the NBA, but his glory was in the Big Ten. 

Morrison really lights my fire with his desire to kill the other team. He knows the game, and where he needs to be on the floor. I think he will make at least 3 all star teams. If the Suns were picking 1st, I'd pick Adam M. If he goes to the Bulls, look out Eastern Conference.

Keep Running Amare- Ask the Spurs wanna see ya in the playoffs again...


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*



zagsfan20 said:


> 37 points in a half...
> 
> tell me another player who has done it...I don't care what kind of league or team he was on....


Well if that's the criteria, I can look up plenty of high school players who did it.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*

Nice feat. The boy is a scoring machine


----------



## shookem (Nov 1, 2005)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*

Adam Morrison is a smooth criminal with ice in his veins.

Sure he went wild against a crappy team, but did that make Kobe's 81 any less exciting / valuable?

The point in my mind is, once again this guy has shown he'll do whatever it takes to help his team win.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*



Diable said:


> Let's see Loyola Marymount has one win over a team with an RPI higher than 140 and you are excited because Gonzaga needed Adam Morrison to put up 44 so they could beat them?Is that the gist of this thread?
> 
> My god if Gonzaga were my favorite team that would depress the living hell out of me.


i dont think the guy said anything about them needing morrison to score 44 to win just that it was a great feat,which it was. do you think everyone has to be a duke fan or can some of us poor slobs actually root for the home team. all praise the dukies.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*

Damn I must have struck a nerve.Let's do a comparison.Duke has played 21 games against teams with rpi's 124 or lower.The opponent with the next highest rpi is Ga Tech...And Ga Tech's rpi is 139.Loyola Marymount is 138th in the rpi...So they would be the 22nd toughest team on Duke's schedeule,unless Ga Tech passes them in the rpi.

It's getting harder and harder for me to take Gonzaga seriously as they continue to struggle against WCC powerhouses both at home and on the road.Memphis is playing in the C-USA which has teams of similar strength to the WCC.They bludgeon those clowns don't they?


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*



Diable said:


> Damn I must have struck a nerve.Let's do a comparison.Duke has played 21 games against teams with rpi's 124 or lower.The opponent with the next highest rpi is Ga Tech...And Ga Tech's rpi is 139.Loyola Marymount is 138th in the rpi...So they would be the 22nd toughest team on Duke's schedeule,unless Ga Tech passes them in the rpi.
> 
> It's getting harder and harder for me to take Gonzaga seriously as they continue to struggle against WCC powerhouses both at home and on the road.Memphis is playing in the C-USA which has teams of similar strength to the WCC.They bludgeon those clowns don't they?



the thread was about morrison going for 37 in a half, nothing about the gonzaga team. personally i dont think the zags are a great team, outside of adam and batista they dont get consistant play. stay on message though, we're not trying to compare them or their schedule to duke.


----------



## redz (Jan 23, 2006)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*

I saw the highlights. This guy really is going to be great. IMO, he is way better than JJ, bc he not only has the ability to shoot, but he can score fom anywhere. He's goin to be an all-star one day.


----------



## KB21 (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*

I have been skeptical in the past about this guy, but damn! He's starting to make a believer out of me. It will be interesting to see what he does in the NCAA tournament. If he can carry that team to the final four, then that is going to be a very impressive feat.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*



Diable said:


> Let's see Loyola Marymount has one win over a team with an RPI higher than 140 and you are excited because Gonzaga needed Adam Morrison to put up 44 so they could beat them?Is that the gist of this thread?
> 
> My god if Gonzaga were my favorite team that would depress the living hell out of me.


But Loyola Marymount has played Gonzaga twice...

:rotf:


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*



Jonathan Watters said:


> But Loyola Marymount has played Gonzaga twice...
> 
> :rotf:


Maybe you don't understand me...I sure as heck don't understand that.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*



Diable said:


> Damn I must have struck a nerve.Let's do a comparison.Duke has played 21 games against teams with rpi's 124 or lower.The opponent with the next highest rpi is Ga Tech...And Ga Tech's rpi is 139.Loyola Marymount is 138th in the rpi...So they would be the 22nd toughest team on Duke's schedeule,unless Ga Tech passes them in the rpi.
> 
> It's getting harder and harder for me to take Gonzaga seriously as they continue to struggle against WCC powerhouses both at home and on the road.Memphis is playing in the C-USA which has teams of similar strength to the WCC.They bludgeon those clowns don't they?


A. This is a draft board where we talk about draft prospects not teams, thats why I'm talking about Morrison not Gonzaga....(even though its not like Duke didn't almost pull a choke job to crappy teams like Florida St. and Virginia Tech, if it wasn't for the refs jocking their nuts..)

B. Morrison has scored 43 against Washington, 43 against Michigan St. and 34 against Memphis (a team that redick struggled with)....

C. You look like an idiot when you try and pick apart Morrison's accomplishments using stupid logic....


Seems like jealousy is running through your veins....

Do you ever see me jumping on every J.J. Redick thread (which there are many of) to piss on any of his accomplishments?....


Face the facts your watching a great player do special things, now quit letting jealousy blind you from the truth and take it for what it is...


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*



zagsfan20 said:


> A. This is a draft board where we talk about draft prospects not teams, thats why I'm talking about Morrison not Gonzaga....(even though its not like Duke didn't almost pull a choke job to crappy teams like Florida St. and Virginia Tech, if it wasn't for the refs jocking their nuts..)
> 
> B. Morrison has scored 43 against Washington, 43 against Michigan St. and 34 against Memphis (a team that redick struggled with)....
> 
> ...


You just violated The Truth's law.


----------



## Seanzie (Jun 9, 2003)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*

[controversial statement]

Adam Morrison evokes images of Larry Bird to me.

[/controversial statement]


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*



The Truth said:


> You just violated The Truth's law.


What, make an anti-Duke argument?


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*



Jonathan Watters said:


> What, make an anti-Duke argument?



See my signature.

You can make an anti-Duke statement. Just be prepared to support it with facts.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

We'll try not to confuse you with any of those...


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

Does anyone kind of think of Morrison as Glen Robinson?


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

jokeaward said:


> Does anyone kind of think of Morrison as Glen Robinson?


Blasphemer! 

Don't you remember how good Glenn Robinson was back in the day? I took a trip back to the early 90's in my time machine, and I can categorically state that Robinson created his own shot way better than Morrison could ever dream of! You don't know anything about basketball if you think that Morrison can even walk on the same ground as the Big Dog!


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*

Please.

Stop with the Morrison and Bird comparisons. It's more sickening than the Dunleavy and Bird comparisons. At least it's not as bad as the idiotic Mike Miller and Bird comparisons.

If Morrison is the next Bird then Redick is the next Ray Allen. 

Anyways, great performance by Morrison and I agree with the poster that says that the Zags are not that good. Morrison is the Zags. 

Morrison is a solid prospect and arguably the #1 pick in this year's draft but he will never be as good as Bird. Not even an old Bird with a bad back. 



Seanzie said:


> [controversial statement]
> 
> Adam Morrison evokes images of Larry Bird to me.
> 
> [/controversial statement]


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

They played totally different games in college. I don't see how Morrison is anything like the Big Dog and he surely is not as good of a college player or NBA prospect as Glenn was.

Unless, you mean prospects who did/will perform well below expectations once they reach the NBA. Well, nobody has a crystal ball. Morrison could very well end up being a better pro than Robinson who knows? But the Big Dog certainly did not live up to his billing although you can't really say his career was a failure because afterall he was a multiple all-star and averaged at least 20 ppg for most of his career.



jokeaward said:


> Does anyone kind of think of Morrison as Glen Robinson?


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> We'll try not to confuse you with any of those...


:greatjob:

blabla, you make me laugh.

keep 'em comin!


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*



Gilgamesh said:


> Please.
> 
> Stop with the Morrison and Bird comparisons. It's more sickening than the Dunleavy and Bird comparisons. At least it's not as bad as the idiotic Mike Miller and Bird comparisons.
> 
> ...


whenever my old man calls me and we get on the subject of morrison he says he's good but he's no larry bird. i'm not sure who compares the two but a couple of similarities stand out such as the release point on their shot or their late game cold blooded demeanor. bird was bigger,more of an inside threat and at the pro level certainly a better passer. to me morrison is more of a reggie miller type but time will tell.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*



rainman said:


> whenever my old man calls me and we get on the subject of morrison he says he's good but he's no larry bird. i'm not sure who compares the two but a couple of similarities stand out such as the release point on their shot or their late game cold blooded demeanor. bird was bigger,more of an inside threat and at the pro level certainly a better passer. to me morrison is more of a reggie miller type but time will tell.


What makes Larry Bird so different from any other shooter that he's compared to is that Bird was so much more than a shooter. He was a 6-9 SF who could bang down low, rebound, and had the court sense of Jason Kidd. Maybe Morrison has as good a shot as Bird, and maybe he has a similar release, but that alone doesn't make you like Larry Bird.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

*Re: Morrison with 37 points in the 2nd half...*



The Truth said:


> You just violated The Truth's law.


I want to say that I think 'The Truth's Law' is *pure genius*, but I think you should leave it descriptive, and not make it normative. So you don't automatically lose by invoking said imagery, but you just state that the potentiality increases on a 'logarithmic scale' or something like that. It makes it something that one must ponder the significance of.... Just my (aesthetic) opinion of course.


----------



## UVM Hoop Cat (Feb 28, 2005)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Blasphemer!
> 
> Don't you remember how good Glenn Robinson was back in the day? I took a trip back to the early 90's in my time machine, and I can categorically state that Robinson created his own shot way better than Morrison could ever dream of! You don't know anything about basketball if you think that Morrison can even walk on the same ground as the Big Dog!


If you watched tapes of Robinson at Purdue and Morrison now, They score from the exact same spots on the court, and while Glenn Robinson was able to drive inside because he was bigger, Adam Morrison is sooo much quicker than Glenn Robinson was.

Adam Morrison may not be a superstar in the NBA, but he will be damn good pro.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Morrison has to be better than Bird.Hell Bird must be fifty and he's had a bad back for the last twenty years.Of course I remember than Bird once had a far better moustache.


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

Robinson was drafted in 1994? I was 7.

I'm just thinking here's Morrison, plenty of height and weight for a 3, maybe a bit stocky (but in shape. he's not Dunleavy, shall we say). He's dominating as a scorer, though probably not apt to be nicknamed "Smoove" or playing above the rim. He can shoot, but not heavily relying on the three. He can rebound some, but doesn't pile up many assists or make a case for Defensive All-American. And it's not just his conference, he lit up Michigan State coming from the Final Four with most people back and rested. He could still score in 93-94 Big Ten play.

So that might be similar to Glen Robinson. There might be more similarities than with Bird, maybe by a lot. Bird could pretty much build around his assists as they were so many for a non-PG, especially at the time. That isn't necessarily the case. Then probably 20-10 and a very good 3-point shot even if he didn't build around it quite as much as it seems (maybe as a white guy with skill). 

When would it ever be apt to call Adam Morrison a point forward?


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

jokeaward said:


> Robinson was drafted in 1994? I was 7.
> 
> I'm just thinking here's Morrison, plenty of height and weight for a 3, maybe a bit stocky (but in shape. he's not Dunleavy, shall we say). He's dominating as a scorer, though probably not apt to be nicknamed "Smoove" or playing above the rim. He can shoot, but not heavily relying on the three. He can rebound some, but doesn't pile up many assists or make a case for Defensive All-American. And it's not just his conference, he lit up Michigan State coming from the Final Four with most people back and rested. He could still score in 93-94 Big Ten play.
> 
> ...



he's more of a two guard, at about 6-7 and 210 he'd get lost up front, any comparison to bird is purely based on cosmetics and probably shot release. i think a better comparison would be guys like rip hamilton and reggie miller.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

Robinson played the 4 in college. Their games were nothing alike. They do some things similar but Morrison and the Big Dog were totally different players in college. In the pros, they might be develop into similar players.



jokeaward said:


> Robinson was drafted in 1994? I was 7.
> 
> I'm just thinking here's Morrison, plenty of height and weight for a 3, maybe a bit stocky (but in shape. he's not Dunleavy, shall we say). He's dominating as a scorer, though probably not apt to be nicknamed "Smoove" or playing above the rim. He can shoot, but not heavily relying on the three. He can rebound some, but doesn't pile up many assists or make a case for Defensive All-American. And it's not just his conference, he lit up Michigan State coming from the Final Four with most people back and rested. He could still score in 93-94 Big Ten play.
> 
> ...


----------

