AtTheDriveIn

I didn't include it in the article, but the letter written by Litvin to Cohen also strikes up a good counter argument to age discrimination. Litvin says that most jobs require post High School education (and the NBA is a job as well as a sport), and even the congress, of which Cohen is a apart of requires a certain age to be reached before you can apply to be a part of it. If the congress are allowed to discriminate against their own, why should they be allowed to govern policies made by other companies or businesses on age?

That's what I think as well, to be honest. I think there should be an evaluation system, but the problem with that is bias from outside sources upon the evaluator, and defining what real 'skill' is, so that idea kind of goes out there door as soon as it gets in. I like the 'hardship' rule though; but it was kind of proven ineffective in the 1970's because of the number of people who applied for the exception.

Personal development; a strive to always be better. College gives you the opportunity to work on areas of your game which need improvement in order for you to make 'the next step', so to say. And if Andray Blatche averaged 20/10 at Kansas, he would have been a first round pick too. And I'm led to believe that in the fashion he would have done it in; showing all of his skills on the court consistently, plus improving the way college players do, he probably would have been better than the 28th pick like Ostertag was; leaning more towards the lottery. It's not being deceitful, like you might suggest, but the NCAA would have been a place where Blatche could have emphasized his strengths and worked on his weaknesses in an environment where 'development' does matter, unlike the NBA where 'win the championship' matters more to teams and where they have the money to spend on players who will contribute now. Aside from these things, how did you like the article? This is my first actual one I've done by myself. I used to ghost-write for a few people at another website, but this is my first one by myself. Any thoughts of the actual article would be great.

^ I'm saying that Webster, Miles, Williams and Blatche, all of whom are still developing really could have used the extra year or two in college to work on their game rather than be put in a situation, where if they didn't produce (and more often then not, they don't), they sat and their confidence takes a blow. Perhaps it wasn't right to include Webster, but I think polishing his skills in the NCAA could have landed him a much better scouting report than 'good third or fourth option on better than average team' Whilst Bynum has spent his last two seasons on the injury list, every time he is healthy, he's been productive. The season before last, just before he got injured, he was averaging 18 points, 12 rebounds, 3 assists and 2 blocks per game. It was a small number of games to judge by, but he still averages 13 points, 10 rebounds for the months before he got injured as well. Then last year, right before he got injured, he was averaging 18 points and 8 boards. Monta Ellis is the same story. You just need to check his numbers to see that whenever he gets on the court, nobody questions whether or not he should be on the court. Edit: Sorry I missed your second question. Considering that they do average the same numbers as those who did go to college, don't you think it would have benefited them greatly to have actually gone to college and polished their skills to the level where they were better than those around them? Andray Blatche is a guy I've been watching for a few seasons now. Has all the skills to be a great big man, but it seems like everything is just left a little unpolished. His post moves, although good, are basic; his jump shot, although it falls, doesn't fall enough; his defense, although productive at times, is inconsistent; his IQ just isn't good. These are the things star players work on in college. Had Blatche gone to college, I guarantee, he could have been at least a 16/10 center/power forward on any good team.

Source Tough break for Memphis.

In 2006, the league, along with the players union decided that beginning that year, the age limit for entering the NBA Draft would be increased from eighteen, which was the standard for countless upon countless of years to nineteen years old, citing that athletes coming out of High School were simply not ready for the NBA game. Of course, there was instant criticism of the policy; notably, a high school junior at the time and Kansas State player Bill Walker saying, “I’m against it. I don’t see why you have to be 19 to play a game of basketball when you can be 18 and go to war for our country and die. It’s ridiculous." Last month, Representative for Tennessee’s ninth district, Steve Cohen proposed that the league and the players union scrap the age requirement in their next collective bargaining agreement, calling the age limit unfair. In a recent letter to Cohen, Joel Litvin, president of the NBA, wrote that the purpose of the age requirement being set at 19 years of age “increased the chances that incoming players will have the requisite ability, experience, maturity and life skills” to be able to perform sufficiently at the NBA level. This small detail is certainly true as the NBA has had a myriad of athletes looking to turn pro right after High School only to be cut from NBA teams or go undrafted because they, simply and honestly, weren’t ready for the harsher and much more intense NBA game. For example, a player like Gerald Green, who was drafted with the eighteen pick in the 2005 NBA Draft for his athleticism and potential, though even with all the athletic talent in the world, can’t seem to consistently crack an NBA rotation would have been better off going to Oklahoma State, the college he had originally intended to go and learned what it really takes to be a basketball player rather than to the take huge step straight into the NBA immediately. The old saying, “Sometimes you have to run before you can walk” obviously does not apply here, nor does it with many of the High School players seeking the fame and glory the NBA offers. Other names, just from the 2005 Draft, one year before the rule was initiated, who jumped from High School to the NBA and weren’t/aren’t able to consistently see considerable minutes on the court despite being gifted athletes include Martell Webster (#6), C.J Miles (#34), Louis Williams (#45), Andray Blatche (#49) and Amir Johnson (#56). In fact, only two players from just the 2005 Draft have shown that they are able to play and earn consistent minutes at the NBA level; Andrew Bynum (#10) and Monta Ellis (#40). It is true, that some of the best players in the NBA at the moment are in fact High School players; however the ratio of player who don’t quite make it to those who do is clearly in favour of those who do not make any real impact at the NBA level. In a letter responding to Livtin, Cohen wrote that the athletes have an “economic freedom” to make their own decisions, and although Cohen also states that he understands the policy gives scouts more opportunity to watch certain players in the NCAA, he maintains that the ‘age discrimination’ prevents athletes from being able to support their families. Backtracking through NBA history, in a similar case in 1970, Spencer Haywood was permitted to enter the NBA without completing the then mandatory four years of college. From the period of 1971 to 1976, the NBA instituted a ‘hardship exception’, where a player could apply for the NBA but also had to prove financial hardship. Though it may seem unlikely, this may be something which could be considered by both parties as a suitable outcome if a hearing should arise. On the 20th of July, 2009, Cohen requested a hearing with Commissioner David Stern along with NBA president Joel Litvin. As of Monday, neither has responded to Cohen’s request.

Agree with that. Nash looked a lot better last season when they fired Porter and hired Gentry as interim coach. Porter's style of play worked against Nash because you could see his weaknesses. Gentry emphasizes his strengths by being able to hide his weaknesses.

Fun, personal attacks. Okay, look, if I was constructing a team, I'm taking Camby over Perkins. Let me repeat, if a joint-GM position was available, and offered to me, myself and I (did you get that? It means ME!, not you), all three of us would take Camby, because, even though apparently his level of one-on-one defense (because the NBA post players nowadays play that soooo much), according to you, is comparable to, let pulls a name out of the bag, Zach Randolph, whom I believe to be one of the poorer defenders, I still believe, and from what I've seen and watched that he's a better defender than you like making him out to be. I admit, I've gotten carried away on some things I have personally said, but some of the things you say are ridiculous; lets take a look: - Camby is one of the worst defenders in the league - He lets in 8/10 shots, even though his opponents percentage is exactly the same as Perkins - Camby leaving made the Nuggets better defensively I'm sure you wouldn't be saying it if he were still playing for the Nuggets, and doing his usual, consistent, stellar defensive job. Did I just imply you being a homer? Yes, yes I did. By the way, you're purposely procrasinating at looking at www.82games.com because you know I'm right on all my data. Click the link, click the team and then click the player; it's not hard, a toddler could sift through some of this information, but apparently, there's just not enough mental capacity in that overblown forehead of yours to process something as complicated as 'opponents per48 stats' OMGHZ!!1!!q!!!. If you're going to quote me again, please, read through and reply thoughtfully. Don't put words in my mouth. It's simple. Just reply to what I've said.

Thus your opinion means so much more. Hey everyone, don't argue about any Nuggets player, ever.. Snake just knows more than you do. By the way 'speaking from a fan's perspective' is just a coded little sentence for 'I'm a homer, but I'm going to play it like I'm not and just call myself a fan'. Eh. 82games.com; figure your way around the site. Eh, okay. Jesus [expletive]ing Christ, stop putting words in my mouth. Please show me where I've been saying 'the better defender is the guy with more blocks', furthermore, please, keep digging into my brain and pulling all this bull[expletive] out like you know a thing or two about what I'm thinking. [expletive] me, do you even read anything anyone says? Or do you just like listening to the tapping of your own keyboard? Lol. I never even said this. zzzz.. oh putting words in my mouth again. What a surprise. Because he's more experienced, it means he's stronger. Right, okay. Think about that and how stupid it sounds. Lol. [expletive] off you have. You watched the highlights and pretended like you knew something. I'm bored of arguing. You just think you know more because 'you've seen him play therefore know everything' even though being from Australia, you have limited access to their games anyway, unless you miss every day of school to watch it online, which I doubt you do, and if you did, then why am I talking to a person without an education in common sense and every day life? So I'll let you 'win' this because you're basically just looking for an argument for the sake of it and not because you actually want to voice your opinion.

What stats? Who brought up stats? Where are these stats I referred to? The argument you just gave was the argument that everyone gave. It's not easy to 'just get blocks' or 'just get rebounds' for the fun of it. It takes effort and hustle. Defense doesn't come as easy to any player as offense does. As I said before, and pay attention to this because you missed it last time, He is not on the level of Garnett and Duncan, but certainly above Kendrick 'I can't stay in the game for more then 4 minutes at a time because coach says I foul too much' Perkins and Sam 'I just foul.. alot' Dalembert and here's some stats to prove it: Per48 minutes, Kendrick Perkins allows 17.8 points per game against him at 49% shooting Samual Dalembert allows 17.0 points per game against him at 50% shooting Marcus Camby allows 16.0 points per game against him at 49% shooting in comparison Tim Duncan allows 17.0 points per game on 46% shooting To add to that, the players Camby defend foul more, turn the ball over more, and go to the free throw line less. This was last season, where he wasn't healthy from the beginning to the end of the season as well. Furthermore, it doesn't all come down to 'just standing there with your hands up'. Try it at your next basketball game and see how far it gets you. Or, maybe I should ask some wide bodied 350lbs. player who hasn't been off his couch in ten years, let alone played basketball to stand in my paint for the team that I coach and see how far I'm able to take the team. At any level 'just stand there' isn't enough. Perkins and Dalembert, though I am arguing against them being elite defenders do more than just 'stand there'. That's just stupid. Also, Camby leaving was the reason you guys got better on defense? LOL. I think everybody knows it had something to do with the commitment to that area that Billups brought in when Iverson left. Not AS strong. Geez, somebody needs to go back to 'reading comprehension 101' and learn that you can't skip words in the middle of sentences because you're just going to look like a fool afterwards. Griffin doesn't just rely on athleticism though. Has someone been watching ESPN highlights a little too much? Watch a game. Meh. Each to their own. Well first off, no, Joe Smith did not 'probably have more post moves'. He was the exact player Griffin was, and he averaged exactly what many think Griffin will at the same age (18 and 9, his second season). Then, he got moved to Philadelphia where Iverson assumed the role of 'scorer plus anything else I wanna be' and he regressed. Then severly sprained his ankle and missed half a season, and never came back the same. He's still fluid; still moves well, but he was never the same player that came out of college after his first two seasons. If Joe Smith's early years were a bust, then in this draft, I'd take a chance on that kind of bust.

Camby defends the post better than a lot of players. He got some slack a few seasons back when he won his Defensive Player of the Year award, with many coming out saying, "he's only good because he gets lots of blocks on a team that doesn't get that many", but the fact is, he legitimately is a strong post defensive center. He's not on Garnett's or Duncan's 'anchor' level, but he's much better than the foul machines that go by the names Perkins (and yes, I know he has games where he doesn't foul all that much, but he does more often than not) and Dalembert and he's definitely better than Gasol and.. Dampier. Geez, digging deep for names there, weren't you? Eh. I don't believe you've watched enough of Griffin. Carmelo is a lot more fluid in his movements, not as strong, not the post player Griffin has been raised to be, a much, much, much, much, much better jumpshooter, has control with the ball, but not the same body control that Griffin possesses. There's plenty of other differences. Personally, I'm not doing a Klashnekoff, or whoever else and saying 'err youre so stupid, you need to watch his game more', but take an hour of two off whenever Griffin plays next, and you'll notice the differences between them games. For some reason, it's seems like the popular thing to do; comparing Carmelo and any other explosive NCAA scorer. Same thing happened with Beasley last season. Beasley is eons closer to being Carmelo than Griffin, and Beasley isn't quite the player Carmelo is either. - Bynum was hardly effective defensively with the knee brace. From what I recall, he had one good 9/9 game versus the Magic and hardly played the rest of the Finals series. - Pau did a good job against Dwight Howard, not doubting that; kept him off the boards better than quite a few players I've seen, but his defense isn't even on the 'oh wow, he's a pretty good defender level' - Odom played 18 feet away guarding Rashard Lewis. He's 6'9 without shoes and 6'10 and a quarter with shoes. Last I checked, players played basketball with shoes on. As a Power Forward, which is his position, he's the right size. His problem isn't height, it's his arms. They're incredibly short, measuring at 6'11. However, that doesn't affect his offensive game, but rather his defensive game. Dampier again.. ouch. Among casual fans, who've been fed information and hype from the ultimate hype machine, ESPN, expectations may be high, but personally, knowing quite a few guys who are really in-depth with their NBA, the expectations don't seem so high. True, he is expected to be good for at least 18/10, but with how he performs, along with his amazing work-ethic and his maturity which is light years beyond the entire rookie class, it's not so hard to see, is it? He has a willingness to learn, and he'll learn that you can't dunk over everyone, but I am pretty sure that he's smart enough to know that being a one-trick pony doesn't cut it. Guys on my high-school team, guys who could barely pass high-school classes understood this. Having gone to college and excelled as a student as well as an athlete, I'm sure Blake knows what it takes to make it big time. It's not often players come out of college with his level of maturity. As Real Deal said, Tim Duncan may have been the last big man to be this skilled mentally.

Defensive 3 second rules makes it tough to 'camp'. Even so, he's quicker and more skilled than all these players anyway. The only guys who will give him major problems are the already established star defensive players like Kevin Garnett or Dwight Howard. Offense is easier to execute than defense without an elite defender and not many teams have an elite post defender, in fact, the two I already mentioned plus Camby and Duncan are the last true remaining elite 'post defenders' (I've probably miss one or two though).

You have to apply for it to be eligible for it. And the Phoenix Suns did apply for one, and received it; they used the money on Raja Bell. Also, two seasons ago, the Magic got one for Tonie Battie. Don't remember exactly who we signed. I don't remember Jefferson missing a season, so I'll assume there's another RJ.

You know you're no good when your franchise players are David Lee and Nate Robinson, haha. Good article. I enjoyed it.

The poorly written news article that he posted last night (my time) kind of gave it away. No real reporter uses phrases like 'to his hometown' or 'A ______ [enter city name here] man has died.' The whole article seemed to put a whole lot of emphasis on you dying (Real Deal) and not on the accident itself, which to me, was a giveaway. Plus, providing no link either kind of made the whole thing seem that bit extra fake.

I never understood this about Van Gundy and how he manages the rotation. Late last season, I remember asking myself why we never pair up Gortat and Howard in the paint, even for short amounts of time, to keep out guys who like going to the basket. The post defense would be surreal. Even if it's the other way around and we have Gortat manning the middle and Howard as the four, it'd mean a lot stronger defensive play for us inside. But, with our team philosophy, we like to have four shooters on the court at all times so unless something changes with our offense and we suddenly become more half-court oriented, less reliant on the jumpshot from range, and more reliant on getting to the basket and using our mismatches effectively, I don't think Gortat will get much time at the four, not alongside Howard anyway. I can see why he's saying that too, by the way. He was just signed to a big deal. He wants ample playing time as well so he's voicing his concerns.

Just got back home. It's 1am here, the movie finished at 12.15am. First initial thoughts; a bit slow, but I'd watch it twice without problem. Also, the books and even the movies before this one were, in my opinion, really well received because they never went off the story line. They didn't sway into any social or political factors. Of course, there was the friendship between the Harry, Ron and Hermoine, but this movie really tried to make 'relationships' happen. Just throughout, there was scenes where they'd cut to a girl staring at Harry with a look of 'love' upon her face. They seemed to try force it too much. Also **SPOILER ALERT** the 'thing' between Ginny and Harry happened way too fast and looked really awkward. Apart from that, really good. There was some comedy bits which had the whole crowd laughing; there was the usual drama; there was a little suspense; and it left a lot of questions unanswered (to those who obviously haven't read the books), which I liked quite a lot because it sets up for a great ending for the next two movies. I also liked that Dumbledore had a more prominent role in this movie and slowly became central without casting Harry aside. I think they could have done a better job with Slughorn, with the ways he acted and behaved. I imagined him to be more jolly, less sad, but he was watchable. The Quiddich match, or the part we got to see was nice. Hagrid, to me, looks like he lost about 100lbs. Ron played his part really well. This was easily the best movie for him. Out of 10, I think this movie deserves an 8.5.

Yeah, that 30% shooting and 3 and a half turnovers is just.. WOW! Beast.

I'm going to watch it with my girlfriend in a few hours. Not sure what to expect, but I'll make sure to check back here when it's done.

We should also give -100 rep to big meanies who don't agree with us!

And that's why so many of these guys don't make their teams; because they don't play their game. I've been a casual fan of the Hornets for a while, and I've seen Julian Wright play. I'm not sure what makes him a fan favourite on the court; I guess people just like seeing guys who might make it big time, but usually don't. I just don't see how, with his skill level and what he brings to the court, how it's going help the Hornets win games. He still struggles to stand out even with the average Summer League competition, meanwhile, a guy like Anthony Randolph, who plays for the Warriors is absolutely killing it, and even he isn't close to being a sure-fire contributor. Andray Blatche, another name that comes to mind, has for three years now, killed the Summer League competition. And every year, he struggles in the real season. So how does Julian Wright starting equal to success for the Hornets? Hornets are at a stage right now, where they have to keep winning games, or eventually, one or two seasons down the track, they're going to have to blow the team up and start again. The statement you said, you're sick of seeing him on the bench for mop-up duties, well how can he help the Hornets in real gametime versus guys who are clearly superior to him in just about every way. His offensive game is inconsistent, but the Hornets are known for being a pretty consistent offensive team. How does he fit within the starting lineup? If he can't produce, why does more playing time mean he will? Wont it just mean more mistakes? Small Forward and Shooting Guard are basically the same position. They're both wing players. I'd rather see, Rasual Butler + James Posey, which gives them a chance at defending both wing positions at least, than Julian Wright + other player, which gives them inconsistent play from one wing at pretty much all times. And my bad on the doghouse thing, mistook Posey for Peterson. Heh.

And that's why so many of these guys don't make their teams; because they don't play their game. I've been a casual fan of the Hornets for a while, and I've seen Julian Wright play. I'm not sure what makes him a fan favourite on the court; I guess people just like seeing guys who might make it big time, but usually don't. I just don't see how, with his skill level and what he brings to the court, how it's going help the Hornets win games. He still struggles to stand out even with the average Summer League competition, meanwhile, a guy like Anthony Randolph, who plays for the Warriors is absolutely killing it, and even he isn't close to being a sure-fire contributor. Andray Blatche, another name that comes to mind, has for three years now, killed the Summer League competition. And every year, he struggles in the real season. So how does Julian Wright starting equal to success for the Hornets? Hornets are at a stage right now, where they have to keep winning games, or eventually, one or two seasons down the track, they're going to have to blow the team up and start again. The statement you said, you're sick of seeing him on the bench for mop-up duties, well how can he help the Hornets in real gametime versus guys who are clearly superior to him in just about every way. His offensive game is inconsistent, but the Hornets are known for being a pretty consistent offensive team. How does he fit within the starting lineup? If he can't produce, why does more playing time mean he will? Wont it just mean more mistakes? 3) Rasual Butler is already in the starting line-up as our shooting guard, unless something drastic happens and Marcus Thornton takes that spot. Posey needs to stay on the bench. He's good, but he's aging. Let him stay at what he does best. I don't recall him being in Scott's doghouse last season. He just dealt with several nagging injuries throughout the season and really struggled with his rhythm because of it. Small Forward and Shooting Guard are basically the same position. They're both wing players. I'd rather see, Rasual Butler + James Posey, which gives them a chance at defending both wing positions at least, than Julian Wright + other player, which gives them inconsistent play from one wing at pretty much all times. And my bad on the doghouse thing, mistook Posey for Peterson. Heh.

Can't help but to think that Gortat, costing roughly 6.8 million on average per season is over spending. Financially, we're way over the salary cap anyway. We also could have signed a back-up center for a fraction of the price and he would have played the same minutes, and did the same job that Gortat does for us. I'm, of course, happy that we got him back, but I just don't think, financially, that it was the right way to go considering that in the way that he's just going to be a back-up once more this coming season.

Can someone explain to me the appeal of Julian Wright as a player? For some reason, everyone seems to have a soft spot for Wright, but I just don't understand why, unless it's purely non-basketball related. Watching his game today in the Summer League only confirmed that he still has a long way to go before he becomes anything more than a project to be used sparingly off the bench. He shot the ball fairly well, though when he missed, it was usually an ill-advised throw at the rim than it was a smart contested jumpshot. That alone leads to questions as to whether or not his IQ will ever be at the level where coaches wont have to pull him out of games for over-shooting or 'looking for his own'. Defensively, he was impressive only because of his length over the 6'6" James Gist. He's still, what, 21/22 years old. He's still a project. I give this less than 10 games before Scott puts him back on the bench. If Scott is looking for someone to contribute in the staring lineup, and use Peja off the bench, then I don't see anything wrong with Rasual Butler, or even James Posey, who seemed to find himself in Scott's doghouse a lot last season. Either would bring better results than Wright.