He wasn't a spot up shooter, he came off screens like Reggie/Ray/Redd/Rip etc. do. You act like all he did was spot up at the 3 pt line and wait for it to get swong to him, his game was pretty much like Reggie/Ray/Redd's are.

I'm actually gonna side with Epi a bit and say that Petro was a sick talent who was more than a "shooter," just as RM and RA were. He could pass pretty well, and wasn't much worse defensively... and like the others could get a very high percentage shot off whenever he wanted.

But still, he's only done this two years. RM was the best because he did it so long, RA is the close to that level, and DPet still has question marks there.

I think they all went about right...

And Epi your arguments do very little to defend your point, because your hypotheses generally tend to include a lot of curious assumptions.

No one could ever convince me Petrovic is a #1 guy. He's like a worse version of Kevin Martin, and I have my doubts over whether Kmart can be the #1. With Petrovic, I think he could be a fine 2, but probably more suited as the third best player type deal.

yeah I'm never playing aces again since they got cracked last time

come on his argument is not absurd and you know it

Yes, just like even if you lost 2 times in a row all in preflop with AA to K10, u still had a greater chance of winning, just like Lebron has a greater chance of being better than Tmac at age 26 etc.

No, all of those guys with the exception of RIP got most of their shots by dribbling to create space, then launching a beautiful shot in traffic. They all came off screens, but that wasn't their MO. People really forget this about Reggie.

ok ty though, glad to see someone understands how great Petrovic was.

I couldn't wait until a flawed poker analogy came up.

Listen you guys buttsex ever young player in this league and take away all the value of longevity, and its fine, but you're wrong.

JJ is a durable player yes, but that doesn't mean that he will be durable when his body breaks down and his skills start to decline. DS has proven that HIS BODY CAN HANDLE THAT. It isn't a ****ing poker hand. Its a human beings body showing that it can handle something.

I don't think he would be an amazing #1 guy, just like I don't think Ray Allen would be a #1 guy on a championship team. Of course the ideal role for Ray Allen or Petrovic would be as a #2 guy, but both of them COULD act as the role of a franchise type player on mediocare teams.

THIS ANALOGY ****ING SUCKS

wow back to back with aces cracking analogies

Sneaky Bobbo, very sneaky

Is this another guy who you just saw on classic and are now building him up b/c the commentators say how good he is? I personally didn't watch him play. When he was good/great, I basically watched Bulls and maybe the Knicks in the playoffs on NBA on NBC.

I'm not sure anyone is doubting how great he was. But you're acting like the fact that he only did it two years makes him a bona-fide #1 stud. The fact is, plenty of players have been their #1 guy for a couple years. Everyone on my team has at one point in time, but that doesn't make them year-in/year-out #1 options.

THIS ISN'T FOOTBALL RUNNINGBACKS, MOST NBA PLAYERS DON'T MAGICALLY BREAK DOWN ONCE THEY HIT 30.

[QUOTE=EPiPeN11;4387808]Yes, just like even if you lost 2 times in a row all in preflop with AA to K10, u still had a greater chance of winningQUOTE]

This is an absolutely awful analogy. I am pretty sure you know that and understand why that's the case, but let me know if you need me to elaborate.

please elaborate for him.

Thats what happens when you throw out awful blanket statments such as "So JJ has a better chance of doing something he hasn't done than someone who already did it?"

Ur right, Wilt isn't better than Kevin Garnett because I never saw Wilt play.

What happens? Awful poker analogies that suck monkey dick?

Again seadood, wtf. Mike Miller is a stud.

I think the % of players who slow down significantly in their early 30s is much much higher than you think. The stars who maintain their level of play are probably more vivid in your memory because they get more attention than the players who burn out, but they are the exception and not the rule.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, I don't think he is a #1 bona-fide stud at all. I just think he is in the same type of catagory as Ray Allen (although I do think Ray Allen was better), in that they both could be the #1 guy but are better off being the #2 guy.

Of course, drafting young is a bigger gamble then drafting vets who we know how their career went or ended. Personally I drafted 2 young player and 1 vet. The reason I went young with 2 of my picks is they both haven't had injury issues at all yet, and D12 is rediculous and a guy I wanted to build around b/c he was super efficient and could eventually be an MVP level player and dunks a lot over a guy like Ewing who we know what he did, is a rediculous player but isn't nearly as efficient but probally is/was a better defender overall.

Then I went with Iggy over others b/c I wanted a wing player who played good D and could rebound, assist and score (and of course TO) better than any other player I could find. There is no doubt both of these guys could have a knee injury and seriously decline or a career-ending injury, I just took a gamble that they would have similar type game to what they have now and I gambled that they wouldn't have too many injury issues going forward. That's what everyone has to do with young players vs retired players.

[QUOTE=sergsz;4387909] No I realize it was an exagerated analogy.

A more correct one would be like A7 v K10 with A7 losing the last 2 times, but I wanted to get my point across.