c'mon Cy, I think it's pretty safe to say he's a bad defender until he's proven otherwise.
Guilty until proven IMO.
Following potential 2013 draftees
- Thread starter Dr. Jones
- Start date
c'mon Cy, I think it's pretty safe to say he's a bad defender until he's proven otherwise.
Guilty until proven IMO.
Kind of like how everyone assumed Hayward sucked at D cause he was white?
I mean, I have no problem saying that Wolters is unproven, but to say that we know he is a bad defender is false.
b_line
Well-Known Member
But, but, but Denniss Schroeder said he wanted to focus on defense, so obviously he is going to be a great defender... even though he has not proven anything.
Thee Idiotic Minivan K
Well-Known Member
Do you have superpowers we're unaware of?
I mean you know with out a shade of doubt that Schroeder is going to be great, and even though you have never seen Wolters play in the nba somehow you know he can't play defense.
Wow!!!
Whoah!! Turn down the HATE just a notch guys!!! Talk about over-reaction!!!
- Did you read my previous posts re we'll have to wait and see Wolters' numbers at the Combine?
- Hayward played tennis in Junior high, so he had good lateral movement - this was all over the news before the draft.
- Schroeder moves his feet very well as we all saw against defenders and he's very quick to get in front of defenders.
Again, we're not dealing with a murder trial here boys and girls. It's the NBA, it's the Real Deal Holyfield of bball, and I'd say we go by the motto "Guilty until proven Innocence".
If the guy "didn't have it" in college, it's just too risky to say he'll suddenly "have it" in the NBA.
UGLI baby
Well-Known Member
WTF does this mean? lol showed this to my wife and she is cracking up.
What is it?
Happy I can help mend your marriage.
What is it?
Bro, whatever "it" is, is irrelevant. As long as you're getting the principle behind what I was trying to say I'm cool wit dat.
I'm not though. Wolters has some stuff. I think he might have it, but if I dont know what it is, how can I be sure?
Back to the main point though, if a player has done a good job of defending everyone he has faced up to a certain point, you can't really call him a bad defender. You can say unproven, but to declare him bad, as if it were proven fact, is just irresponsible judgement.
Well that's my point. What he doesn't have, is simply "it".
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
Paul George says hello.
Unless it is skin tone, I think you don't know what you are talking about.
Well that's the whole point I was trying to make.
I say he's "guilty until proven innocent".
You say he's "innocent until proven guilty".
The evidence is the same, it's how you approach evaluating the whole package.
The miracle of God helped him grow 5 inches in 6 months.
I'm glad you're just a troll and not actually this stupid.