Boogie-havoc
Bench
Man I don't know a damn thing about American football, but that was beautifull to watch, and not only cause I love that music.
Simply cannot be taught.
You know what though, I am amazed at the horrific lack of quality defense being played in that reel. You know what else can't be taught? Defense, to any of those dudes. Is there some group of schools in some region of the country that tells you to stare through the controlling guard's neck as he pounds the ball into the hardwood in front of you? Poke at the ball! There's only 3 feet of player you need to look at when they're crouched as low as Evans is right there, and the ball is traveling straight up and down! The saving graces here are: Evans is a bulldozer, he posts up smaller guards, and he's not in front of small guards on the perimeter for very long; otherwise he'd be averaging a couple more turnovers a game.
Edit: I will leave above shortsighted post in tact, but I will amend my stance because I just remembered how tall Evans is. He shadows the ball in a crouch, making it hard for lesser specimens to crowd him. Still, they shouldn't just stare in awe at the dude... er... Okay, maybe they should, for Kings fan's sakes.
Evans is one of those players that is going to make even the good defenders look bad a lot because all of the shaking and quaking and shoulder fakes and stutter steps and head nods and everything else he throws at you just gets people off balance and going for a ride. Watching it I am really reminded more than anything else not a basketball player, but of a football player: Barry Sanders.
Evans is one of those players that is going to make even the good defenders look bad a lot because all of the shaking and quaking and shoulder fakes and stutter steps and head nods and everything else he throws at you just gets people off balance and going for a ride. Watching it I am really reminded more than anything else not a basketball player, but of a football player: Barry Sanders. He could do that same thing, only in pads, have his body going in 3 different directions at once, throw that lazy limp leg out and just seem to hover waiting for the defender to embarass himself and lose his balance, and then boom, he was gone. Still to this day the most talented runner I have ever seen (you will notice I do not say best running back, but rather most talented runner). Evans has that same effect on people, even people who pride themselves on being really good at stopping people.
Edit: youtube is cool:
I think my favorite is the one where he goes around Rondo at about 2:50. Rondo takes position in the lane, Evans coming straight at him. Evans plants his outside foot about 12-15 inches to Rondo's side with his inside shoulder turned so his back is nearly to Rondo, slides his torso and inside leg through the small gap without even touching Rondo, and is back on his path to the basket like there wasn't even anybody in the way.
I've already explained this in previous posts, but nobody seems to care to read any of it.
No, it was clear by your explanation of your understanding of my post that you missed the point. I was not drawing a direct comparison, which is what you explained was your understanding.
No, it does not. You are discussing the POTENTIAL of each player to reach those levels instead of discussing who they are today. A player can have a similar body type and style that is close to some superstars, but are NOWHERE NEAR those same stars in effectiveness and productivity. Just because Evans can drive to the rim and has a game that is similar to a rookie Wade does not automatically put him in Wade's class TODAY. That's the difference you can't seem to grasp. You want to debate a point in a discussion totally unrelated to what I was discussing.
Seriously, do you even read the posts you respond to? I have said THIS EXACT SAME THING, BUT HAVE CLEARLY STATED THAT I'M NOT ATTEMPTING TO DEBATE POTENTIAL OR PROJECT BASED ON POTENTIAL. Try f**king reading before you respond to something that you don't even understand.
I'm done responding to retards. I've stated as clearly as possible exactly what my point was, and yet I get retards who clearly haven't understood the most basic and simple points. You responses clearly show you are arguing on YOUR OWN PLAIN OF DISCUSSION, debating points that I'm not even trying to address. it's clear you haven't understood me from the multiple times I've tried to explain that my point was NEVER about which player will be better, which has more potential, etc. You are debating a point which I'm not even contesting!!!
POINT BLANK SUPERMAN: YOU LACK READING COMPREHENSION NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE MOST BASIC POINTS. It's crystal clear you have no idea what you are discussing with me. Move on.
I have said myself Evans has a higher ceiling. He can be a top player in the entire league, while Curry has a chance to just be a top player at his position. That's the difference between a Roy and a Wade type player. But I came into this thread NOT having that debate. I was simply attempting to make the point that TODAY, one player isn't clearly superior to the other, and that an argument can be made for either as the better player. So, my entire point has been that those who think Curry may be the better player TODAY are not crazy.
If you want to continue to bring up potential, play style, room to improve, ceiling, etc, THEN THAT IS A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION ENTIRELY, WHICH I'M NOT EVEN DEBATING.
I'm still waiting for some Stephen Curry highlight reels. Perhaps that would settle the debate? Rather, the lackthereof (or any that you might've seen throughout the season) would indicate there is no debate.
Richmond was never known for his athleticism, but was more athletic that many give him credit for (he just didn't show it very often). I remember a game during his final season in Sacramento (can't remember who we were playing). It had been a dogfight the whole game and was late in the 4th quarter. Richmond seemed frustrated and got the ball in the corner on the baseline. He faked a shot to get around his man and proceeded to drive and go right at the center of the other team and dunk over him. It wasn't something you saw from Richmond very often, but certainly brought most Kings' fans to their feet at that moment.
I didn't say Curry was better right now.Showtime, let me put this point blank for you. If Curry is not the better offensive player, and not the better defensive player AT THIS POINT (and the defensive argument is not even close), then how can he be the better player, now or in the future?
That's the problem with guys like that: health can be a killer. This is why he desperately needs to develop his shooting, so that he can pick and choose when to attack, so he's not continuously banging inside every play. Look at a player like Chris Paul who is one of this generations best PG talent, and he's already been very limited so far in his career for health reasons.watching that Evans video make s me hope and pray that he has titanium ankles.
Great video of one of my favorite running backs. The only other running back that I can think of that had Sanders combination of speed and agility was Gale Sayers. Sadly both had shorter careers than one would have hoped for. Sayers by injury, and Sanders by early retirement, which I might add, shocked me. He certainly hadn't used up all his credits yet. Another great back that didn't have Sanders speed but certainly had his balance and agility, was Walter Payton, who did have a full career. One thing to be noticed is that all three are HOF running backs. That makes the comparison to Tyreke all that much better. It does make one wonder how good a running back Tyreke would be?
Just because no one's buying what you're selling doesn't mean no one's reading what you're writing.
It doesn't matter. Your parallel or whatever you want to call it was way, way off base. I did not miss your point. Your point missed its mark.
I never said Tyreke was in Wade's class TODAY. I didn't claim that he's as effective or productive as Wade, or any of the other guys I mentioned. We're talking about the best players in the world. Obviously Tyreke TODAY can't hold their jock strap. Same as Curry can't hold Miller's or Allen's. I said Tyreke's a similar player. That point is absolutely relevant. I don't know why you're pretending it's not.
This is kind of comical at this point. Watching your entire argument self destruct under its own flimsiness makes it worth it.
Just because I disagree with you...
If you want to insist that the difference between Evans and Curry isn't substantial because you refuse to acknowledge the difference in their styles of play, their body styles, and their strengths vs. weaknesses, that's fine. But you don't get to say 'I'm not debating that, because going there makes my entire argument wrong, false, and in all other ways totally worthless.'
Well, I guess you do get to say that. It's basically what you're saying. But it's clear to everyone that cares to see that, whether Evans is better than Curry by a little or a lot, he's still better. And projecting (yes, I'm projecting, it's what we do as fans of the game when we see a good young player), it's pretty obvious that Evans' ceiling is higher than Curry's. You've admitted that already. I don't have to think that someone who claims that Curry is better than Evans is crazy, to think that they are wrong. And they are wrong. I do think it's sort of maniacal that your only endeavor here has been to argue that 'it can be argued that Curry is better than Evans'. You're not even claiming he is.
It's not that you don't buy it, it's that you are either too oblivious or too stupid to even understand what I'm selling.
So says a person who can't seem to understand the difference between a direct comparison of players, and a general point about potential.
And I don't know why you keep bringing up those stars names when you admit that it's speculation about potential future development, which has nothing to do with how both players perform if they played today. Thanks for finally admitting that you were having a totally different discussion than I was attempting to have.
Dude, how can it be flimsy when you were totally confused about what I was even trying to say? You have your own commentary in your mind, and obviously wanted to read things into my posts which weren't there. It's not my fault you were confused.
It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. I read your responses clearly. And every point you were making (or attempting to make), had no relevance to my point. What it was relevant to is a discussion which is a totally other topic.
Example: There is a difference between these topics:
Which player is better today
Which player is better suited to build around
Which player will be better in the future
Your responses, which I read, were very relevant in debates of the latter two topics. In fact, I agree with much of what you said, and have said similar things in other convos regarding these two players. However, what I've painfully attempted to bring out, is that talking about upside and potential HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW EACH PLAYER WOULD PERFORM IF THEY TOOK THE COURT TEN MINUTES FROM NOW. That's why I kept trying to say that the points about Evans's potential was irrelevant, because they were in that particular point of their current state as players.
Again, this just goes to show your lack of reading comprehension. What you can't seem to comprehend is which point I'm actually discussing, and this response just shows you still don't get it. It's not that those points dash the credibility of my points, it's that I'm not even HAVING THAT DEBATE ABOUT WHICH PLAYER HAS MORE POTENTIAL IN THEIR GAME. I'm not even contesting that issue. Jesus Christ, this is why it's personal: I'm so sick of idiots who attempt to argue against my points using discussions that are totally irrelevant.
here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/future
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/now
I came into this thread discussing the latter, and people wanted to argue back at me as if I was discussing the former. I can't debate phantom issues. I can't attempt to make responses to people unless we are on the same plain of discussion.
I read the OP. I read the title. I read that "apparently a lot of people feel that Curry is better than Evans", and I wanted to chime in and say that I disagreed with the statement that "whoever thinks curry is better than tyreke doesn't know anything about basketball". If you happen to think Evans is better right now, I can understand the points in his favor. If you happen to think Curry is better right now, I can also recognize the points in his favor. It have said time and time again that it's too soon in their careers and their development to say either viewpoint is totally wrong.
You're just being ridiculous now. All over the place.
My original point was simple: Claiming that a player's potential is irrelevant in a discussion about which player is better now simply doesn't work, especially when you use Tyson Chandler and Stromile Swift as an example of that. Whether you're making a direct comparison or not, those examples just do not work. I've stated why. If you can't handle being told "hey, that example is off base and just doesn't hold up", then that's just sad.
Furthermore, the main reason people feel that Evans is the superior player NOW is because of his style of play. That's the same reason people feel that Evans' ceiling is higher and that he has more potential. If you think that a 100+ comment thread is not going to have some nuance to it, then you're just sadly mistaken. The two topics are closely intertwined, whether you want to discuss them together or not. So for me to say that Evans' style of play makes his game superior to Curry's, and then follow that up with a comment about his potential, is not evidence that I can't comprehend the topic of conversation or the point that you're trying so desperately to make. It is not and never has been about reading comprehension. It's not a phantom issue. You want to keep the debate in the "right here, right now" because it's the only way your point is even remotely valid.
Again, it's quite simple. In a thread about who is better, Evans or Curry, you're going to get a whole slew of comments about the future of two first year players who appear poised to be really good players. It's not only narrowminded for you to try to restrict the parameters of the debate, it's totally futile, as the evolution (or devolution, depending on who you ask) of this thread demonstrates.
...Claiming that a player's potential is irrelevant in a discussion about which player is better now simply doesn't work...
Problem is, if he's unhappy in Portland, he will be unhappy here. He's a diva.
. Id never even heard of him before seeing that lol.
I think what Showtime is trying to do is just temper the homerism a bit.
People are acting like Curry is some scrub, he is a pretty legit player. A lot of us here are also acting at times like Reke is a lock to improve and become a HOFer, when that isnt true. His shot is pretty broken, he may never get it down. And he does play selfish at times (which is probably a result of him being the best player on the floor for his entire basketball life).
As of right now I'd say Reke is a better player, but not by as much as most of us here would like to think. The future is uncertain. Honestly I think it all really hinges on whether our not he can get decent (doesnt have to be great) jumper. If Tyreke gets a jumper, Curry can average 10 assists a game and still be inferior, because Evans will be straight up impossible to guard at that point. If Evans doesnt improve, 20/5/5 are allstar numbers...But I think Curry can surpass that.
Speaking of 20/5/5....I think the quality of our team's play declined a bit during Tyreke's hunt for history. There were some games where he beasted, but then others where it was almost like stat padding to the detriment of the Kings. I'm hoping next year he goes 20(higher fg%)/5/7...More ppg can come along after (if) he gets a jumper. I want to see that "make your teammates better" superstar play emerging before he starts going for scoring titles.
These are all legitimate points. I don't think anyone is claiming that Tyreke is a lock to become a superstar. We are just arguing (at least I am) that he has superstar potential. Superstar, like the Greats. No one can know for sure what his future holds, just one year into his career, but IF he can develop his jumpshot, particularly from midrange, and continue to improve his decision making and other areas of his offensive game, he'll be pretty much unstoppable. His size and strength give him a nice starting point as a premiere defender, as long as he puts effort into it, stops cheating so much, and just devotes himself to staying in front of his man. Got lots to work on. Plus, he has to stay healthy (EVERYONE, FIND A PIECE OF WOOD TO KNOCK ON, AND BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF IT!!!) Nothing is guaranteed. But again, IF he realizes his potential, he'll be special.
And like you said, you don't have to dislike Curry's game or be dismissive of his talent and his potential to recognize that he's not on the same path as Tyreke is. As of right now, there's not some huge gulf between the two of them. They were the two best rookies of last season, and if not for the historic nature of Tyreke's accomplishments and the consistency with which he played all season, I'd have been nothing more than a little bummed out if Curry had won ROY. He is a fine young player, and IF he realizes his potential, he's going to be a really good scorer and playmaker. I'm not claiming that Tyreke is head and shoulders above Curry as a player, overall, right now. Better, but we're not talking Kevin Durant vs. Jared Dudley.
I am claiming that Tyreke's size and style of play make his game better suited to take over, dominate, finish games strong ... just do whatever it takes to get wherever he wants and score. If the argument was "who is more skilled?", I'm not picking Tyreke. And that's where potential comes back into it. He can improve upon his skill, whether it's his shot, his pick and roll game, whatever. But, as the risk of sounding cliched, you can't teach size and strength, and those traits, along with the talent he already has, make him better than Curry NOW and give him a higher ceiling in the future. The two issues are closely related.
Regarding the quality of play while he was going for 20/5/5, you have to factor in the trade, the changing lineups and rotations and the fact that players just plain ran out of gas. Part of it was definitely his fault, with his occasional single-mindedness on offense, charging at the rim instead of hitting open shooters, turnovers, etc. Those are the same things that Kobe was doing in his first few years in the league (still does at times), and it's not the end of the world. I don't chalk it up to selfishness or lack of trust in his teammates, either. Just sometimes trying to do to much, coupled with a lack of experience. It absolutely HAS TO improve in order for us/him to be successful, but I'm not concerned about it.