lol come on man, you think hes better on offense than Kobe or Lebron are? Or if you love efficency, Nash/Dirk? Seriously?

hah aite

You gonna still be in Vegas next weekend? I'll be out there next Friday-Monday. I sprained my ankle real bad about a week ago playing pickup, but I'm gonna get someone to push me around in a wheelchair for 10 minutes beforehand, then I'll come running on to the court to a standing ovation.

I feel like I'm destined to disagree with everything Clark says now

I think role players have been somewhat underrated on this board, especially in this last round. I would think that most teams should be set as far as bulk guys are concerned, and adding inefficient guys who fill up stat sheets can only harm those teams imo.

Posey is an awesome player for several reasons. As role-players go, he can defend multiple positions, shoot, rebound, and slash very well. He's got size over the other wing defenders, which is always a plus. All this and he has no real weakness, like bad FT shooting or anything like that. What I like most about James Posey is that he is the consummate role player, he really seems to be able to happily plug into whatever role is required of him, and doesn't ever try to do too much. On a team where everyone can score, I think you are going to need players who really don't need touches to be happy.

He may have went early, but I'm all for fit over BPA. Also I think there are a few PGs left who are better than many taken in the 3rd and 4th rounds.

I'll discuss the other picks when I get off work...

[edit] Clark, the hoopshype scouting report for Posey said "run's like a deer," so I did get the gazelle reference from you. sorry dude.

I'm here for 2 months BABY (feel free to come over whenever Keith btw)

I think hes better than Dirk and Wade. Him and Nash are close. Lebron and Kobe are probably better.

I agree with this, these are the rounds u should be taking role players in (you should have taken ur stars in the first 3-4 rounds)

Wow ok whatever I dont wanna get into another long drawn out argument.

giddyup.

also, you should come to LA for game 3.

Sweet. You guys take scrubby bench guys and I'll take 10 starting calibur players, have quality rotations, tremendous flexibility and cause matchup havoc and we'll see who wins.

you bringing in a team psychologist/ego coach?

With only a few exceptions, players are on the bench because they suck and/or are limited. i.e not as good as starters.

And I'm not saying teams don't need "glue guys", but the idea that good players who started and were major contributors their whole careers are somehow inherently worse fits as *glue guys* than scrubs who were limited role players is nutso.

Can we plz get a youtube video of assani/bobbo playing ball?

Its won't have to be complex - I'll put it in simple terms for you. Just rate each player's all-around game in fractions of a "McHale". For the purpose of this arguement, Kobe scores a truely amazing 0.01 McHales, Lebron in second w/ 0.0095 McHales, then Amare w/ 0.005 McHales, Dirk w/ 0.0035 McHales and Wade rings in with 0.002 McHales.

Yea, I probably don't feel strongly enough either way to really debate it. Its obviously very very close.

I definitely prefer taking starters over bench guys and work matchups as well Clark. In this there is hardly a reason to take role players until maybe the 11th or 12th rounds, there are still a lot of good players available.

I really wish I hadn't been swamped with school/work when you guys came up with this thing.

Put me in the camp who thinks that picking solid role players from the past couple years or so is a not a great idea. I mean, these guys are coming of the bench in today's league. There's probably loads of guys who played about the same back in the 80's/early 90's who you just haven't heard of. It can't be worth it to pick these guys over all the borderline stars (i.e. 1 or 2 time all-stars or even just career starters) that are still available.

In general, I'd say people are really picking way too much from the current crop of players.

I hope you're not confining the abilities of elite defensive players who happen to be selfless, efficient offensive players as merely "glue guys."

The way people bandy about "elite" in this forum, I think the definition is "top 40%".

amen brother

a-****ing-men

also i feel like the reason you can't generally extrapolate **** over more minutes, or a different role, or something else is because if this player was actually capable of this, it's mind-boggling why they weren't this magical player in real life, where the competition is significantly, significantly lower than in our fantasy league

I'm with Clark on this one.

I think more people need to give their opinions on Sampson as well. This guy is a train wreck injury wise and I'm surprised to see some people brushing this off.

i think there was only one guy who was not bashing it, and he was on that side half-heartedly. sampson was seriously a train wreck (good term) injury wise. who knows what could have been..

Are people extrapolating, though? I certainly wouldn't expect any of my players to play any more minutes than they did. Well, maybe a few more - a guy like Brent Barry seems capable of playing 30-35 (Since he did it in Seattle).

not a serious issue because we're only recently started drafting players who weren't good enough (for whatever reason) to be a focal point of teams. this will change in a round or two, imo