# The 2008 NBA Draft



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Probably time to start looking at these kids, because right now, it's looking like one of the better drafts we've had.

*1. Derrick Rose - 25.1ppg, 4.3rpg, 8.2apg, 1.1spg, 46% fg, 37% 3fg, 77%ft, 38.7mpg
2. Michael Beasley - 22.0ppg, 6.0rpg, 1.5apg, 47%fg, 41% 3fg, 70%ft, 33.5mpg*
3. OJ Mayo - 12.0 ppg, 2.7rpg, 1.7 apg, 40%fg, 37% 3fg, 79%ft, 29.5mpg 
*4. Russell Westbrook - 23.7ppg, 5.5rpg, 8.6apg, 2.2spg, 44%fg, 23% 3fg, 87%ft, 37.2mpg
5. Kevin Love - 20.1ppg, 15.5rpg, 2.1apg, 43%fg, 41% 3fg, 89%ft, 34.6mpg *
6. Danilo Gallinari - 15.3ppg, 4.7rpg, 1.7apg, 40%fg, 37% 3fg, 91%ft, 33.7mpg
*7. Eric Gordon - 24.3ppg, 3.4rpg, 4.5apg, 1.2spg, 46%fg, 27% 3fg, 80%ft, 37.4mpg *
8. Joe Alexander - No stats. In the D-League.
9. DJ Augustin - 13.5ppg, 3.5rpg, 6.7apg, 44% fg, 36% 3fg, 89% ft, 35.4mpg
*10. Brook Lopez - 18.9ppg, 6.1rpg, 1.1apg, 1.5bpg, 44%fg, 82%ft, 35.5mpg*
11. Jerryd Bayless - 7.3ppg, 2.4rpg, 2.9apg, 40%fg, 41% 3fg, 75%ft, 16.1mpg
12. Jason Thompson - 7.2ppg, 5.5rpg, 49%fg, 62%ft, 18.0mpg
13. Brandon Rush - 12.3ppg, 3.7rpg, 1.3apg, 48%fg, 43% 3fg, 63%ft, 29.9mpg
14. Anthony Randolph - 2.2ppg, 2.7rpg, 27%fg, 60%ft, 9.1mpg
15. Robin Lopez - 5.3ppg, 4.3rpg, 1.0bpg, 44%fg, 17.8mpg
16. Marreese Speights - 5.3ppg, 3.8rpg, 47fg, 67%ft, 12.8mpg
*17. Roy Hibbert - 15.4ppg, 8.5rpg, 3.1apg, 1.9bpg, 51%fg, 75%ft, 29.8mpg*
18. JaVale McGee - 10.0ppg, 8.4rpg, 2.4bpg, 58%fg, 59%ft, 27.7mpg 
19. JJ Hickson - 11.0ppg, 5.2rpg, 45%fg, 78%ft, 23.9mpg
20. Alexis Ajinca - 1.5ppg, 4.0rpg, 1.0bpg, 20%fg, 50%ft, 6.0mpg 
21. Ryan Anderson - 4.7ppg, 2.2rpg, 38%fg, 27% 3fg, 85%ft, 8.6mpg
22. Courtney Lee - 7.4ppg, 2.3rpg, 1.0apg, 44%fg, 49% 3fg, 78%ft, 18.4mpg
23. Kosta Koufos - 2.4ppg, 1.7rpg, 44%fg, 62%ft, 7.0mpg
24. Serge Ibaka - 10.5ppg, 6.4rpg, 2.4bpg, 58%fg, 80%ft, 27.4mpg
25. Nicolas Batum - 11.6ppg, 4.5rpg, 1.3apg, 1.0spg, 45%fg, 34% 3fg, 76%ft, 28.4mpg
26. George Hill - 11.3ppg, 2.5rpg, 2.3apg, 1.2spg, 47%fg, 35% 3fg, 85%ft, 26.6mpg 
27. Darrell Arthur - 9.3ppg, 5.0rpg, 52%fg, 78%ft, 22.5mpg
28. Donte Greene - 7.7ppg, 3.2rpg, 1.1apg, 43%fg, 28% 3fg, 55%ft, 20.7mpg
29. DJ White - 2.7ppg, 2.4rpg, 44%fg, 100%ft, 9.5mpg
30. JR Giddens - N/A

2nd round notables:

Mario Chalmers, DeAndre Jordan, Luc Mbah a Moute, Sonny Weems, Chris Douglas-Roberts, Goran Dragic, Bill Walker.

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

That's a pretty incredible draft. There are so many guys performing, and great value in the mid/late first round for a lot of teams.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

George Hill and Serge Ibaka look like they could be pretty decent as well


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Absolutely, and guys like Batum/Arthur/Hickson could blossom.

Anthony Randolph has just fallen off the map lately. Whats up with him?


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

this draft is deepest ever in the nba history, but only 3 will be superstars.

Rose
Westbrook
Love

Beasley is better than Bosh.

The value of Rose, Westbrook and Love > LeBron, Wade and Melo


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

People who think Love will be a superstar do not actually watch Minnesota play...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> People who think Love will be a superstar do not actually watch Minnesota play...


Dude's averaging 20/15 numbers and he's only 22.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Dude's averaging 20/15 numbers and he's only 22.


If he increases his stats by 25% each year, he would have average 60 points and 55 rebs per game by the age of 30.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Dude's averaging 20/15 numbers and he's only 22.



And I repeat,anyone who thinks he is going to be a superstar does not watch the Wolves play...


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> Dude's averaging 20/15 numbers and he's only 22.


He is a roleplayer though. You can't build your team around a rebounder. You can build your team around a great scorer. You can build your team around a great playmaker/passer. You can build your team around a defensive anchor. You can't build your team around a rebounder. At the end of the day, he is not really that great at anything else. 

He is a roleplayer, because at his best, he would not be taking 15 shots per game. He is a 5-10 shot kind of player, who would be best playing off of someone else. He isn't a player who you want creating for others.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> And I repeat,anyone who thinks he is going to be a superstar does not watch the Wolves play...


While I agree, I think KLove will definitely have a few All-Star games under his belt in the next 10 years. If he can get more efficient offensively, he'll be a load to handle.

He's an amazing rebounder though. I remember on draft day people were so pissed (myself included) that Minny traded OJ Mayo for him. That's looking like a good deal right now.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> And I repeat,anyone who thinks he is going to be a superstar does not watch the Wolves play...


lol.

okie dokie artichokie.

His PER of 23.5 good for 11th in the league begs to differ.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> He is a roleplayer though. You can't build your team around a rebounder. You can build your team around a great scorer. You can build your team around a great playmaker/passer. You can build your team around a defensive anchor. You can't build your team around a rebounder. At the end of the day, he is not really that great at anything else.
> 
> He is a roleplayer, because at his best, he would not be taking 15 shots per game. He is a 5-10 shot kind of player, who would be best playing off of someone else. He isn't a player who you want creating for others.


Oh I agree. He's a 2nd option type on a Championship caliber team. He's still averaging 20/15 against NBA competition though. Name me the last player that averaged 20/15 in the NBA.


----------



## gi0rdun (May 31, 2007)

Yea that is a pretty deep draft. Almost the entire first round are NBA contributors.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> Oh I agree. He's a 2nd option type on a Championship caliber team. He's still averaging 20/15 against NBA competition though. Name me the last player that averaged 20/15 in the NBA.


The rebounds is what makes the statline though. The inefficient 20 points isn't that special, but the rebounding certainly is dominant. He is one of the best rebounders I've ever seen. 

I think he is a 3rd guy on a championship team. On a championship team, he is something like Horace Grant on the first threepeat team. Not Jordan and not Pippen, but the 3rd guy.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Yes, he's the Kobe or the Pippen on a title team. LMAO. Love and Beasley's numbers are inflated on a bad team.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> The rebounds is what makes the statline though. The inefficient 20 points isn't that special, but the rebounding certainly is dominant. He is one of the best rebounders I've ever seen.
> 
> I think he is a 3rd guy on a championship team. On a championship team, he is something like Horace Grant on the first threepeat team. Not Jordan and not Pippen, but the 3rd guy.


You act like its easy to score 20 pts when your bumping and grinding and tracking down 15 rebounds a game. He puts up 20/20 games frequently. You know how hard it is to pull down 20 boards and to be called upon to score 20 point? There's a reason no player has averaged 20 and 15 in the past 28 years.

Take away Rodman's rebounding and he's a scrub. Take away Love's rebounding and he's still putting up 20 pts.

He's much more talented than Horace Grant was. A lot of people fail to realize he's still just 22 years old.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

HKF said:


> Yes, he's the Kobe or the Pippen on a title team. LMAO. Love and Beasley's numbers are inflated on a bad team.


He's more like the Kevin McHale or Laimbeer on a title team. But, if Pippen and Kobe comparison floats your boat than so be it.

Inflated because he's on a bad team, or not. No player, even on a bad team, has averaged 20/15 in nearly 28 years.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

HB said:


> Again I never claimed to be some hoops guru, I say my own and keep it moving. Opinions, you ever heard of it, particularly on a message board. Go ahead thinking Love is a superstar. Doubt many will agree with you on that.


So who's better, Love or Lopez?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Lol I am not going down that path man. Love is playing better right now.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Ballscientist said:


> this draft is deepest ever in the nba history,


Hakeem Olajuwon
Michael Jordan
Charles Barkley
Jon Stockton
Sam Perkins
Alvin Robertson
Otis Thorpe
Kevin Willis
Jay Humphries
Michael Cage
Vern Fleming
Jerome Kersey

I'll take my 12


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

e-monk said:


> Hakeem Olajuwon
> Michael Jordan
> Charles Barkley
> Jon Stockton
> ...


That draft was much better. Four top 50 players of all-time.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> He's more like the Kevin McHale or Laimbeer on a title team. But, if Pippen and Kobe comparison floats your boat than so be it.


It was sarcasm.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> Take away Rodman's rebounding and he's a scrub. Take away Love's rebounding and he's still putting up 20 pts.


Take away Love's rebounding and he doesn't play more than 15mpg. He simply isn't worth having on the floor if he isn't gobbling up rebounds, because he scores inefficiently and is a terrible defender. Rodman was 1st team defense 7 times in his career by the way, in addition to being one of the best rebounders of all-time. 



zagsfan20 said:


> He's much more talented than Horace Grant was. A lot of people fail to realize he's still just 22 years old.


That would be his role. A Horace Grant role. Ho averaged 15/11 in his best individual year and was a little under that on those title teams. On offense, Love would be a pick and pop or pick and roll player. You don't want him doing anything off the dribble because he is too slow, and you don't really want him posting up frequently because he frequently gets blocked because he has no lift or quickness. Right now he does those things because the Timberwolves are terrible, which is why he is so inefficient. On an efficient team(one that wins), he isn't asked/allowed to do those things, and doesn't score near as much. 

Love is a 14/12 player on a title team, which is very valuable, but nothing near superstar level.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Is OJ Mayo on the block btw? He's riding pine in Memphis right now


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Memphis has played .500 since they put Mayo on the bench...what were they 3-8 or 3-9 with him starting. He played his way onto the bench rather convincingly. Don't know what he's done lately, but he was horrific to start the season. No point in trying to deal a guy when his game has dematerialized. He's still on a rookie deal and you'd get nothing for him right now.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Take away Love's rebounding and he doesn't play more than 15mpg. He simply isn't worth having on the floor if he isn't gobbling up rebounds, because he scores inefficiently and is a terrible defender. Rodman was 1st team defense 7 times in his career by the way, in addition to being one of the best rebounders of all-time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I beg to differ. 

His TS% says otherwise when it comes to scoring efficiently and the guy is hitting 3's at a 40% clip. 

Love has great touch in the post, but his guards are horrible at getting him the ball in the post. They don't even try and feed him entry passes anymore.

Its almost funny watching teams try and avoid the rebounding machine by sending two guys over to body him and get the rebound. But, like a vacuum the dude still has a knack for getting the ball.

He's not a superstar, which to me, means top 5 type player. But, IMO he definitely has top 10-15 type player in him in the future. He's much more skilled than Horace Grant was.

I don't care what people say, if no player has averaged 20 and 15 in the NBA since Moses Malone in 82'. Its one thing to be a Reggie Evans or a Rodman and average ****-load of rebounds, its another thing to put up 20+ a night while doing it. Horrible team, or not. A player would of done it in the nearly 30 years since it happened. Horrible team, or not. He's still playing against the same competition.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

He's a big man scoring 20 a game on a terrible team while shooting 44% from the field. He's one of the worst post defenders in the leauge and consistantly gets his shots blocked. He's a great rebounder. That's his niche, that's what he's good at. Pretending like he's going to be running the league in a few years is a bad joke. He could be valuable to a championship team down the road, but he'll never be a top two player on a contending team. Patch hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Love has a nice touch, but he just doesn't have the quickness or lift to be a consistently good post scorer. As stated, he gets blocked all the time, and that actually accounts for a couple of his rebounds every game because he gets them back a lot of times. 

Lots of players have averaged statlines that nobody has averaged. Back in 2003 or whenever, Kirilenko was putting up statlines that put him in the same sentence with Hakeem and David Robinson because he got points, rebounds, assists and a bunch of blocks and steals. Meanwhile players putting up more ordinary statlines were still better players.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Love has a nice touch, but he just doesn't have the quickness or lift to be a consistently good post scorer. As stated, he gets blocked all the time, and that actually accounts for a couple of his rebounds every game because he gets them back a lot of times.
> 
> Lots of players have averaged statlines that nobody has averaged. Back in 2003 or whenever, Kirilenko was putting up statlines that put him in the same sentence with Hakeem and David Robinson because he got points, rebounds, assists and a bunch of blocks and steals. Meanwhile players putting up more ordinary statlines were still better players.


So your telling me that 2 of those rebounds during the 31 rebound game were because he was blocked? I'll be damned. 

Kirilenko was also an All-Star then, his game has dropped off dramatically since then.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

stop comparing Reggie Evans to Dennis Rodman - Rodman is probably the best rebounder ever, Evans though a specialist is not in the same stratosphere - and btw even if he didnt board like a maniac he still would have been a top line Bruce Bowen-esque elite defender able to guard 3 or 4 positions effectively


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

e-monk said:


> stop comparing Reggie Evans to Dennis Rodman - Rodman is probably the best rebounder ever, Evans though a specialist is not in the same stratosphere - and btw even if he didnt board like a maniac he still would have been a top line Bruce Bowen-esque elite defender able to guard 3 or 4 positions effectively


WTF? When did I compare Evans and Rodman. I brought both them up because they are great rebounders. I never compared the two. Reggie Evans is a goon. The only reason they were brought up was to show that players can average 15 or so rebounds, but not all players can average that many rebounds and put up 20 points while doing it.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Oh I agree. * He's a 2nd option type on a Championship caliber team.* He's still averaging 20/15 against NBA competition though. Name me the last player that averaged 20/15 in the NBA.



mg:

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS

Here are second options on Championship caliber teams.

Pau Gasol
KG/Ray Allen
Kobe Bryant
Tony Parker
Scottie Pippen

'Just to name a few.

You seriously, seriously think that Kevin Love has the potential to be anywhere from Tony Parker (most realistic, but consider he's won next to a Prime Tim Duncan, arguably the greatest PF ever), to Pau Gasol, to Scottie Pippen?

Shall I point out two facts? The wolves SUCK, and Love is shooting 43%.

And he's 6'10

Any big man who's considered a good big man shouldn't be shooting less than 48% if they're taking a lot of jumpers, 50-51% if they're more post oriented.

Man....


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> So your telling me that 2 of those rebounds during the 31 rebound game were because he was blocked? I'll be damned.


I'm telling you that he is an unbelievable rebounder, but you're overrating his overall game. If not for his rebounding ability, he wouldn't start in the NBA. Guys like Scola and Milsap are having just as good of seasons with more traditional statlines and better defense.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> You act like its easy to score 20 pts when your bumping and grinding and tracking down 15 rebounds a game. He puts up 20/20 games frequently. You know how hard it is to pull down 20 boards and to be called upon to score 20 point? There's a reason no player has averaged 20 and 15 in the past 28 years.
> 
> Take away Rodman's rebounding and he's a scrub. Take away Love's rebounding and he's still putting up 20 pts.
> 
> He's much more talented than Horace Grant was. A lot of people fail to realize he's still just 22 years old.


Take away Rodman's rebounding and he was still a great defender. 

Take away Love's rebounding and he's scoring 20 points on 43% on a crappy team.

He's getting an opportunity to score because the team is so bad.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Do people really believe these things they say out their mouth..

Anyway look out for my man Darrell Arthur if he ever gets major minutes he's going to do some things. My favorite player from that draft.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

Haha, right, very inefficient. First off, his career FG% is 45%, not 43%. You can't base his FG #s off a small sample of 20 games. But even if you do, do you also realize he's shooting 41% from 3PT (on 3 attempts per game) and 89% from the FT line (on about 6.5 attempts per game)?? Right, so inefficient that guy, I don't know what's wrong with him. Let's also ignore his good passing, which offsets the 2.4 turnovers he averages. And oh yeah, along with all that (and his 20+ points per game), he leads the NBA (FAR and AWAY) in rebounding. Such a role player.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Stars don't play on teams that win less than 25% of the games. Guys who put up good numbers on bad teams do though. Stars elevate their teams to victory, which is why we consider them stars.


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

HKF said:


> Stars don't play on teams that win less than 25% of the games. Guys who put up good numbers on bad teams do though. Stars elevate their teams to victory, which is why we consider them stars.


That's the stupidest way of evaluating players. How can you take two players, look at the win column, and say one is better than the other? It tells you nothing about each individual, at all.


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

Anyways, Kevin Love isn't putting up empty numbers, and he's far from inefficient; he has a PER of 23.5. You want to see empty numbers and inefficiency than look at guys like Bargnani not Love. Love may not be a superstar but he shouldn't get criticized for making the most out of is situation, there have been plenty of players who have been asked to take on similar roles (i.e. role players being asked to step into being the 1st/2nd option on a team) and collapsing under the pressure.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Tragedy said:


> mg:
> 
> YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS
> 
> ...


No, you can't be serious. 

I think people fail to realize that in 06-07 the Grizzlies were awful with Pau Gasol. They won 22 games. They had a brutal record the year they traded him midseason. Was Gasol not a good player, just because he was on a horrible team? I think you can answer that for yourself. Love in his 3rd year in the league has a higher PER than Pau did after his 3rd year in Memphis. People suggest I'm nuts, but these are facts.

How about Garnett as an example. He had seasons with the Wolves where they were in the 25-30 win range. Should we void out his statistics because his team was lousy? Its absurd. By the way, Love in his 3rd season has a higher PER than Garnett did at the same stage in his career.

Of the people that you listed, he could easily be a 2nd fiddle guy in same sense that Allen and Garnett are at this point in their careers. You have to realize that Love is still just 22. He could easily be as good as Parker. But, when I said that I was thinking more along the lines of a 2nd option type like the McHale, Laimbeer and Rip Hamilton types.

Does Love have work to do on his game? Yes. He's still just 22 years old. Defensively he's not very good. But offensively, he's more skilled than people give him credit for and a lot of it has to do with the way Minnesota plays. Love would thrive in an uptempo system where his outlet passing abilities could be utilized. You bring up this 48% benchmark for big men to have to be shooting to be good. Well, Love is a 45% shooter for his career. Thats 3% points off, which I think he more than makes up for in the rebounding department.

The problem I have around here with a lot of the posters who are piling on in this thread, is that if 20/15 is just a product of being on a ****ty team. How come no other player has put up those type of numbers in 28 years? Horrible team, or not.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

HKF said:


> Stars don't play on teams that win less than 25% of the games. Guys who put up good numbers on bad teams do though. Stars elevate their teams to victory, which is why we consider them stars.


Garnett had losing seasons in Minnesota. Should we void his stats? Gasol had brutal years in Memphis. Bosh's 3rd year in Toronto they won 27 games. 

These guys are stars.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Nightmute said:


> That's the stupidest way of evaluating players. How can you take two players, look at the win column, and say one is better than the other? It tells you nothing about each individual, at all.





zagsfan20 said:


> Garnett had losing seasons in Minnesota. Should we void his stats? Gasol had brutal years in Memphis. Bosh's 3rd year in Toronto they won 27 games.
> 
> These guys are stars.


You guys realize less than 25 percent of your games is 20 games?

So your team can be terrible, but any star worth his salt is going to win more than 20 games.

Hell even that AWFUL Orlando Magic team in 2003-2004 won 21 games.

Bosh's worst season - 27 games. He played with another 20 ppg scorer. They won 27 games with Bosh putting up 22.5, Mike James with 20, Morris Peterson with 17, and Charlie V with 13.

Grizzlies never won less than 22 with Gasol. In the last full season of his in Memphis he averaged 20, Mike Miller 18, Chucky Atkins 13.

All you guys are doing is proving the point. Stats can be very misleading, or were Mike James and Mike Miller poised to be second options on Championship Caliber teams.

And for clarification, a championship caliber team is a team that has won a championship.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> No, you can't be serious.
> 
> I think people fail to realize that in 06-07 the Grizzlies were awful with Pau Gasol. They won 22 games. They had a brutal record the year they traded him midseason. Was Gasol not a good player, just because he was on a horrible team? I think you can answer that for yourself. Love in his 3rd year in the league has a higher PER than Pau did after his 3rd year in Memphis. People suggest I'm nuts, but these are facts.
> 
> ...


This is David Lee times 10 apparently.

I'm going to be quiet now.

I'll bump this thread in two, maybe three seasons - though I'm sure you'll pull a caseyh and turn up missing.

The thing you're missing is - he's a great rebounder. Coupled with the chance to get points he's going to look a lot better than he is.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

zagsfan20 said:


> WTF? When did I compare Evans and Rodman. I brought both them up because they are great rebounders. I never compared the two. Reggie Evans is a goon. The only reason they were brought up was to show that players can average 15 or so rebounds, but not all players can average that many rebounds and put up 20 points while doing it.


what do you call it when you put together two things in a sentence as examples of similar characteristics? you're doing it again here 'both great rebounders'? that's like saying the QE2 and my dad's boston whaler are both boats

you also said Rodman would be a scrub without the boards - what he would have been was an elite stopper at 3 or 4 positions


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> So who's better, Love or Lopez?


I would take Lopez over Love and my opinion on Lopez is well known.

Like has been said, Love is a great rebounder. I think the problem is this. Love is a unique player, that does not make him a great player. He provides nothing on defense to warrant 35+ minutes on a title team. I think he optimal role is 3rd big on a great team. At best he can hope to resemble Chuck Hayes defensively and provide spacing for a good post scorer, slasher or pick and roll combo.

He is not a post scorer or post defender and he is not athletic enough to guard 3's.

I think it will be a career long challenge for a coach to come up with a system and a GM the personnel to allow him to thrive statistically and win 50+ games.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> Love is a unique player, that does not make him a great player.


I think that about sums it up, and that's what I was driving at with the Kirilenko comparison.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Tragedy said:


> You guys realize less than 25 percent of your games is 20 games?
> 
> So your team can be terrible, but any star worth his salt is going to win more than 20 games.
> 
> ...


Tragedy, oh Tragedy. Your truly grasping at straws in this argument. The difference between winning 20 and 25 games in an 82 game NBA season is so miniscule that I'm surprised you bring this up as a point.

Not sure what your point is of bringing up teammates for those players? Hell, outside of Beasley there is virtually no player on that Minnesota team thats really worth a damn.

Can you answer me how Mike Miller and Mike James never came close to posting a PER even in the same ballpark as Love. 

You do realize that Laimbeer, McHale and Rip Hamilton were all 2nd options on title teams right?

Funny how you say, I can't be serious. Then you grasp at straws to make your arguments. You still cant answer how Love at the same point in his career (3rd year in) has a better PER than Gasol and Garnett. Despite all 3 players being on awful teams.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

e-monk said:


> what do you call it when you put together two things in a sentence as examples of similar characteristics? you're doing it again here 'both great rebounders'? that's like saying the QE2 and my dad's boston whaler are both boats
> 
> you also said Rodman would be a scrub without the boards - what he would have been was an elite stopper at 3 or 4 positions


I stated that they are both great rebounders. Are they not both great rebounders? If I would've said that they are both great players than you could have an argument. I've never said that though. I've always felt that Rodman was a first ballot HOF'er. Reggie Evans, well I think he's a fringe starter. Go back to the drawing board, son. I would never compare Evans to Rodman as complete players.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> I would take Lopez over Love and my opinion on Lopez is well known.
> 
> Like has been said, Love is a great rebounder. I think the problem is this. Love is a unique player, that does not make him a great player. He provides nothing on defense to warrant 35+ minutes on a title team. I think he optimal role is 3rd big on a great team. At best he can hope to resemble Chuck Hayes defensively and provide spacing for a good post scorer, slasher or pick and roll combo.
> 
> ...


I find a bit of humor in the fact that you say you would take Lopez over Love, then you get into a long paragraph talking about how bad Love's defense is.

Um, Lopez is absolutely awful defensively and he's a 7-footer who has exactly 1 double-double this year. Count it again, 1 double-double and it was in an overtime game nonetheless.

This despite the fact that he's on a team that is just as bad as the Wolves. 

Not a very good argument for taking Lopez over Love.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

zagsfan20 said:


> You do realize that Laimbeer, McHale and Rip Hamilton were all 2nd options on title teams right?



McHale had one of the best post games of the past 30 years and was an excellent defender. Love's one of the best rebounders in the league and a good shooter, but he's not even 6'8" barefoot and plays little to no defense. He could absolutely start on a title team, but he'd need to be matched with a big center who could protect the rim and cover for his defensive lapses and at least one, maybe two go-to scorers who would allow him to do what he's best at(rebounding and getting his offense in the flow of the game) while minimizing his weaknesses(defense, creating for himself).


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Tragedy, oh Tragedy. Your truly grasping at straws in this argument. The difference between winning 20 and 25 games in an 82 game NBA season is so miniscule that I'm surprised you bring this up as a point.
> 
> Not sure what your point is of bringing up teammates for those players? Hell, outside of Beasley there is virtually no player on that Minnesota team thats really worth a damn.
> 
> ...


You clearly don't know how good Mchale was.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

McHale was great. I've watched a lot of NBA classic games and his post moves were unreal. But, he was a solid 2nd option most of his career and had a career PER of 20.0


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> McHale was great. I've watched a lot of NBA classic games and his post moves were unreal. But, he was a solid 2nd option most of his career and had a career PER of 20.0


He would of been a great first option on any team and was a top notch defender. He was a better forward than scottie. Watch more games and look up less PER. 

If love was as good as him the wolves make the playoffs this year.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> He would of been a great first option on any team and was a top notch defender. He was a better forward than scottie. Watch more games and look up less PER.
> 
> If love was as good as him the wolves make the playoffs this year.


You put McHale on a team with a roster similar to the Wolves and I don't think they would make the playoffs. McHale wasn't the type that could carry the scoring load. He worked well in combination with other greats like Bird and Parrish. He was a great 2nd option type. Similar to Love.

I also disagree big time that he was better than Scottie. I hold McHale in the same breath as a player like Worthy. Good system players, but if they were asked to carry a load and be the best player on a team, that team would struggle.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Worthy had a great faceup game, was decent posting up and could finish on the break. He was no where near as versatile as Mchale. Mchale on his own team puts up 25ppg easily. Not to mention the defensive end where Kevin was all-league. I think it's clear you don't know much about his game as your first post put him in the same sentence as rip and lambier.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> Worthy had a great faceup game, was decent posting up and could finish on the break. He was no where near as versatile as Mchale. Mchale on his own team puts up 25ppg easily. Not to mention the defensive end where Kevin was all-league. I think it's clear you don't know much about his game as your first post put him in the same sentence as rip and lambier.


I know plenty about his game. It says your 31 years old, so you have about just as much access to watching the McHale and Worthy types as I do. Much of my info comes from watching ESPN classics and re-runs of classic games on NBATV. 

He's in the same sentence as far as 2nd option on title teams go. Does it mean they are as good? No. But, they are definitely in the same tier. They aren't on the level of 2nd options like Kobe, Wade and Pippen. But, certainly solid players on title teams. I think Gasol and McHale are definitely the upper echelon of that tier. But they aren't on the level of the previously mentioned.

Anywho, back to my original point. I definitely think Love could be at that 2nd option level on a title team.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

That's one of those "don't read my posts anymore" comments. I'm sorry...


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

zagsfan20 said:


> I know plenty about his game. It says your 31 years old, so you have about just as much access to watching the McHale and Worthy types as I do. Much of my info comes from watching ESPN classics and re-runs of classic games on NBATV.
> 
> He's in the same sentence as far as 2nd option on title teams go. Does it mean they are as good? No. But, they are definitely in the same tier. They aren't on the level of 2nd options like Kobe, Wade and Pippen. But, certainly solid players on title teams. I think Gasol and McHale are definitely the upper echelon of that tier. But they aren't on the level of the previously mentioned.
> 
> Anywho, back to my original point. I definitely think Love could be at that 2nd option level on a title team.


McHale was much, much better than Love. You're getting blown away by the rebounding numbers and missing some obvious flaws in his game. He's an excellent rebounder and good shooter, but he's an athletically limited power forward who isn't even 6'8" and can't get his own shot unless it's an offensive rebound. McHale not only had one of the best post-up games ever, but was also one of the best defensive players in the league. Love simply isn't the same caliber player as McHale or Gasol. A very good player who could start for a title team with the right personnel around him, but absolutely not a second option.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

McHale was clearly better than Love. Come on now. This is Amare vs. David Lee all over again.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

McHale was in the 2008 draft???


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Ron said:


> McHale was in the 2008 draft???


Well, he was involved in it. I think it was one of his last activities as GM. For real though, not our fault it was brought up that McHale was a second option as though it should be shocking that's all it takes.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> McHale was clearly better than Love. Come on now. This is Amare vs. David Lee all over again.


People once again are making arguments for me. I never said that Love was as good as McHale. I said they could be similar 2nd option types on great teams.

Not sure what it is, but some players get discredited for their bad defense, while other players have their horrible defense omitted. Its kind of baffling to me. 

Be consistent. Don't pick and choose.

Dude is on a Moses Malone type level in my mind. Again, a solid 2nd option on a championship level team. Same level as Laimbeer, McHale, Hamilton, Worthy and such.

Dude's 22 years old, some around here want to act like the book is closing and he is what he is. Like he'll always have horrible teammates around him and an inept coach.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Moses Malone now? Are you just going to basketballreference.com and looking at career stats?


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Moses Malone!?

This is clearly a joke thread now. 


:aznzen:


:2worf:


:50ha:


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Ron said:


> McHale was in the 2008 draft???


You're just shocked at a Lakers fan giving McHale his props.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The problem with your statement is there is no emphasis on the reason why we watch sports, wins and losses. I hate to say it, but when your team is constantly playing .250 basketball, you're not really playing in games that matter. Like the Wizards this year, are playing to get John Wall experience, but other than that they are just playing out the string.

Players and their numbers are judged in unison to their ability to lead their teams to wins and make them contenders. It's like people calling Blake Griffin an all-star on a 5-18 team. I mean, he's putting up all-star numbers, but a real all-star makes his team a winner.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Dre™ said:


> Moses Malone now? Are you just going to basketballreference.com and looking at career stats?


Your always chipping in one-liners. 

I have just as much access to Moses Malone as you do. We both never watched him play, we just have access to the classic games that are re-aired.

From a #'s standpoint they are very similar and Moses played on some awful teams at the beginning of his career.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Tragedy said:


> Moses Malone!?
> 
> This is clearly a joke thread now.
> 
> ...


Oh neat. Your putting cartoons up to illustrate some kind of point. I bring facts. You bring cartoons.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Your always chipping in one-liners.
> 
> I have just as much access to Moses Malone as you do. We both never watched him play, we just have access to the classic games that are re-aired.
> 
> From a #'s standpoint they are very similar and Moses played on some awful teams at the beginning of his career.


There's not a whole lot I can really say about that past..really? 

And it's not just about "access" to watching classic games and stats, you can read up on what past players, coaches, journalists and scouts have to say on a player, about his standing at the time, about his actual abilities that engendered the production. You don't have to just look at career stats to know who a guy was. There's ways to get good context on a player without having to be old enough to watch his whole career.

We younger posters have the same "access" in theory but why am I not running around calling Gerald Wallace Pippen and Kevin Love McHale and Moses Malone? It gets to a level of disrespect for the game honestly.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

We were shaking our head at McHale. Moses Malone? Wow. You might as well just say Kevin Love is more or less about as good as a prime Kareem.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

So who was the first option on the 82-83 NBA Champion Sixers?

Who was the first option on the 80-81 NBA runner up Rockets?

This thread is hilarious


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

zagsfan20 said:


> People once again are making arguments for me. I never said that Love was as good as McHale. I said they could be similar 2nd option types on great teams.
> 
> Not sure what it is, but some players get discredited for their bad defense, while other players have their horrible defense omitted. Its kind of baffling to me.
> 
> ...


He isn't though, McHale was a go-to scorer. He had a complete offensive repertoire and in some ways changed the perception of the position. He averaged 26 points per game on 60% shooting for a Finals team and was first team all-NBA. Moses won three MVP's, including one during a season in which he averaged over 24 points on better than 50% shooting and better than 15 rebounds per game for a team that won the title, all while not being a defensive sieve. You're vastly overrating an admittedly good player in Love and/or grossly underrating all-time talents.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

HKF said:


> The problem with your statement is there is no emphasis on the reason why we watch sports, wins and losses. I hate to say it, but when your team is constantly playing .250 basketball, you're not really playing in games that matter. Like the Wizards this year, are playing to get John Wall experience, but other than that they are just playing out the string.
> 
> Players and their numbers are judged in unison to their ability to lead their teams to wins and make them contenders. It's like people calling Blake Griffin an all-star on a 5-18 team. I mean, he's putting up all-star numbers, but a real all-star makes his team a winner.


My point is that many players have played on bad teams at the beginning of their careers. Why should we think that a player is never going to be a part of a good team when they are only 21 and 22 years old? Winning isn't a thing that is easily done when you have below marginal talent around a good player. Look at how awful that Minnesota team is from top to bottom. To take away from Love's game because he doesn't have help is absurd.

People forget the bad years for Garnett in Minny, or Gasol's in Memphis. They had awful years with those teams because they had marginal talent. Seriously, that Wolves roster from top to bottom is about the worst in the league. 

Put a team around Love and he will win. Then the people that have their mindset on autotune that Love is not a good player will have to dig deep to find some other talking points to disparrage his game with.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> We were shaking our head at McHale. Moses Malone? Wow. You might as well just say Kevin Love is more or less about as good as a prime Kareem.


Moses Malone is as good as a prime Kareem? This is news to me. I think from an offensive standpoint Love has more depth to his game than Malone did. Moses was a beast like no other on the boards though, most his offensive game came from being a bruiser in the paint.

Defensively they both weren't that good. Thats where the comparison draws from.

Love at 22 is without a doubt a better player than Malone was at the same age.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Who's saying he's not good? We're saying he'd be lucky to scrape the bottom of the third tier of the league in his prime. 

This reminds me to a lesser extent of the Brandon Roy discussions awhile back. He did a lot more than Love will ever do, but people saw his numbers at a young age and just assumed they'd keep rising until he was a top 5 player.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

zagsfan20 said:


> My point is that many players have played on bad teams at the beginning of their careers. Why should we think that a player is never going to be a part of a good team when they are only 21 and 22 years old? Winning isn't a thing that is easily done when you have below marginal talent around a good player. Look at how awful that Minnesota team is from top to bottom. To take away from Love's game because he doesn't have help is absurd.
> 
> People forget the bad years for Garnett in Minny, or Gasol's in Memphis. They had awful years with those teams because they had marginal talent. Seriously, that Wolves roster from top to bottom is about the worst in the league.
> 
> Put a team around Love and he will win. Then the people that have their mindset on autotune that Love is not a good player will have to dig deep to find some other talking points to disparrage his game with.


You're grossly overreacting to the anti-Love remarks and equating him to players he has no business being compared to. If you want to point out that Gasol completely changed his perception around the league when he was traded to a stacked team and improved his defense and interior toughness, fine. But when you throw out statements like "you realize McHale was a second option?" or that "he could be like Moses Malone on a title team" you completely discredit anything else you have to say.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Bogg said:


> He isn't though, McHale was a go-to scorer. He had a complete offensive repertoire and in some ways changed the perception of the position. He averaged 26 points per game on 60% shooting for a Finals team and was first team all-NBA. Moses won three MVP's, including one during a season in which he averaged over 24 points on better than 50% shooting and better than 15 rebounds per game for a team that won the title, all while not being a defensive sieve. You're vastly overrating an admittedly good player in Love and/or grossly underrating all-time talents.


How old was Malone when he got that MVP?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Bogg said:


> You're grossly overreacting to the anti-Love remarks and equating him to players he has no business being compared to. If you want to point out that Gasol completely changed his perception around the league when he was traded to a stacked team and improved his defense and interior toughness, fine. But when you throw out statements like "you realize McHale was a second option?" or that "he could be like Moses Malone on a title team" you completely discredit anything else you have to say.


I bring facts. Others bring one-liners and opinions.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Dre™;6431201 said:


> Who's saying he's not good? We're saying he'd be lucky to scrape the bottom of the third tier of the league in his prime.
> 
> This reminds me to a lesser extent of the Brandon Roy discussions awhile back. He did a lot more than Love will ever do, but people saw his numbers at a young age and just assumed they'd keep rising until he was a top 5 player.


Roy was a fringe top 5 player last year. Unfortunately bone-on-bone miniscus in his knee has sidetracked his career a little bit.

Love is a 3rd tier type player right now. At 22 years old.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> Moses Malone is as good as a prime Kareem? This is news to me. I think from an offensive standpoint Love has more depth to his game than Malone did. Moses was a beast like no other on the boards though, most his offensive game came from being a bruiser in the paint.
> 
> Defensively they both weren't that good. Thats where the comparison draws from.
> 
> Love at 22 is without a doubt a better player than Malone was at the same age.


I have to quote this post for posterity. Easily the most unintentionally funny post in the history of this forum and that is saying something


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> I bring facts.


Where? All I've seen is ridiculously off-base opinions with no basis in reality.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

cpawfan said:


> I have to quote this post for posterity. Easily the most unintentionally funny post in the history of this forum and that is saying something


Bring facts. I love the one-liner type material in here. If your going to try and be-little my posts. Atleast bring some facts to the conversation. What did I say that was factually incorrect?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

cpawfan said:


> Where? All I've seen is ridiculously off-base opinions with no basis in reality.


Look through out this thread I have brought facts in every post. Statistical facts.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Defensively they both weren't that good. Thats where the comparison draws from.


Just saying Malone got on two all-defensive teams, one of which 1st team. Love will never do that. 

He averaged nearly a block and a half for his career despite the last half dozen or so years diminishing his averages.

Love is at 0.5 so far.

Malone is 30th all-time in defensive win shares.

Facts.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

zagsfan20 said:


> How old was Malone when he got that MVP?


He got his first MVP at age 23, when he averaged 25 and 17.6 per game on 54% shooting for a playoff team. I have serious doubts about Love's ability to win an MVP next year. Someone remember to bump this thread when they vote for the MVP next year. If Love is without a doubt better than Malone at age 22, and Malone won an MVP at age 23, then Love should easily be one of the top guys in the voting, right?



Facts are fun

EDIT: Malone was born at the end of March, making him 24 when he received the award, but 23 the vast majority of the season he earned it. Just the facts.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> How old was Malone when he got that MVP?


1978-79 NBA MVP
1981-82 NBA MVP
1982-83 NBA Finals MVP
1982-83 NBA MVP

He turned 24 during his first MVP season. 

Now we wait for the claim that Love still has time


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> Look through out this thread I have brought facts in every post. Statistical facts.


Other than quoting PER for McHale, you've had no facts from post 51 on in this thread.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Oh crap - I just realized we been going back and forth with a Blazers homer.

In order to be a Blazers homer you have to get a degree in over-rating players.

The joke is on us guys.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Dre™ said:


> Just saying Malone got on two all-defensive teams, one of which 1st team. Love will never do that.
> 
> He averaged nearly a block and a half for his career despite the last half dozen or so years diminishing his averages.
> 
> ...


I didn't realize that Malone was a good defender. I retract my take that Love is as good as Malone.

A lot around here refuse to give Love credit where its due though. Saying he'll be 3rd tier when he's in his prime is ridiculous when he's a 3rd tier type player right now. 

A lot around here are closing the book on him like he's a finished product and will always be playing on a losing team.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> Bring facts. I love the one-liner type material in here. If your going to try and be-little my posts. Atleast bring some facts to the conversation. What did I say that was factually incorrect?


Your entire descriptions of McHale's and Malone's games are so far off base that it is the same as refuting someone who says 2+2=5

For the record, I'm not belittling your posts. On the contrary, I'm enjoying the entertainment and hope you keep posting since the Heat-Warrior game sucks


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Tragedy said:


> Oh crap - I just realized we been going back and forth with a Blazers homer.
> 
> In order to be a Blazers homer you have to get a degree in over-rating players.
> 
> The joke is on us guys.


I'm a homer? How about you go over to the Blazers board I post on and scour some of my posts. I think you'll figure out quickly that I'm far from a homer. McMillan is a garbage x's and o's coach and Aldridge is a pussy.

No big deal to throw out generalizations though. I bet you think Amare is a good defender too


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

cpawfan said:


> Your entire descriptions of McHale's and Malone's games are so far off base that it is the same as refuting someone who says 2+2=5
> 
> For the record, I'm not belittling your posts. On the contrary, I'm enjoying the entertainment and hope you keep posting since the Heat-Warrior game sucks


I might be a little out of touch with my Malone comparison. But, I suggest reading through this thread again. To say that I'm just bringing my opinion and not backing it up with facts is flat wrong.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Let's compare Love to players he should be compared to. I can't even entertain these Malone/McHale comparisons because they're so wrong. 

What do you guys think? I really think Horace Grant is about right in terms of caliber. Grant was about 14/10 on those title teams. Anyone got any better comparison?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Better than Horace. A notch below McHale. By the way, not once in this thread have I said that Love is as good as McHale. I stated that he was in the same tier of 2nd option on a title contender type player, if given a chance with the right players around him.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I don't know what I see him as on a championship team because I don't know if I see a title team with him starting in the post unless it's next to Dwight Howard.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> By the way, not once in this thread have I said that Love is as good as McHale. *I stated that he was in the same tier of 2nd option on a title contender type player, if given a chance with the right players around him*.


in an odd numbered year when he's sporting a goatee?

Seriously though, saying all that one could very easily, perhaps most logically, conclude you're saying he's as good as McHale. I mean saying he's in the same tier...?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Let's compare Love to players he should be compared to. I can't even entertain these Malone/McHale comparisons because they're so wrong.
> 
> What do you guys think? I really think Horace Grant is about right in terms of caliber. Grant was about 14/10 on those title teams. Anyone got any better comparison?


The thing is, Love's gonna grab those rebounds. He'll lose some to teammates on a good rebounding team, but typically elite rebounding transfers. What's likely to drop is the scoring, because he isn't getting 15-16 shots on a title team unless he's grabbing 10 offensive rebounds per game. Pau Gasol doesn't even get 15 shots a game and there isn't a player on the Celtics who gets 14 a game, and Love wouldn't be one of the three best scorers on the C's, and probably wouldn't be in the top three offensively on the Lakers(depends on where you are with Odom). He just might have a 14/14 season on a championship team, but he'd have to _vastly_ expand his post game to put 20 points on a contender.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

A notch below one of the NBA's 50 greatest players. 

Do anyone else realize how ridiculous that sounds?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

zagsfan20 said:


> Better than Horace. A notch below McHale. By the way, not once in this thread have I said that Love is as good as McHale. I stated that he was in the same tier of 2nd option on a title contender type player, if given a chance with the right players around him.


He's not. He's not, he's not, he's not. Never once in his career did McHale shoot this poorly of a field goal percentage, and only once in his career(his last season in the league) did he even dip below 50% from the field. Love doesn't have the offensive capability you think he does. Elite rebounder, excellent outlet passer, above-average scorer. Sieve defensively and can't create for himself in the post or off the dribble.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

It's a gigantic leap between Grant and McHale though. Huge.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Centered primarily on McHale's post game. I've heard people say a couple times he had the best offensive back to the basket game ever.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Bogg said:


> The thing is, Love's gonna grab those rebounds. He'll lose some to teammates on a good rebounding team, but typically elite rebounding transfers. What's likely to drop is the scoring, because he isn't getting 15-16 shots on a title team unless he's grabbing 10 offensive rebounds per game. Pau Gasol doesn't even get 15 shots a game and there isn't a player on the Celtics who gets 14 a game, and Love wouldn't be one of the three best scorers on the C's, and probably wouldn't be in the top three offensively on the Lakers(depends on where you are with Odom). He just might have a 14/14 season on a championship team, but he'd have to _vastly_ expand his post game to put 20 points on a contender.


Love's defensive rebounding would be about the same, but I don't see him collecting 5 offensive boards per game, especially if he is getting less offensive touches and isn't collecting boards off his own misses. 

Garnett's rebounding dropped when he joined the Celtics by about 2 per game (adjusted for minutes).


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I'd rather have Horace Grant. Horace was a tremendous defender who was able to match up with all sorts of players because of his strength and athleticism. He was a better player than Love if you want to win basketball games. Love is basically a guy who gives up about as much as he gets. If you are talking about fantasy league then Love is your guy. If you need someone to help you win a game then Horace was a lot better.

Love is better than Harvey though.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Where does Love rank among power forwards this season? Is he even top 5?


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I don't know about the whole "through 20 games" evaluations but I could throw an anvil up in the air and say 5 PFs I'd rather have before it landed.

EDIT: Matter of fact, boring night:

Gasol
Dirk
Bosh
Amare
KG (still)
Griffin
Scola
Boozer
probably Odom

No order


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> A notch below one of the NBA's 50 greatest players.
> 
> Do anyone else realize how ridiculous that sounds?


:lol:

There is one KH here I know that would put Love ahead of Kobe right now.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

cpawfan said:


> For the record, I'm not belittling your posts. On the contrary, I'm enjoying the entertainment and hope you keep posting since the Heat-Warrior game sucks


It's certainly funnier than "**** My Dad Says".


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I guess he ran out of ammo


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> I know plenty about his game. It says your 31 years old, so you have about just as much access to watching the McHale and Worthy types as I do. Much of my info comes from watching ESPN classics and re-runs of classic games on NBATV.
> 
> He's in the same sentence as far as 2nd option on title teams go. Does it mean they are as good? No. But, they are definitely in the same tier. They aren't on the level of 2nd options like Kobe, Wade and Pippen. But, certainly solid players on title teams. I think Gasol and McHale are definitely the upper echelon of that tier. But they aren't on the level of the previously mentioned.
> 
> Anywho, back to my original point. I definitely think Love could be at that 2nd option level on a title team.


Mchale, worthy, and Malone all played into the 90s. You know what I did around the time I was 8? I went to the library and checked out literally every NBA book they had. Almanacs, biographies, everything. I didn't have the web, I didn't have per. Hell I still don't know exactly what per is.

Mchale used to have bosons record for most points on a game. Bird always felt Mchale was just as talented as him but just lacked his work ethic and drive. Im really hoping this is a case of you overrating love, but as you shown with your Moses comments you have no knowledge of the 80s. 

Moses was a top ten player of all time by the way.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Dre™ said:


> I guess he ran out of ammo


Or, I went to bed.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Dre™ said:


> I don't know about the whole "through 20 games" evaluations but I could throw an anvil up in the air and say 5 PFs I'd rather have before it landed.
> 
> EDIT: Matter of fact, boring night:
> 
> ...


I'd say 5th. Also the youngest in the top 5.

I'm going to bookmark this thread and bump it again in a couple years.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Love better have some MVPs and multiple all-NBA selections or you're still gonna look silly.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

zagsfan20 said:


> I stated that they are both great rebounders. Are they not both great rebounders? If I would've said that they are both great players than you could have an argument. I've never said that though. I've always felt that Rodman was a first ballot HOF'er. Reggie Evans, well I think he's a fringe starter. Go back to the drawing board, son. I would never compare Evans to Rodman as complete players.


again, what do you call it when you put two things together as representatives of similar characteristics? there's a word for what that is that you are doing. Are you familiar with that word? am I typing this too fast for you, son?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

zagsfan20 said:


> Moses Malone is as good as a prime Kareem? This is news to me. I think from an offensive standpoint Love has more depth to his game than Malone did. Moses was a beast like no other on the boards though, most his offensive game came from being a bruiser in the paint.
> 
> Defensively they both weren't that good. Thats where the comparison draws from.
> 
> Love at 22 is without a doubt a better player than Malone was at the same age.


this is where you really went off the rails

fo-fo-fo my man - Moses in his prime was a number one not a number two and in much more competitive time for the league (especially at his position) and he also lead a second team (the Rockets) to the finals

you are talking about 13 trips to the allstar game, 3 time league MVP, All NBA 1st or 2nd team 8 times, 1st or 2nd All D twice, lead the league in rebounding 5 times, #6 all time in points scored, twice lead the league in PER (9 times in the top 10), and first ballot hall of fame

and COMPARING him to Kevin Love?

well I am old enough to have seen Moses play and let me tell you about the broom, the mop and the plastic bag you would have had to bring to clean up the pieces of Kevin Love that were left if they ever faced each other


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

zagsfan20 said:


> How old was Malone when he got that MVP?


his first one? one year older than Love is right now - what is your point?


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

There is a whole lot of fail in this thread.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Love had already attended a high school in Oregon before turning 22. Malone still to this day probably has not even stepped foot in the state of Oregon except to play the blazers.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

I'm the biggest Kevin Love homer there is, but comparing him to McHale is ridiculous. The biggest thing they have in common right now is their first name. McHale is one of the Top 30 players in NBA History. Love is playing like a beast, but calling such a comparison premature is an understatement.

(And Moses too, who's a Top 20 player all-time).


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I'd say 5th. Also the youngest in the top 5.
> 
> I'm going to bookmark this thread and bump it again in a couple years.


To admit you were having a couple drinks too many last night? OK.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Love had already attended a high school in Oregon before turning 22. Malone still to this day probably has not even stepped foot in the state of Oregon except to play the blazers.


That explains EVERYTHING.

Zags fan is either Kevin Love or a relative.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

The things people say on the internet... There's no way he's serious, comparing a rebounding role player (albiet a talented one) to Kevin Mchale? Really now?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

:laugh: interesting fella I tell ya


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> Love had already attended a high school in Oregon before turning 22. Malone still to this day probably has not even stepped foot in the state of Oregon except to play the blazers.


? Say what?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

A lot of posters here are masters at taking people's statements out of context. Sensationalizing my opinions. I never once said that Love was as good as McHale or Malone. I said they are similar in that Love could be a 2nd option type on a title team and that Love's #'s are not off base from what McHale was doing at the same age. Except McHale played with 2 other HOF'ers. Love plays with Beasley and a bunch of cast-offs and misfits. 

I retracted my statement about Malone after the fact because I realized it was a little bit of a far-fetched comparison.

But, continue to pile on and bring in one-liners if it tickles your fancy. I've realized strawman's run rampant around this joint.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

HB said:


> :laugh: interesting fella I tell ya


Says the guy that thinks Harrison Barnes is as good as Kobe and T-Mac at the same age. The same guy who think Terrence Williams is going to be a star. Oh, how is Brook Lopez doing? I thought he was the 2nd best Center in the league according to you.

lol. I'm not sure I'd really call you interesting. I think the word ignorant is a better description.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

zagsfan20 said:


> A lot of posters here are masters at taking people's statements out of context. Sensationalizing my opinions. I never once said that Love was as good as McHale or Malone. I said they are similar in that Love could be a 2nd option type on a title team and that Love's #'s are not off base from what McHale was doing at the same age. Except McHale played with 2 other HOF'ers. Love plays with Beasley and a bunch of cast-offs and misfits.
> 
> I retracted my statement about Malone after the fact because I realized it was a little bit of a far-fetched comparison.
> 
> But, continue to pile on and bring in one-liners if it tickles your fancy. I've realized strawman's run rampant around this joint.


Love isn't good enough to be a 2nd option on a championship team, some one said it best he is closer to a Horce Grant type on a championship level team.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Game3525 said:


> Love isn't good enough to be a 2nd option on a championship team, some one said it best he is closer to a Horce Grant type on a championship level team.


Horace Grant could've never sniffed 20/15 in his career. Grant had a 20 PER once and his career average for rebounds was 8 a game. Grant averaged 11 and 8 for his career.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

zagsfan20 said:


> Horace Grant could've never sniffed 20/15 in his career. Grant had a 20 PER once and his career average for rebounds was 8 a game. Grant averaged 11 and 8 for his career.


Horace Grant most likely could average 20/10. It really depends what kind of team he plays on, if his playing with the a championship team like the Bulls, he won't. But if he was playing on a garbage team like Minny, he could put up those numbers.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Game3525 said:


> Horace Grant most likely could average 20/10. It really depends what kind of team he plays on, if his playing with the a championship team like the Bulls, he won't. But if he was playing on a garbage team like Minny, he could put up those numbers.


There's a big difference between 10 rebounds and 15.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

zagsfan20 said:


> There's a big difference between 10 rebounds and 15.


True.

Grant isn't as good as Love on the boards, but their ceilings as players are similar. On good teams, they would be 3rd or 4th options, while on bad teams they would put up very pretty numbers.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Game3525 said:


> True.
> 
> Grant isn't as good as Love on the boards, but their ceilings as players are similar. On good teams, they would be 3rd or 4th options, while on bad teams they would put up very pretty numbers.


No way to really know. Grant was lucky enought to have always played with Hall of Famer's.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

but his TWIN brother wasnt that lucky and guess what? 18ppg! how about it?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

e-monk said:


> but his TWIN brother wasnt that lucky and guess what? 18ppg! how about it?


Harvey averaged 4 rebounds for his career.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

zagsfan20 said:


> Harvey averaged 4 rebounds for his career.


and????


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

e-monk said:


> and????


18ppg game isn't a feat. 20 and 15 is. I'm not sure how this fly's over people's head, but players who average 15 rebounds in the NBA don't average 20pts on top of that. It never happens. Horrible team, or not.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Love is a 3rd wheel on a title team. Like Dennis Rodman. If he's your second best player you're probably not challenging for a title.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> Love is a 3rd wheel on a title team. Like Dennis Rodman. If he's your second best player you're probably not challenging for a title.


I beg to differ. 

For instance. You put Love on say Denver, they are a title contender immediately and he's the 2nd option at this point. A trio of Melo/Love/Billups with Nene/Smith/Anderson/Lawson/Afflalo as role players is an instant title contender.

Simply opinion. But, I certainly don't think I'm going that far out on a limb with that.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> :laugh: interesting fella I tell ya


You know it's bad when HB wants to pile on.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> You know it's bad when HB wants to pile on.


HB wants to pile on for all the times I've punked his basketball 'takes'.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> 18ppg game isn't a feat. 20 and 15 is. I'm not sure how this fly's over people's head, but players who average 15 rebounds in the NBA don't average 20pts on top of that. It never happens. Horrible team, or not.


But what does it mean? You're trying to use his rebounding ability to prop up his scoring ability. Are all of his shortcomings irrelevant because he'll grab 5 more rebounds per game than a power forward should? 

That's like a player averaging 15 points and 5 steals per game, and someone arguing they could be a 2nd option on a championship team because nobody has ever averaged 15 points and 5 steals before.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> But what does it mean? You're trying to use his rebounding ability to prop up his scoring ability. Are all of his shortcomings irrelevant because he'll grab 5 more rebounds per game than a power forward should?
> 
> That's like a player averaging 15 points and 5 steals per game, and someone arguing they could be a 2nd option on a championship team because nobody has ever averaged 15 points and 5 steals before.


Players who put forth as much effort to get rebounds don't hit 3's at a 40% and clip and score 20ppg. Dude, its not that tough to understand what I'm saying. No player, since 1982, before you and I were born, has averaged 20/15. There's been plenty of bad teams since then for this to happen, but players even on bad teams haven't accomplished this.

I think if you watch the Wolves at all, you can tell that the roster around him is horrible. He's not a ball dominating player either, most of his scoring comes within the offense so he's not going to piggy back horrible teams to wins they shouldn't get.

I'd also like to add, Kurt Rambis is a pathetic coach.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> Players who put forth as much effort to get rebounds don't hit 3's at a 40% and clip and score 20ppg. Dude, its not that tough to understand what I'm saying. No player, since 1982, before you and I were born, has averaged 20/15. There's been plenty of bad teams since then for this to happen, but players even on bad teams haven't accomplished this.
> 
> I think if you watch the Wolves at all, you can tell that the roster around him is horrible. He's not a ball dominating player either, most of his scoring comes within the offense so he's not going to piggy back horrible teams to wins they shouldn't get.
> 
> I'd also like to add, Kurt Rambis is a pathetic coach.


Kirilenko fell in that category too when he averaged 15/8/4/3 and he was never a 2nd option type player. Love hasn't been as good as Al Jefferson was with the Timberwolves. You're seriously overrating him and I feel like I'm talking to casey about David Lee now so I'm going to stop.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Kirilenko fell in that category too when he averaged 15/8/4/3 and he was never a 2nd option type player. Love hasn't been as good as Al Jefferson was with the Timberwolves. You're seriously overrating him and I feel like I'm talking to casey about David Lee now so I'm going to stop.


Love has been better than Jefferson with the Wolves. Care to bring fact to the table that suggest Jefferson ever had a better year with the Wolves than what Love is doing this year?


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> McHale was clearly better than Love. Come on now. This is Amare vs. David Lee all over again.


No, it's a throwback to Blue Magic's "Gerald Wallace is better than Scottie Pippen" diatribe.

Zagsfan bringin' the funny!


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> No, it's a throwback to Blue Magic's "Gerald Wallace is better than Scottie Pippen" diatribe.
> 
> Zagsfan bringin' the funny!


Besides the fact I never said Love was better than McHale. But, sure.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Semi-OT: Somebody needs to go ahead with a Moses McHale username. I'm not going to do it but it's dope.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

The fact that Mchale played with HOF players HURT his numbers, not helped. Except his field goal percentage since he got less shot attempts. Since that was your basis for comparing the two you need to check yourself. Put love alongside bird and parrish and he doesn't get 15 boards.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Kevin Love is not a top 3 player on a title team.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

I'm not even sure if Kevin Love is a starter on a title team.


----------



## kawika (May 7, 2003)

Dre™ said:


> Semi-OT: Somebody needs to go ahead with a Moses McHale username. I'm not going to do it but it's dope.


I like, I like! (And frankly, while this thread has been, at times, entertaining as hell, it hasn't exactly been on topic either, so I wouldn't worry about it.)

Getting back to the original topic, though, while it's nice to see these guys coming into their own, but I'd rather take 2005 over 2008, even granting that one has had three more years of development to observe: obviously Paul and Williams top the list, but Granger, Monta Ellis, David Lee, Bogut, Bynum make a nice second tier, with at least a dozen more guys from Nate Robinson...all the way down to, I don't know, Linas Kleiza, who are still contributing in the league five years later. 

When this thread is bumped in three years  I guess we'll have a better idea, but my bet is that the 2008 draft is regarded as being closer to 'good' than "pretty incredible". 


Re: the Love discussion, for my money, this was the astute observation:



MemphisX said:


> I think it will be a career long challenge for a coach to come up with a system and a GM the personnel to allow him to thrive statistically and win 50+ games.


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

I would just like to point out that I believed in Hibbert and Beasley and they are starting to come out of their shell like I predicted.

I was pissed that Raptors or Heat didn't try and draft Hibbert. If I remember correctly, Heat had a few assets that they could of traded/sold to get Hibbert.

Hibbert Bosh would be amazing right now and even if we didn't have Bosh, Hibbert Beasley would be perfect.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> I never once said that Love was as good as McHale or Malone. I said they are similar in that Love could be a 2nd option type on a title team and that Love's #'s are not off base from what McHale was doing at the same age.


Moses Malone was not the second option on the '83 Sixers. The reason that Love's numbers are "similar" to McHale's is because he plays on a ****ty team that allows him to force up as many shots as he wants, and McHale played on one of the more stacked teams in NBA history.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Besides the fact I never said Love was better than McHale. But, sure.


Oh ok, you haven't outright said it. You've only compared Love's PER to McHale's and said Love could "play a similar role" to McHale on the 80s Celtics or Moses on the 83 Sixers.

But no, you haven't hinted at it or danced around the topic at all, much less embarrassed yourself in this thread.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

McHale was one of the best post players ever and Love is a terrible post player. You have to look at it logically or you'll never see the similarities.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> Love has been better than Jefferson with the Wolves. Care to bring fact to the table that suggest Jefferson ever had a better year with the Wolves than what Love is doing this year?


Al Jefferson in the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 seasons was 23/11 and 21/11. He was not all-defense by any means but he wasn't the revolving door that Love is. 

Give me your ideal situation for Love winning a title and being the 2nd option. Give me the starting lineup of the team that would win a title with him as the 2nd guy.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> The fact that Mchale played with HOF players HURT his numbers, not helped. Except his field goal percentage since he got less shot attempts. Since that was your basis for comparing the two you need to check yourself. Put love alongside bird and parrish and he doesn't get 15 boards.


I know. I'm not arguing that it hurt his numbers. That is apparent. He played in more meaninful games and won titles, which is part of what made him so great.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> I'm not even sure if Kevin Love is a starter on a title team.


lol

okie dokie artichokie. 

Whatever you say boss.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Al Jefferson in the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 seasons was 23/11 and 21/11. He was not all-defense by any means but he wasn't the revolving door that Love is.
> 
> Give me your ideal situation for Love winning a title and being the 2nd option. Give me the starting lineup of the team that would win a title with him as the 2nd guy.


I already gave you the situation. Put him on a team like Denver. A trio of Melo/Love/Billups with role players like Harrington/Nene/Smith/Anderson/Lawson/Afflalo. Thats a championship level team right there.

Starting lineup:
Billups
Afflalo
Melo
Love
Nene

Loaded bench and balanced scoring.

For the record, Jefferson was/is pathetic at defense.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

That's a good ideal situation, except Billups is the 2nd guy on that team, not Love. If Billups declines to the point where he is no longer 2nd option, the team goes down with him and they are no lnnger close to a title team.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

zagsfan20 said:


> lol
> 
> okie dokie artichokie.
> 
> Whatever you say boss.


Debating at it's finest. You have yet to show a scenerio in which Love is the second best player on a championship team. 

And what GrandKenyon said wasn't really that crazy Love wouldn't have started on any of the last three championship teams.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Stop picking on Lovefa....I mean zagsfan. Surely someone else sees things his way


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Oh, and Love doesn't score anywhere close to 20ppg in that Nuggets scenario.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> That's a good ideal situation, except Billups is the 2nd guy on that team, not Love. If Billups declines to the point where he is no longer 2nd option, the team goes down with him and they are no lnnger close to a title team.


Purely opinion. I think Love could easily be the second option on that team.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

Dee-Zy said:


> I would just like to point out that I believed in Hibbert and Beasley and they are starting to come out of their shell like I predicted.
> 
> I was pissed that Raptors or Heat didn't try and draft Hibbert. If I remember correctly, Heat had a few assets that they could of traded/sold to get Hibbert.


Heh the Raptors did draft Hibbert. He was part of that JO-TJ Ford trade, remember?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

VanillaPrice said:


> Debating at it's finest. You have yet to show a scenerio in which Love is the second best player on a championship team.
> 
> And what GrandKenyon said wasn't really that crazy Love wouldn't have started on any of the last three championship teams.


Debating at it finest? Did you not read the one-liner in which I was responding to? How am I supposed to debate with that?

Twice I've given examples of Love being 2nd best option on a championship level team. Perhaps you go back and read the thread before you spew wrong statements, bro.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> Purely opinion. I think Love could easily be the second option on that team.


Well my opinion is agreed upon by most basketball fans and yours is the bold opinion. He will have to prove that he can do it before he is given the benefit of the doubt, because as it appears right now, he clearly isn't good enough to succeed in that role on a championship team. Players like Gasol and Garnett would eat his lunch in a 7 game series.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

zagsfan20 said:


> Purely opinion. I think Love could easily be the second option on that team.


He could be the second option on that team, but that's because Billups is on the decline(badly) and that Denver squad would never make it past Dallas or the Lakers, and it's unclear how'd they'd fare against San An, OKC, or Utah. I mean, realistically speaking, Pau or Dirk have a shot at hanging 40ppg on Love in a playoff series.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Bogg said:


> I mean, realistically speaking, Pau or Dirk have a shot at hanging 40ppg on Love in a playoff series.


But Love will grab 15 rebounds and shoot 40% from the three point line in that series. That would offset those Pau/Dirk numbers...right?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Sir Patchwork said:


> But Love will grab 15 rebounds and shoot 40% from the three point line in that series. That would offset those Pau/Dirk numbers...right?


Hey, when you trot out a frontcourt that's 6'9" and a shade under 6'8" when every other elite team in the league has been getting bigger and bigger for the playoffs, I suppose anything's possible. Look at all the titles D'antoni and Nellie won playing small ball this past decade.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Kevin Love is not going to be a second option over Billups and Nene. Hell, if you give Arron Afflalo as many shots as Kevin Love, he would average 20 PPG too.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

cpawfan said:


> Kevin Love is not going to be a second option over Billups and Nene. Hell, if you give Arron Afflalo as many shots as Kevin Love, he would average 20 PPG too.


Love wouldn't be a 2nd option over Nene? lol ok.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

cpawfan said:


> Kevin Love is not going to be a second option over Billups and Nene. Hell, if you give Arron Afflalo as many shots as Kevin Love, he would average 20 PPG too.


Billups has been straight up bad so far this year and Nene isn't exactly a go-to scorer. Love would have a shot at being the second option, but that's not a title team(which was my point).


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Bogg said:


> Billups has been straight up bad so far this year and Nene isn't exactly a go-to scorer. Love would have a shot at being the second option, but that's not a title team(which was my point).


I watch the Nuggets extensively. Nene's problem, which is long standing, is that he is too passive. He is a far more complete offensive player than Love.

Kevin Love gunning for shots doesn't improve the Nuggets chances in any playoff series. Their only chance of winning a playoff series if Melo isn't traded is Kenyon coming back healthy and even then it is all about matchups. A healthy Nuggets team isn't beating the Lakers or Spurs in a playoff series.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> Love wouldn't be a 2nd option over Nene? lol ok.


Nene passes up good shots all of the time much to Karl's dismay. He has spent years trying to Nene to be more aggressive on offense. 

Your understanding of the Nuggets is as good as your understanding of Moses and McHale.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

cpawfan said:


> I watch the Nuggets extensively. Nene's problem, which is long standing, is that he is too passive. He is a far more complete offensive player than Love.
> 
> Kevin Love gunning for shots doesn't improve the Nuggets chances in any playoff series. Their only chance of winning a playoff series if Melo isn't traded is Kenyon coming back healthy and even then it is all about matchups. A healthy Nuggets team isn't beating the Lakers or Spurs in a playoff series.


Kevin Love the "gunner" is shooting 43% from 3. I watch the Nuggets extensively as well. Nene is much more limited offensively than Love is. 

Love has a sweet right-handed hook and is smooth from medium range as well. A great deal of his problem is that his PG's are horrible at getting him the ball. Ridnour is garbage at entry passing.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

cpawfan said:


> Nene passes up good shots all of the time much to Karl's dismay. He has spent years trying to Nene to be more aggressive on offense.
> 
> Your understanding of the Nuggets is as good as your understanding of Moses and McHale.


I appreciate the subtle jab. But, I assure you I've seen the Nuggets play just as much as you this year. They are struggling primarily due to injury. They have Gary Forbes starting at the 2 lately. Billups has been on such a downhill decline, they need to almost look at starting Lawson at this point.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

cpawfan said:


> I watch the Nuggets extensively. Nene's problem, which is long standing, is that he is too passive. He is a far more complete offensive player than Love.
> 
> Kevin Love gunning for shots doesn't improve the Nuggets chances in any playoff series. Their only chance of winning a playoff series if Melo isn't traded is Kenyon coming back healthy and even then it is all about matchups. A healthy Nuggets team isn't beating the Lakers or Spurs in a playoff series.


I'm..........not sure if we're arguing anymore. Are.....are you agreeing with me? I said Love would have a shot at being the second option and they wouldn't make it out of the West. I don't know how Nene being passive and the Lakers, among other teams, being better refutes that.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Bogg said:


> I'm..........not sure if we're arguing anymore. Are.....are you agreeing with me? I said Love would have a shot at being the second option and they wouldn't make it out of the West. I don't know how Nene being passive and the Lakers, among other teams, being better refutes that.


I agree that adding Love doesn't get the Nuggets out of the West.

I disagree that Love would have a shot at being the Nuggets consistent second option.

Nene's passivity generally prevents him from taking enough shots (as he gives up the ball when he shouldn't), but getting him the ball is something Karl has built into the offense.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> I appreciate the subtle jab. But, I assure you I've seen the Nuggets play just as much as you this year. They are struggling primarily due to injury. They have Gary Forbes starting at the 2 lately. Billups has been on such a downhill decline, they need to almost look at starting Lawson at this point.


You've watched every Nugget game this season? I doubt that.

Gary Forbes started two games for Melo with Afflalo, the SG, still in the starting lineup. He played 12 minutes against the Knicks with Melo back. Earlier in the season he started 2 games at SF when Karl went small with Nene injured (Melo played PF).


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Kevin Love the "gunner" is shooting 43% from 3. I watch the Nuggets extensively as well. Nene is much more limited offensively than Love is.
> 
> Love has a sweet right-handed hook and is smooth from medium range as well. A great deal of his problem is that his PG's are horrible at getting him the ball. Ridnour is garbage at entry passing.




Why do people do this every freaking season? Nobody gives a crap about Kevin Love standing on the 3 point line while his team is getting beat by 20 points. The same goes for his rebounding and scoring in general. Teams don't care. Nobody is game planning for Love because every team knows that all they have to do is turn it on in the 4th quarter and Minnesota is done.

You cannot make a judgement about a player who has never played a significant game in his NBA career. You just can't. There are three different NBA's: *meaningless regular season games*, regular season games in which both teams give a crap and the post season. If you are forming your opinion based on the bolded games then you will always make mistakes.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

This is where David Lee would disagree with you. If you go after those stats..err rebounds just like they were millions of dollars some ****ing moron comes along at the end of the year and gives you millions of dollars.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Kevin Love the "gunner" is shooting 43% from 3. I watch the Nuggets extensively as well. Nene is much more limited offensively than Love is.
> 
> Love has a sweet right-handed hook and is smooth from medium range as well. A great deal of his problem is that his PG's are horrible at getting him the ball. Ridnour is garbage at entry passing.


Nene is quicker, stronger, a better leaper, ball handler, agile and can score with his back to the basket.

Love is a better shooter. Tell me how Nene is more limited?

If you can look up PER look up how many of Love's points come from putbacks and jumpers.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Let's compare Love to players he should be compared to. I can't even entertain these Malone/McHale comparisons because they're so wrong.
> 
> What do you guys think? I really think Horace Grant is about right in terms of caliber. Grant was about 14/10 on those title teams. Anyone got any better comparison?


Assuming this is as good as he becomes, I will say Kevin Love both in style and caliber of player is a modern-day Bill Laimbeer:










Meaning, right now if Love is your fourth best player then you defintely have a championship level team (like Laimbeer was on those Bad Boy Pistons teams). Depending on the caliber of your two best players, then you may have a good team to a potential contender if he is the No. 3 man.

Like Love, Laimbeer was a top-notch rebounder. Both guys could pop outside and hit jumpers from distance. Both Love and Laimbeer are/were not great shot-blockers, but Laimbeer did the work on the defensive end was one of the best irritants and villains I ever saw and that made him invaluable guarding other big men (something Love may want to pick up from his current assistant coach).

Like Laimbeer in his salad days, it's fair to say Love can start for most teams in the league and even be a standout on good teams. I wouldn't want him as my best player or my second best player, though.

But comparing Love to Kevin McHale and Moses Malone? Oh hell, no -- I actually saw McHale's entire career and Moses' once he became a starter in Houston. Love will have to come farther than where he is to move into that territory. But there is nothing wrong at all with having a Laimbeer-type career arc.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

cpawfan said:


> I agree that adding Love doesn't get the Nuggets out of the West.
> 
> I disagree that Love would have a shot at being the Nuggets consistent second option.
> 
> Nene's passivity generally prevents him from taking enough shots (as he gives up the ball when he shouldn't), but getting him the ball is something Karl has built into the offense.


Fair enough, but I don't see how you can rule out the possibility of Love being the second scorer. Billups' play so far this year leads me to believe he's close to done and Nene, at this point, has to be considered basically a finished product. He'll give you scoring in the low-to-mid-teens and a decent number of rebounds, but he isn't a second option either. Neither one makes me think that their position in the offense is unassailable. As crazy as some of the comparisons in this thread have been, Love IS still a talented basketball player.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Najee said:


> Assuming this is as good as he becomes, I will say Kevin Love both in style and caliber of player is a modern-day Bill Laimbeer:
> 
> Meaning, right now if Love is your fourth best player then you defintely have a championship level team (like Laimbeer was on those Bad Boy Pistons teams). Depending on the caliber of your two best players, then you may have a good team to a potential contender if he is the No. 3 man.
> 
> ...


Except for the fact that Kevin Love is a likable person...and Lamebeer was a bonafide certified ****ing a-hole.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Ron said:


> Except for the fact that Kevin Love is a likable person...and Lamebeer was a bonafide certified ****ing a-hole.


I doubt Jay Williams will agree with you. Or for that matter, the Oregon schools that were recruiting Kevin Love when he came out of high school. :devil2:


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Najee said:


> I doubt Jay Williams will agree with you. Or for that matter, the Oregon schools that were recruiting Kevin Love when he came out of high school.


Aw, boo-hoo. Kevin McMoses didn't make them millions of dollars by playing for free and instead when to a better, out of state, program. Big time college basketball is a pure business, and he made the best career move.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Bogg said:


> Aw, boo-hoo. Kevin McMoses didn't make them millions of dollars by playing for free and instead when to a better, out of state, program. Big time college basketball is a pure business, and he made the best career move.


Dude, it was sarcasm. Don't take it too seriously.

I thought Kevin Love's response to Jay Williams was harsh and funny when Williams approached him when he was looking at becoming an agent.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Najee said:


> Dude, it was sarcasm. Don't take it too seriously.


I'm just bored and messing around. I do love an opportunity to rail about the college system though, so there is that.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Bogg said:


> I'm just bored and messing around. I do love an opportunity to rail about the college system though, so there is that.


I understand. It's not like you're comparing Kevin Love with Moses Malone or anything like that ...


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

so why are people saying Laimbeer was an a-hole? slightly dirty? for his time not by much - a great teammate by all accounts yes

define a-hole? I say Laimbeer was the kind of guy you wanted on your team and hated when he was on the other side - that's not an a-hole, not quite


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Bogg said:


> Kevin McMoses


That's Moses McLove to you, baby.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

e-monk said:


> so why are people saying Laimbeer was an a-hole? slightly dirty? for his time not by much - a great teammate by all accounts yes
> 
> define a-hole? I say Laimbeer was the kind of guy you wanted on your team and hated when he was on the other side - that's not an a-hole, not quite


I guess compared to today's cute-and-cuddly NBA -- where there are no real heated rivalries and opposing players actually are friendly to each other during the game -- people like Bill Laimbeer, Charles Barkley and Rick Mahorn are too confrontational for their tastes.

But Laimbeer was a dirty player. He wasn't a guy that merely ran his mouth -- like a lot of those Pistons players, he was not above getting his hands dirty.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> so why are people saying Laimbeer was an a-hole? slightly dirty?


And Hitler was kinda mean.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Laimbeer was one of the dirtiest players in the history of the league and he'd probably take that as a compliment.He basically wouldn't be able to play in today's league because everything he did was a foul today and he'd have been kicked out of every other game and get multiple game suspension several times a year...Who was it he clotheslined that time? It was McHale wasn't it?


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> You do realize that Laimbeer, McHale and Rip Hamilton were all 2nd options on title teams right?


Huh?

Laimbeer was a second option? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Assuming you are considering Isiah Thomas option #1, have you ever heard of Joe Dumars, Mark Aguirre, or Vinnie Johnson? Laimbeer did a lot of great things, but he was a complementary player on offense.

You're also selling Rip Hamilton short. He was option #1 for that entire run they had.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

No, it was Kevin McHale who clotheslined Kurt Rambis in the '84 Finals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7r6vXeOfyQ

Bill Laimbeer was the one who took down Larry Bird in Game 4 of the '87 East finals and then was punched out by Robert Parish in Game 5:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idA9Vym1F54

Laimbeer is also known for his battle with Charles Barkley:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxTccIZYPT8


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

MLKG said:


> Huh?
> 
> Laimbeer was a second option? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Assuming you are considering Isiah Thomas option #1, have you ever heard of Joe Dumars, Mark Aguirre, or Vinnie Johnson? Laimbeer did a lot of great things, but he was a complementary player on offense.


During the '87 East Finals and the '88 NBA Finals runs, Isiah Thomas was Detroit's top offensive player. Adrian Dantley was a close second. Vinnie Johnson was the No. 3 scorer coming off the bench in '86-'87 and Joe Dumars supplanted him in '87-'88. In both years, Laimbeer was the No. 4 scorer. Overall, Laimbeer was likely the fourth best player.

When Detroit traded AD for Mark Aguirre, Laimbeer may have been the Pistons' fifth best offensive player after Isiah, Dumars, Aguirre and Vinnie Johnson on the '89 title team. Laimbeer may have been Detroit's third or fourth best player, depending on where you rated The Microwave and Dennis Rodman that season.

On the '90 title team, Laimbeer was definitely behind Isiah, Dumars and Rodman (arguably the best defensive player in the NBA that season). That year, Laimbeer may have been the fourth best offensive weapon behind Isiah, Dumars and James Edwards. By this time, Detroit was relying on Rodman as a starter than Aguirre, so Aguirre's offensive firepower was not needed as much.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Love is a mix of Laimbeer and Wes Unseld. Borderline Hall of Fame material. Lets let his career breathe a little bit before we resort to one-liners and such. Right now the guy is averaging 20/15 and has a PER of almost 25. For the record, I never said he was as good as Moses Malone or McHale for those of you who are attempting to strawman that argument out of me.

I still think he could be a 2nd option on a title team.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Kevin Love is a PF version of Brad Miller. Love is obviously a better rebounder, but their playing styles are eerily similar. He could also be compared to Antawn Jamison.



> I still think he could be a 2nd option on a title team.


Agreed! He's possibly the next Pau Gasol in that regard.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

I should say that the first option would have to be Dwight Howard.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

zagsfan20 said:


> Love is a mix of Laimbeer and Wes Unseld. Borderline Hall of Fame material.


So says a guy who never saw Bill Laimbeer or Wes Unseld play. But then again, you're the same guy suiting up Greg Oden for a plaque in Springfield when he was splitting time with Joel Przybilla.

You do realize that Laimbeer and Unseld were known for their toughness and intimidation on the defensive end, right? Something that is not associated with Love. Just like I'm sure you realize Unseld was a former league MVP (as a rookie, no less).

I would say Kevin Love is more like a combination of Laimbeer and Brad Miller if anything, save that Love is not known for defense. A good player and contributor on even championship level teams, but not a hall of famer barring some noticeable improvement.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

TwinkieTowers said:


> Kevin Love is a PF version of Brad Miller. Love is obviously a better rebounder, but their playing styles are eerily similar. He could also be compared to Antawn Jamison.
> 
> 
> 
> *Agreed! He's possibly the next Pau Gasol in that regard*.


I pray you are being sarcastic..........


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

MLKG said:


> Huh?
> 
> Laimbeer was a second option? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Assuming you are considering Isiah Thomas option #1, have you ever heard of Joe Dumars, Mark Aguirre, or Vinnie Johnson? Laimbeer did a lot of great things, but he was a complementary player on offense.
> 
> You're also selling Rip Hamilton short. He was option #1 for that entire run they had.


He just looks up old stats. Laimbeer might of had the second most points per game or something so he called him the second option.



zagsfan20 said:


> For the record, I never said he was as good as Moses Malone or McHale for those of you who are attempting to strawman that argument out of me.


You mean except for the post where you said he was better than Malone at the same age?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

zagsfan20 said:


> Love is a mix of Laimbeer and *Wes Unseld*.


christ almighty would you stop it with the whole saying things you have no clue about bit

Love was like one of the best defensive centers to ever play the game? is that right?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Diable said:


> Laimbeer was one of the dirtiest players in the history of the league and he'd probably take that as a compliment.


that was the way things were but if you think he was dirtier than Rick Mahorn or Charles Oakley or half a dozen other guys playing at around his time (Mo Lucas, Ruland, Cartwright, Ainge, McHale, Rambis et al) you must not have been watching too closely



> He basically wouldn't be able to play in today's league because everything he did was a foul today


except for the fact that he was a quality rebounder, good positional defender, nice passing big man and had a solid jumper you're absolutely right - except of course that means you're wrong



> and he'd have been kicked out of every other game and get multiple game suspension several times a year...


actually Laimbeer was a very cerebral player and would not have had a problem adjusting his game to standing rules - you have to remember it took a hell of a lot more to get thrown out in his day and as the 15 year old told his parents 'everyone was doing it'



> Who was it he clotheslined that time? It was McHale wasn't it?


again with people talking about things they dont know anything about - are you talking about McHale blasting Kurt Rambis into the stanchion in 84? or maybe Parish pulling the longest yard arm sweep on Byron Scott? or maybe the time Parish cold cocked Laimbeer himself and beat him to the ground and wasnt even thrown out of the game? (that was in retaliation for knocking down Larry Bird who btw? kind of a dirty player

Laimbeer would be a lot like Brad Miller in his prime (who is also known as a dirty player btw) but much better on the boards


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

of course maybe we're not giving enough credit to contemporary dirty play

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfpuiUf8h2o&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJGxA3GTTtU&feature=related


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

This is even worse than the David Lee thing. And the Gerald Wallace thing. Love can be a contributor on a championship team, but I'm not sure if he even starts.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

The Kevin Love discussion is retarded because, like a lot of such conversations on this board, you have a person making uneducated evaluations of players he or she never saw play.

Stay in your lane, zagsfan20, and compare only players you have seen play. Making comparisons of Kevin Love to people like Moses Malone, Kevin McHale and Wes Unseld just proves you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> that was the way things were but if you think he was dirtier than Rick Mahorn or Charles Oakley or half a dozen other guys playing at around his time (Mo Lucas, Ruland, Cartwright, Ainge, McHale, Rambis et al) you must not have been watching too closely


The difference between those guys and Laimbeer was that they were tough to your face. Laimbeer was famous for punching people in the back of the head and then running when they turned around to hit back. He was unquestionably the Kenny Linesman of the NBA.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> The difference between those guys and Laimbeer was that they were tough to your face. Laimbeer was famous for punching people in the back of the head and then running when they turned around to hit back. He was unquestionably the Kenny Linesman of the NBA.


then why did he get in so many fights? he wasnt exactly KG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxTccIZYPT8

previously posted but a good for instance - that's Rick Mahorn whose face he's pushing the ball into - and he's the one lunging after Barkley

here's a punk act of the kind you describe(check the 16 second mark):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idA9Vym1F54

whose back was turned there?


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

He was dirty and annoying and got in peoples faces. Plus, he was kind of wimpy and white so punching him in the face was a much easier decision.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Kevin Love is a really good player, but will never be one of the best because he won't be able to bring a team to the next level. If he were on the Knicks would they be the team they are...no. There is a special something players bring and he doesn't. It isn't really athletisicm it is just something you don't see (maybe off the court).


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Tom said:


> He was dirty and annoying and got in peoples faces. Plus, he was kind of wimpy and white so punching him in the face was a much easier decision.


so was he getting in people's faces or was a he wimp?

there is no doubt Laimbeer was a dirty player but he played in a dirty time and he was certainly no KG


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

e-monk said:


> then why did he get in so many fights? he wasnt exactly KG
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxTccIZYPT8
> 
> ...


Not to mention that two years prior to that, Rick Mahorn and Bill Laimbeer were teammates, in addtion to being friends and essentially the co-creators of "Bad Boys" image during their time in Detroit. 

Maybe E.H. Munroe and Tom are confusing Laimbeer with Danny Ainge. Ainge was annoying, white and wimpy and an easy candidate to punch in the mouth (or in Tree Rollins' case, bite on the finger). Laimbeer was a villain in the mode of pre-kidney disease Alonzo Mourning -- a physical, at times dirty player who relished being the villain of opposing teams and crowds.


----------



## VCHighFly (May 7, 2004)

I'm new to this thread, but I just laughed my way through what seems like an endless amount of posts about Kevin Love. This is really good stuff, guys. Do some of you guys even watch basketball? Has anyone here seen more than one or two Minnesota games this season? How about team USA games? Have you watched Kevin Love play absolutely surrounded by great scorers?

Here's a typical team USA line-up:

PG Derrick Rose
SG Eric Gordon
SF Rudy Gay
PF Kevin Durant
C Kevin Love

Pop quiz: Who is the 5th offensive option on that team? 

Here's a typical Minnesota line-up (once they get fully healthy):

PG Jonny Flynn
SG Martell Webster
SF Wesley Johnson
PF Michael Beasley
C Kevin Love

Pop quiz: Who is the 5th offensive option on that team?

How about a couple typical situations (in these typical times...) that come up seemingly 3 or 4 times every Minny game that I watch? 

Scenario 1: Shot clock is down to 3 seconds after inept ball movement. Ball gets dumped down in the mid post to Darko. He gets off a baseline hook which is usually a little short. Weakside rebound goes to Kevin Love. Minnesota gets the extra possession.

Scenario 2: Shot clock is down to 3 seconds after inept ball movement. Ball gets dumped down in the mid post to Love. He tries the up-and-under... gets stonewalled... tries to lower his shoulder to create space... still in trouble... tries to squeeze off the fade away... REJECTED. Minnesota gets the 24-second violation.

People are comparing him to McHale, Unseld, and Moses??? I would argue he's not as much a go-to post guy as Darko Milicic at this point. 

Let's get down to the bare bones, here. We've never seen a player like Kevin Love in the history of the league. People compare him to Unseld because of his impressive outlet passing that was on full display for team USA. He doesn't have the defensive chops, mean streak, or athleticism of Unseld. People compare him to Laimbeer because of his ability to knock down standstill, perimeter jumpers at a high percentage. That's about where the Laimbeer comparisons end, though. As far as the McHale comparison, I don't know where those came from. McHale had better post moves, could defend 4 positions, and had rare size and length at the position that Kevin Love does not possess. I guess he threw good outlet passes, too, but that's a stretch. 

I think K Love right now is basically a rich man's Nick Collison. His ceiling is probably Brad Miller with Unseld's rebounding and outlet passing skills. One or two third-team all-NBA selections are not out of the question in his prime. Top 5 PF? Maybe somewhere down the line. That's about it.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

VCHighFly said:


> (Kevin Love's) ceiling is probably Brad Miller with Unseld's rebounding and outlet passing skills. One or two third-team all-NBA selections are not out of the question in his prime.


Add in some of Wes Unseld's toughness and you basically described Bill Laimbeer. You do realize that, right?

Last I looked, only one person was comparing Kevin Love with Kevin McHale, Moses Malone and Wes Unseld. You may want to re-read this thread.

The Laimbeer/Brad Miller comparisons without the defensive/dirty play capacity is the best comparison to Love. It also explains the caliber of player Love is -- if he is the fourth-best player on your team, then you have a championship caliber team. But guess what, wasn't that what Laimbeer was on those "Bad Boys" teams?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Najee said:


> Maybe E.H. Munroe and Tom are confusing Laimbeer with Danny Ainge.


Ironically enough, way back when I used to refer to Laimbeer as the Danny Ainge of centers. I'm not confusing them at all. In his iconic fight with Parish the Chief snapped and lunged at Laimbeer after getting punched in the back of the head for about the 18th time that game. Laimbeer, like AInge, lived for the pleasure of seeing other players get whistled for retaliating. He was unquestionably one of the dirtiest players of that era. Or did you think it was a magical coincidence that he was despised by the other 260 or so NBA players?


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

I don't believe anyone here is denying Bill Laimbeer's dirty play. Let's not put words in people's mouths; what's being addressed is this "wimpy" allegation made by you and Tom. 

Wimpy people don't go after people like Charles Barkley and Rick Mahorn. I'm not even going to address Robert Parish's girl fistacuffs attack out of the blue vs. Laimbeer -- THAT was wimpy.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

It wasn't "out of the blue", it was in response to the steady rain of rabbit punches. And Laimbeer mist definitely moved in reverse in those sort of situations because you didn't get the whistle in your favour way back when when the fight was a two way affair.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

That's funny. I thought Robert Parish's girl punches were in response to Bill Laimbeer's elbows in the previous game being introduced to Larry Bird's face. Parish's girl punches came in the early part of Game 5 of that series.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

He was wimpy looking I should have said...that isn't in dispute. He tried to get under your skin so even if he wasn't players thought so. He was knocked down by the best.

I remember when Threat knocked Ainge silly...that was pretty funny.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Najee said:


> That's funny. I thought Robert Parish's girl punches were in response to Bill Laimbeer's elbows in the previous game being introduced to Larry Bird's face. Parish's girl punches came in the early part of Game 5 of that series.


Right, which is why I said 18 rabbit punches. If it had happened in the fourth quarter I would have had to choose a more realistic number like 102.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Hey...I resemble this conversation


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> He just looks up old stats. Laimbeer might of had the second most points per game or something so he called him the second option.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean except for the post where you said he was better than Malone at the same age?


You aren't much older than me, so I guess you must look up old stats as well. 

What would an "option" be if its not scoring. Was Laimbeer their 2nd defensive option? Was he their 2nd rebounding option? Was he the 2nd assist option?

LoL.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

E.H. Munro said:


> The difference between those guys and Laimbeer was that they were tough to your face. Laimbeer was famous for punching people in the back of the head and then running when they turned around to hit back. He was unquestionably the Kenny Linesman of the NBA.


So he was like Garnett?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

VCHighFly said:


> I'm new to this thread, but I just laughed my way through what seems like an endless amount of posts about Kevin Love. This is really good stuff, guys. Do some of you guys even watch basketball? Has anyone here seen more than one or two Minnesota games this season? How about team USA games? Have you watched Kevin Love play absolutely surrounded by great scorers?
> 
> Here's a typical team USA line-up:
> 
> ...


Thanks for your input, bro. 

But, a couple things. Re-read the thread, no one said Love was as good as McHale or Malone. 

Another thing, whats the point of bringing up the fact that he's the 5th option on a team full of all-NBA types? BTW, on that list Love would be 3rd option behind Durant and Rose.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Garnett isn't quite that dirty.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Lambier was a hard worker and a very good shooter...You could almost call him the prototype of todays boring white big men who can't do jack inside so they develope their perimiter game to contribute. All the while still rebounding...go figure.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Tom said:


> He was wimpy looking I should have said...that isn't in dispute. He tried to get under your skin so even if he wasn't players thought so. He was knocked down by the best.
> 
> I remember when Threat knocked Ainge silly...that was pretty funny.


my college roommate's father worked for Laimbeer's dad who was a top level executive at a paper and packaging company and probably one of the few father's of an NBA player who had a bigger paycheck than his kid (of course this was back in the 80s when the best players werent taking home quite what even scrubs do now)

so the thing about Laimbeer was that he came from a priviledged affluent back ground and sure he was a dopey looking white guy but he still managed to be one of the toughest (albeit dirty which is not in debate) players of his generation


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> Garnett isn't quite that dirty.


but he's infinitely more of a punk

you know who was a dirty player? Jon Stockton and his groin level elbows when he set picks


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

zagsfan20 said:


> Another thing, whats the point of bringing up the fact that he's the 5th option on a team full of all-NBA types? BTW, on that list Love would be 3rd option behind Durant and Rose.


you mean when he was coming off the bench behind LO? I'd say that makes him at least 6th option


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

e-monk said:


> you mean when he was coming off the bench behind LO? I'd say that makes him at least 6th option


Odom fit the offensively philosophy that Coach K was trying to run perfectly.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

zagsfan20 said:


> Odom fit the offensively philosophy that Coach K was trying to run perfectly.


better than Moses McLovin Unseld jr?

you dont say


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> but he's infinitely more of a punk


No.



e-monk said:


> you know who was a dirty player? Jon Stockton and his groin level elbows when he set picks


I generally rate he and his infamous teammate as the dirtiest players of the 90s.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> You aren't much older than me, so I guess you must look up old stats as well.
> 
> What would an "option" be if its not scoring. Was Laimbeer their 2nd defensive option? Was he their 2nd rebounding option? Was he the 2nd assist option?
> 
> LoL.


Nope, I watch old games and read old columns and biographies. I don't know what PER, win shares or usage rating is.

Option as in the second person a team goes to for points. Just because he actually gets more points than Dumars doesn't make him the second option. Defenses didn't focus on Laimbeer like they did Joe D or Dantley/Aguirre.

By the way you called Rip the modern Pistons second option despite him being the leading scorer, therefore contradicting yourself.

But do you really want to call Laimbeer their second option? I need something new to laugh at. You can have an ongoing comedy thread about your takes on the 80s and white guys from Oregon.

And as for my age, think about how old you were when you started following hoops. Get that number and add it to the year 1979 (for instance if it was age 10, the year would be 1989).



zagsfan20 said:


> Thanks for your input, bro.
> 
> But, a couple things. Re-read the thread, no one said Love was as good as McHale or Malone.


Except for when you said Love was better than Malone at the same age right?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

At a certain point I would have just counted my losses and admitted that I was wrong.

It's like as much as I would like Kobe Bryant to be the best player in NBA history, I know that he is not and never will be. You need to realize that it doesn't matter how much you like Kevin Love, he's never going to lead a team to the finals and he won't even be the second option. Bigs that can't defend or score in the post are essentially useless. The only thing that keeps Love on the floor is that he has an exceptional rebounding ability. And so that's what he is, an exceptional role player.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

e-monk said:


> better than Moses McLovin Unseld jr?
> 
> you dont say


Your wit is uncanny.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> Nope, I watch old games and read old columns and biographies. I don't know what PER, win shares or usage rating is.
> 
> Option as in the second person a team goes to for points. Just because he actually gets more points than Dumars doesn't make him the second option. Defenses didn't focus on Laimbeer like they did Joe D or Dantley/Aguirre.
> 
> ...


First of all, I watch old games and read biographies as well. For instance, this morning I was watching the 76ers/Celtics EC Finals on NBATV. Watching old games of the 80's is enjoyable to me.

Secondly, Rip's scoring average was slightly ahead of the next leading scorer on those Pistons that its hard to really judge 1st and 2nd options. I know Billups was the go to guy in clutch situations.

White guys from Oregon? Love and...?

Congrats you were 10 in '89. That means you got to watch McHale and Moses dominate...oh wait. Nevermind, scratch that thought.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> Except for when you said Love was better than Malone at the same age right?


Except for when I said Love's putting up similar #'s at the same age.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

e-monk said:


> of course maybe we're not giving enough credit to contemporary dirty play
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfpuiUf8h2o&feature=related
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJGxA3GTTtU&feature=related


Matt Geiger! Forgot all about that goon, nice videos, brings back memories.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

e-monk said:


> my college roommate's father worked for Laimbeer's dad who was a top level executive at a paper and packaging company and probably one of the few father's of an NBA player who had a bigger paycheck than his kid (of course this was back in the 80s when the best players werent taking home quite what even scrubs do now)
> 
> so the thing about Laimbeer was that he came from a priviledged affluent back ground and sure he was a dopey looking white guy but he still managed to be one of the toughest (albeit dirty which is not in debate) players of his generation


He was a very good player there is no doubt about that. Kevin love is also a very good player...who actually does have a nice little jump hook by the way. Now, why is Kevin Love who isn't an athlete do so well...does he work that much harder than everyone else...These are the best players in the league. Why aren't there more Kevin Love's in the league. What separates him from other guys like him of which there seem to be many?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

well first of all I wouldnt say that Love isnt a good athlete - for a guy his size/wieght he's actually pretty fluid and gifted

here were his combine results back in 2008: 
35" vertical (pretty nice, same as Beasley)
lifted the 185 bar 18 times (Jordan only 8 times, Beasley 19 times) 
ran the 3/4 crt sprint in 3.22 seconds (Rose ran a 3.05, Gordon ran a 3.01, big guys like Randolph and Jordan ran it in around 3.26/3.28) 
and Love was faster than Bayless in the lane agility drills! (Bayless 11.26, Love 11.17; Randolph ran a 11.86, Lopez was dead last at 12.77)


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Ok...he is an underestimated athlete...that is why he does well.

I think he has good numbers but isn't explosive or fast on the court. I think he benefits from his weaknesses in a way. He doesn't get doubled and he gets help on defense. This frees him up to do well.

That being said WOW what a great 3rd guy to have on your team. A guy who can get very good stats without running anything through him. He would be a very good piece to the puzzle. And I really don't like the guy...but he is proving me wrong.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> First of all, I watch old games and read biographies as well. For instance, this morning I was watching the 76ers/Celtics EC Finals on NBATV. Watching old games of the 80's is enjoyable to me.
> 
> Secondly, Rip's scoring average was slightly ahead of the next leading scorer on those Pistons that its hard to really judge 1st and 2nd options. I know Billups was the go to guy in clutch situations.
> 
> ...


Laimbeer as the second option is an ignorant statement. Please tell me how you came up with it.

There is a white guy from Oregon that played for the Lakers last year you used to hype up.

In 1989 the Pistons won the title with Laimbeer as the "second option."



zagsfan20 said:


> Except for when I said Love's putting up similar #'s at the same age.


That's not what you said playa.



> Moses Malone is as good as a prime Kareem? This is news to me. I think from an offensive standpoint Love has more depth to his game than Malone did. Moses was a beast like no other on the boards though, most his offensive game came from being a bruiser in the paint.
> 
> Defensively they both weren't that good. Thats where the comparison draws from.
> 
> Love at 22 is without a doubt a better player than Malone was at the same age.


People should stop posting in this thread out of pity for you.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> Laimbeer as the second option is an ignorant statement. Please tell me how you came up with it.
> 
> There is a white guy from Oregon that played for the Lakers last year you used to hype up.
> 
> ...


Jamel, Jamel, my main man Jamel.

You pick and choose your talking points well. That is what I said about Love, that his #'s were comparable after 3rd year.

Still not sure who this white guy from Oregon that played on the Lakers is. Last guy to play on the Lakers from Oregon was AC Green if I remember correctly.

You play a great game of semantics.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

someone needs to take the shovel out of this man's hands before he reaches Beijing


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Who is the Bill Laimbeer in this arguement?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Tom said:


> Who is the Bill Laimbeer in this arguement?


am I the dog Harry?


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Jamel Irief said:


> He just looks up old stats. Laimbeer might of had the second most points per game or something so he called him the second option.


It still doesn't make sense, per one of my previous posts about the pecking order for Detroit's offensive scheme and Bill Laimbeer as a caliber of player overall.

Laimbeer has never been a No. 2 scoring option. Not in the Go-Go Pistons run, when Detroit was an all-offense, no-defense team of the early '80s. Isiah Thomas and Kelly Tripucka were the top scorers.

Not when Tripucka was traded for Adrian Dantley, and certainly not when Joe Dumars and the rest of "The Bad Boys" were assembled.

The guy needs to keep that shovel for all the BS coming out of his behind.


----------

