Post by HealyHoya on May 28, 2008 22:02:39 GMT -5
So before Chris Paul showed up guys like Tyson Chandler, David West, Jannero Pargo, Peja were absolutely playing to their potential, right? In fact, none of these guys had disappointed (Chandler, West) or had disappeared (Peja), right? And so it was just a coincidence that each of those players, as well as Mo Pete, Bonzi Wells, etc., suddenly -- en mass -- elevated their playing levels. Suddenly an average guy (West) is an all-star. Suddenly a disappointment (Chandler) plays like the dominant C everyone expected. Suddenly a below-the-radar G (Pargo) averages 10ppg. Suddenly a has-been (Peja) returns to being one of the most deadly shooters in the league.
And all of that, all of that, is a coincidence. Has nothing to do with the arrival of one of the most dynamic PGs seen in the NBA is the last several years. Nope, it wasn't CP3, it was a coincidence.
Yeah, so take Beasely because a 3/4 instantly elevates a team...instantly makes everyone other player better?
You take Rose at #1 or you just send your resume to the Clippers.
Why necessarily? Is it because Rose is going to be as good as CP3, or is it because somehow you always take the 1 over the 3/4? If it's the latter, then the argument makes no sense. You can't anecdotally pick the best pg in the league and then decide based on that, that 1's are always going to be better for teams than a wing player. Lebron hasn't made his team better? Kobe? KG? And highly picked 1's like TJ Ford haven't failed?
If you want to say that Rose is that good, then go ahead. But you can't argue that based on CP3, that 1's somehow inherently are a better pick than other players. It's that kind of thinking in the NFL that makes people draft overrated QB's #1 overall just because they are the best QB in the draft.
I don't check this site often so my apologies if the conversation has moved on...
That said, no, you don't take the 1 over the 3/4 every time but I think (and it is just my opinion) that you clearly take Rose over Beasely this time. CP3 was used merely to highlight why I think this is clear.
LeBron has made a fairly terrible cast of mediocre players a perennial Eastern Conference contender. He has done so by playing a point-PF position. He distributes the ball like a point guard. He sees the floor like a point guard. He has a PGs court-awareness. These are the aspects of his game that make him elite. These are PG qualities.
Kobe -- It wasn't until Kobe began to make players better (Bynum, Farmar, Gasol's return to near all-star form, etc.) that the Lakers again became Championship caliber. He makes players better.
KG? Eh. He's won as many Championships as Rose. Don't get me wrong, he's a phenomenal player -- bound for the Hall of Fame -- but he kinda-sorta proves my point: I'm just not sure he influences a game -- and makes every one of his teammates better -- like a comparable PG.
Again, just my opinion. Beasely isn't Kobe, LeBron or KG. Neither is Rose. I would argue that Rose is closer to possessing that quality which those three (maybe two) players do that makes them elite...
FWIW, I don't think NFL-NBA comparisons are valuable.