AtTheDriveIn

A little, lol? Watch him drop to end of the lottery range by the end of the season. I think a lot of people have forgotten that Greg Monroe was highly, highly touted at the end of last season and could have gone top 3 then. Another season of experience and another season of improvement will do him a great deal of favour. I think, by Draft time next season, Monroe will most likely be right in the hunt for a top two position within the Draft.

Praise for the effort. Really nice job. I have a few quarrels, though. 2001: Pau Gasol should definitely be in the blue. The Grizzlies, behind him, and with Hubie Brown as coach had a few 50 win seasons with Gasol as the focal point of the team. It's true, their successes when they got to the Playoffs weren't extraordinary, but Gasol still shone and showed that he was the true star of that team. He did win a championship as the second player, but behind Kobe Bryant, every other player in the league will be a 'second option'. Re-itterating, in my personal opinion, Gasol is a star - especially since looking down your list, the other guys in green include Ben Gordon and Emeka Okafor - Gasol is a complete level above them. 2002: I guess you could go ahead and say that the only reason Drew Gooden ever existed was to grab offensive rebounds early in his career for the Cavaliers. He's not a good player by any means; mentally, he's slow and unintelligent and physically, he peaked at about his third year in the league and has been on a slide since. I wouldn't really even call his career a 'meh', I'd just say, I'll just say, that if he were in a stronger draft, I'd consider him only if I was picking about 25-30th. I'm not sure about Mike Dunleavy either. I think he has potential to be a good second option. He's slow for a guard, yes, but he's incredibly long and handles the ball at a surprisingly good clip. He's unselfish; determined and an intelligent player. If he were in a better situation; say, if the Spurs traded for him instead of Jefferson, I think he'd really excel and come to light. 2004: Andrew Bogut is the major problem I have here. I'm not only saying this because I live in Australia and think he's the greatest thing to ever come out of here or anything, but honestly, he's more than a 'meh' player. He averaged a double-double this season on what was basically two broken legs and he's one of the best passing big men in the league. He also blocks plenty of shots, defends the paint pretty well and will give you what you expect; that being about 14 points, 10 rebounds, 2.5 assists and 1.5+ blocks. If critics stop building this facade that because he's the first pick, he should be 22/10 without question, they'd see that he's actually a pretty talented player. I think he should be slipped into the green range. 2007/2008: Al Horford and Jeff Green are not perrenial all-stars nor have either shown that they might be. Jeff Green has an abundance of talent that still needs to be fine-tuned but Horford is nothing more than a run-off-the-mill, hardworking forward who fits into any system, any team, any place. I consider them both good pieces to have around, but you're not winning a championship or even making the playoffs in some circumstances if Horford or Green are your second options. None of the guys who you have as perrenial all-stars in the 2008 draft would I consider as actually that. You said you were judging them on how they have played so far, so, so far, what's perennially all-stariffic about 13 points, 5 rebounds and poor defense (Michael Beasley), or 11 points and 9 rebounds (Kevin Love). Don't get me wrong, I like these guys and hope they do succeed, but you're jumping the gun about a year or two earlier on this one. Beasley is currently in rehab, which, as history shows, doesn't do wonders for past NBA players (see: Clarence Weatherspoon, Vin Baker - ironically, both undersize for their positions as well), and Love looks like he may peak at being just a 'meh' player anyway. looking forward to some sort of reply.

Having not read the entire thread, please excuse my post if it's already been addressed. You have to remember that not everyone thinks the same. One person's small problem might be huge for someone else. There's a theorist by the name of Maslow, who says a person can't survive without 5 'rights', as he called them. These were: 1. Basic Needs 2. Safety Needs (Physically and Mentally) 3. Psychological Needs, which included a sense of belonging 4. Self-Actualization 5. Peak Experience (it's a heirachy, we all strive for stage 5 in a sense and you can go back after going forward) He did studies on suicides, and he found that most (slightly over 58%) kill themselves because they never get past stage 3. He concludes that by the age of 13, if you're on stage 3 and don't feel like you belong somewhere where you have the rights and privileges to stage 2 with ease, the likelihood of bipolar (depression) skyrockets. And if by stage 4, your self interpretation if what people have made of you, Maslow found it's completely common for a lot of these young ones to commit suicide (paraphrased from Educational Psychology: Ed 9). Sadly, most suicide commiters don't ever make it past a basic stage (equivalent to an 8 or 9 year old level), and then their brains are warped (unintentionally) into an image where suicide seems acceptable, to their own minds, at least.

.. I feel like I know you from somewhere. It's weird. I feel like I know lots of these new posters; but from where. *thinks* *thinks more* nah, no idea.

I like how you don't know you're stupid. It makes it funny, knowing that everyone think's you're a moron.

That's what I said.. and that's what he agreed to. So, yep.

Favours Wall Henry Cousins Stevenson and maybe Henson all have the feel of one and done players who know their stock and their position in the draft and are only at NCAA level because they have to be. The only person I can see staying more than one year out of the ESPNU 100 are Avery Bradley and Renardo Sidney and only because they landed in programs that would be very successful depending on their stays. Apart from that, the guys who are staying are probably on the same level as the guys who are staying now. In fact, the guys now are probably better overall players. The only guys who have massive potential after the top 10 in recruiting are Gaddy (Washington), Yarou (Villanova), Cheek (Villanova) and Strickland (UNC); in my opinon, anyway.

You're an idiot..

You took that out of context. He said that Bynum hasn't played good basketball for longer than a period of two weeks, not that he's only played two weeks of good basketball.

Others: - Robbie Hummel, Purdue - De'Sean Butler, West Virginia - Michael Washington, Arkansas - Evan Turner, Ohio State I don't think Ed Davis will be in anyone's top 10, in my honest opinion. He's got way too much talent to compete with for minutes. With Davis in the North Carolina front court is; Tyler Zeller, John Henson, and the Wear brothers. That's a pretty crowded front court if I'm not mistaken. All are very talented forwards; all have the skills to be on the top 50 shortlist (bar maybe the Freshman brothers). I just think that Davis will end up being a much better NBA player than a college player. Robbie Hummel and De'Sean Butler, on the other hand, I think are going to be so vital to their teams this season. Hummel, when he plays well, can match many, many other wings in college basketball right now. Not only that, but Purdue will be very successful with him and E. Moore, who could also go down as a candidate for POY. Purdue is definitely a team to watch out for this season if Hummel can stay healthy. Likewise with De'Sean; he's such a skilled player and the development of Ebanks can only make De'Sean better as well. He's a deadly scorer, and a tough match-up for any other wing. There's not many players like Butler around this season. Out of your list, I'd probably take out Patterson and Singler and slot the two guys I mentioned in. Michael Washington is a long shot, but he's going into his senior season, so it might be worth watching and seeing what he can do. My top 10 would probably look something like: 1. Sherron Collins/Cole Aldrich - whoever leads this team - Kansas 2. Craig Brackins - Iowa State 3. Luke Harangody - Notre Dame 4. The other guy of Collins/Aldrich - Kansas 5. Greg Monroe - Georgetown 6. Robbie Hummel - Purdue 7. Willie Warren - Oklahoma 8. De'Sean Butler - West Virginia 9. Evan Turner - Ohio State 10. Kalin Lucas, Scottie Reynolds, John Wall - Michigan State, Villanova, Kentucky, respectively. Can't decide on this last one.

I thought I was better.

Efficient scorers? 1998/1999 Second leading scorer - Matt Geiger, 13.5 points per game, career, 9.2 points per game 1999/2000 Second leading scorer - Tyrone Hill, 13.0 points per game, career, 9.4 points per game 2000/2001 Second leading scorer - Theo Ratliff, 12.4 points per game, career, 7.5 points per game 2001/2002 Second leading scorer - Derrick Coleman, 15.8 points per game, career, 16.5 points per game 2002/2003 Second leading scorer - Keith Van Horn, 15.9 points per game, career, 16.0 points per game Although all were fairly efficient in the sense that they could all hit layups and open jump shots like most NBA players can, none were scorers in the literal word. Ironically, the worst seasons they had was the season when Van Horn and Coleman set 'era' highs of 15.8 and 15.9 points per game respectively, the most out of any second leading scorers in the Brown era. The 76ers were head and shoulders above most of the competition, anyway. It was their inability to beat Western Conference teams that had them 'struggling to make 50 wins'. Their record against the East in 1999, where they won 49 games was 36-18, meaning they only went 13-15 against the West. Similarily, in 2002/2003, when they won 48 games, 35 of their wins came against the East; the best East Vs. East record in the conference if I'm not mistaken. They were basically, by and large, the class of their conference; they just couldn't capitalize outside their conference. But that's the thing; look at what you just said: Carmelo did mature Nene wasn't injured Marcus was was off the roster and they still did the best they could without the head cases they still had. They were always going to get beaten when they had Allen Iverson and Anthony Carter as a starting back court and everyone knew it, especially by the more physical teams (oh, wow, Spurs and Lakers guards are physical, who would've thunk it?). But for some reason, people expected Iverson to be some enormous saviour like LeBron to the Cavs when he was never that player. He leads average teams to dark-horse statuses; he doesn't lead average teams to championships contention like many think he does. I have more to talk about, but I want to go watch Formula One. If I don't get back to this topic, just argue the top points if you're going to reply.

Agree. Similar case, one of the women who was involved in the Tate murder by the Manson Family (apparently, she held down the actresses arms while the rest of the Family killed her), was convicted of assisting in murder and is currently serving a life imprisonment for a number of these assisted murders, also asked for parole recently because she's terminally ill (some sort of cancer or tumour), but was denied. I wouldn't have imagined that a 60+ year old terminally ill female would be a threat to society, to be honest.

The Philadelphia team under Larry Brown that Iverson starred in only had one losing season which was Iverson's second season in the league. After that, they had some considerable success for a team that didn't have much talent. They won 49 games with Tyron Hill and Toni Kukoc as the main 'second guys' and made the playoffs every season, and got out of the first round three out of four times, making it to the semi-finals twice and even the Finals in 2000-2001. That, in my opinion, is more success than say, Chris Bosh could ask for at this point. It was only after his failure to produce wins without Brown that got Iverson this status as some team killer or team cancer when in fact, in Denver's first season with Iverson, they improved considerably, from being a middle of the pack team to being the team 'that just needed one more piece', which they never got because they were too busy locking up Carmelo for $14+ million per season, but Iverson somehow got the blame for it. Then when they got the piece they needed, Iverson wasn't able to be around for it, so it obviously had to mean that Iverson was keeping this team back on the court, which definitely wasn't the case as he played with just as much heart and passion as he always had.

Thanks for the life story. So uh, where's the money gone? Are you conceding to Yugoslavia not being a socialist country? Why/Why not? I don't think I've written the word 'Obama' in any of my posts in this thread. I came in here to tell you you're an idiot; not to argue Obama, lol.

Yugoslavia wasn't socialist. =S Oh [expletive], I can make points without having factual evidence too. Do you know what toe USSR stands for? Did you know the word 'Socialist' is one of the S's? Who actually considers Former Russia a Socialist country? Stalin never declared himself a dictator, but everyone knew exactly what he was. He had secret police, for [expletive]s sake. How is that 'social'? Where's this major money, by the way? I've been in 'Yugoslavia' between 1991-1994, 1999, 2001, and 2004 and do you know the main difference? Sometimes they have electricity at night as opposed to not having any electricity for four years between during the Bosnian War. Hell, the Bosnians don't even own 49% of their land because they can't afford to keep it controlled and maintained. That doesn't seem like a country which has developed much of anything, does it? And it's certainly a prime candidate for a strong leader with socialist ideas. Serbia's exactly the same; they're so busy compensating for the Wars to other countries that they don't even have the expenses to let their economy function and grow the way it probably should. Croatia long distanced itself from it's poorer neighbours but it's still suffering from the wars from the Serbian idiots. My parents also lived in Bosnia from the 1960s and they said it's as bad now as it was then. I don't need silly stastics that show the communist governments make money and then they don't distribute to the people. It's useless unless you've seen it first hand. This economic rise certainly didn't help the people. It might have helped the government build and restore some of the medieval castles, but it did nothing for the people. And they're still suffering because of it. So explain to me, even with the whole 7% thing, where's this money? It's certainly not in their economy. Jesus Christ, you can't be more than thirteen years old. Its called, get some better comebacks, lyk, kewl? And I never argued about Ford in the first place. I'm not into the automotive industry and I don't know much about how they buy/sell companies, especially not in America. If you can show me where I've engaged in some argument about GM and Ford, then I'll concede that I lose that argument simply on the basis that I don't know what I'm even arguing about, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't engage in any sort of argument about car companies. Not today anyway. And please, if you reply, for your sake, argue every point, don't leave out bits and then say 'oh it's stupid' when I question you on it. You just make yourself look more like the moron you are.

Right, because you can't think of an answer or reply to it. Here you go once again: I like it how you used the 'j' to make it sound authentic, but forgot to put on at the start of Jugoslavija. If you want to sound different, check yo' spelling, dawg. Nobody was talking about communism either, by the way. We're talking about socialism. A socialist government is one where everything is actually shared amongst the people equally. For such a poor economic standard, a socialist government in Bosnia, or in the hip, retro, 'jugoslavija' is impossible. It can only be run through a set of strict political rules, which would no longer make it a socialist government. And if you knew anything, you'd know that they're not the same thing because communism focuses mainly on many political issues, meanwhile, Marx said that the idea of 'socialism' was about the economy and not about politics. Thus far, there hasn't been many countries that have been able to implement Marxism correctly mainly because the level of economic growth was just too poor and almost all 'ideas' of socialism came from poor states who wanted a better lifestyle, but couldn't exactly get it. Communism, on the other hand, usually mixes in socialism and a form of dictatorship together and disguises it under the name of 'socialist republic' so that they don't have every capitalist country in the world attack them. By the way, the word imbisclatic doesn't exist.

You didn't reply to my post? Too much for you? I can understand if it was.

You can't just 'migrate' to countries. There's a strict set of rules and procedures you have to follow to get into different countries. It took my family a year living in Germany under a temporary VISA before we were able to move to Australia via staying in Japan for a while. It's not as easy as just packing up and going. Plus, these countries also have the right to refuse entry if they don't think you're qualified (ie. poor or unfit to live in their structure, basically).

I like it how you used the 'j' to make it sound authentic, but forgot to put on at the start of Jugoslavija. If you want to sound different, check yo' spelling, dawg. Nobody was talking about communism either, by the way. We're talking about socialism. A socialist government is one where everything is actually shared amongst the people equally. For such a poor economic standard, a socialist government in Bosnia, or in the hip, retro, 'jugoslavija' is impossible. It can only be run through a set of strict political rules, which would no longer make it a socialist government. And if you knew anything, you'd know that they're not the same thing because communism focuses mainly on many political issues, meanwhile, Marx said that the idea of 'socialism' was about the economy and not about politics. Thus far, there hasn't been many countries that have been able to implement Marxism correctly mainly because the level of economic growth was just too poor and almost all 'ideas' of socialism came from poor states who wanted a better lifestyle, but couldn't exactly get it. Communism, on the other hand, usually mixes in socialism and a form of dictatorship together and disguises it under the name of 'socialist republic' so that they don't have every capitalist country in the world attack them.

I swear any thread with that idiot, incest Serb turns into a thread about how God doesn't exist. I seriously don't understand his obsession with it. If you're so insecure and need to get your message accross, then go to some religious forums and post your messages. As for extraterrestrial life, the numbers are overwhelmingly for there being another human-like species around. Think about this: Look up into the sky next tonight or tomorrow night or whenever. Every star up there is a sun galaxies away which has it's own set of planets and moons; some which have more planets than our eight. Then multiply that by some crazy, infinite number because we obviously can't see every star in every galaxy, and you'll have your answer. It's almost impossible, mathematically, that there isn't another planet out there that has human life forms on it. We've been able to discover liquids on other planets in other galaxies, so there are obviously other livable planets out there.

Have you? and if you say Bosnia, you're just really, really, really stupid.

Lol, whaaaaaatttt? What freedoms is the government taking away from you? You still have a right to which bank you place your money into, you still have a right to which car you decide to drive and you still have a right to which doctor you go to for a small annual fee which benefits everyone. Where are these freedoms you're losing?

Lol, so that's why he shouldn't start over Bell? Let me break this down for you: Allen Iverson - omgzz 25+ points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Raja Bell - went undrafted God, no wonder everyone thinks you're a joke.

Well first of all, the past three seasons, he's a shot persona low of 14, 19 and 20 shots per game. And in all seasons, he's shot better than his career average .425%, shooting as high as .458 in the season where he shot 20 per game (2007-2008), so really, the excuse that he's 'just shoots a lot of shots and doesn't get many in' is a tired, old excuse that thirteen year olds use because they can't think of a better argument. He's also dished out 5 assist per game since 2001-2002, and went as high as 7.9 assists per game 2004-2005 and maintained higher than 7 assists per game until this season, where he dropped back to 5. So, yeah, he does create for himself, but he's also a good creator for his teammates as well. So let's look at the problem, then: Charlotte is a team that has no primary option on offense and will probably struggle to score more than 90 points per game this upcoming season if Wallace is their main option. This seems like a dream situation for Iverson, who is someone who can create for himself despite his height and lack of really effective outside shot, and scores at a high rate. He's also a pest on defense, although, I admit, he's lost a step or two and Larry Brown is one of the coaches who could actually stand having Iverson around. But, no you're right, although Bell has lost a step himself defensively, and has been on the obvious decline offensively for years now (11.9 points per game is a lot lower than his near 15 points per game a few seasons ago), the Bobcats would probably do better if Iverson was on the bench and Bell was starting. Boy, the Bell can just get the offense going!