Mr. Crackerz wrote:

Quazza wrote:

Mr. Crackerz wrote:Cmon Quazza and Xbay. Portland the most talented team? your logic is giving me a headache (see bigs avatar).

TMC said it perfectly, POTENTIALLY they are the best team, but there no where near that yet. This one is simple, its the reining champions (which hurts me to say). KG and Pierce are still playing at or close to their best ball. Allen's game has stepped down a little, but is still a threat. And then their is Rajon Rondo, the most underrated player in the NBA, my BOLD Prediction Most Improve player of the year guy, and having him on 2 of my 3 fantasy leagues, i know the kid can ball.

Also, there position role players are young (xept house), energetic, and have the passion to win (Allen, Powe, Perkins all quality role players).

you contradict yourself. you even highlight the word POTENTIALLY when talking about the BEST team. That's not what we're talking about here. We are talking about TALENT, not who's the best. For instance, i think AR is one of the most talented rookies in the league but he's no where near the best.


Huge difference between most talented and best my friend

Fine then, most TALENTED team is the Celtics, which...guess what, happen to be the BEST team.

so far this year, the Lakers are the best team though


Do u honestly believe the most Talented team is always the best team? No fkn way

Quazza wrote:

Mr. Crackerz wrote:

Quazza wrote:

Mr. Crackerz wrote:Cmon Quazza and Xbay. Portland the most talented team? your logic is giving me a headache (see bigs avatar).

TMC said it perfectly, POTENTIALLY they are the best team, but there no where near that yet. This one is simple, its the reining champions (which hurts me to say). KG and Pierce are still playing at or close to their best ball. Allen's game has stepped down a little, but is still a threat. And then their is Rajon Rondo, the most underrated player in the NBA, my BOLD Prediction Most Improve player of the year guy, and having him on 2 of my 3 fantasy leagues, i know the kid can ball.

Also, there position role players are young (xept house), energetic, and have the passion to win (Allen, Powe, Perkins all quality role players).

you contradict yourself. you even highlight the word POTENTIALLY when talking about the BEST team. That's not what we're talking about here. We are talking about TALENT, not who's the best. For instance, i think AR is one of the most talented rookies in the league but he's no where near the best.


Huge difference between most talented and best my friend

Fine then, most TALENTED team is the Celtics, which...guess what, happen to be the BEST team.

so far this year, the Lakers are the best team though


Do u honestly believe the most Talented team is always the best team? No fkn way

Haha quazza, u assume too much. Did u read anywhere where I'm talking about other seasons? No; This season, the Celtics are the Best team AND most talented.

What i think xbay and u are choosing the Blazers is on a quantity standpoint. I'm doing it on a quality one. And would you take quality of quantity on anything?

See I judge talent through a mathematical scale (nerdy I know, but bare with me). Say for example, you rank players 1-100, the higher a player is, the better he is (so like video games). If u average all the numbers of the Celtics, they will be higher then the average of numbers of any other team. I think Rondo is one of the best players in the NBA. Talent wise, he would be the second best player in most teams. Pierce and KG are better then anyone on the Blazers, and Allen has gone done, but is a very good player. Now, there role players on the Celtics are underrated as well. Powe plays his heart out, the 15 minutes he's in. Perkins is a young guy still, and is pretty average. Tony Allen, when healthy, is solid as well.

The point is, there only oh so many slots in the NBA, and the Celts have IMO the best roster one through 12. Therefore, the most talented. And no, I am not including records on this, so looking at their record, they are in fact the best team thus far, as well as the most talented. Again IMO

So by your logic, Kendrick Perkins is more talented than Greg Oden cos he would rate higher on your scale as RIGHT NOW, he's the better player.

We'll have to agree to disagree then

Quazza wrote:So by your logic, Kendrick Perkins is more talented than Greg Oden cos he would rate higher on your scale as RIGHT NOW, he's the better player.

We'll have to agree to disagree then

again your putting words in my mouth, which I am not saying.

I want to do this to u quaz Ok, im kidding.

But AGAIN, ur problem is your confusing talent with potential. Potential is not talent. They have a talented squad up in Portland (one in the top 10 for sure). Just because some on is hyped to be a star, doesnt mean he will be one. Who says Oden won't ever have a better year then this year. Can you tell me for a fact Oden Will get better? The odds that he will are in the upper 90% range, but the fact that it isnt a certainty, u cannot judge as talent. It is important to judge talent as the way one see's it today, and then you take account what the ceiling is for a player in the future.

Celtics and Lakers are in a league of their own in regards to talent.

Quazza wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree then

Quazza wrote:

Quazza wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree then

Mr. Crackerz wrote:Potential is not talent. They have a talented squad up in Portland (one in the top 10 for sure). Just because some on is hyped to be a star, doesnt mean he will be one.

I agree completely. On potential, the Blazers look to be the best BUT players that are said to have the ability to get to a certain level, almost always don't, especially when on the same team as other young players with potential. I think the Blazer's young players will only PERHAPS reach the potential they have been said to have if they go to another team where they are the second or third option. If most of those young players stay there, most will turn into scrubs or just role players but not stars, as a team can only have so many stars

migya wrote:

Mr. Crackerz wrote:Potential is not talent. They have a talented squad up in Portland (one in the top 10 for sure). Just because some on is hyped to be a star, doesnt mean he will be one.

I agree completely. On potential, the Blazers look to be the best BUT players that are said to have the ability to get to a certain level, almost always don't, especially when on the same team as other young players with potential. I think the Blazer's young players will only PERHAPS reach the potential they have been said to have if they go to another team where they are the second or third option. If most of those young players stay there, most will turn into scrubs or just role players but not stars, as a team can only have so many stars

i guess i look at it the other way. You're born with talent and i believe the blazers have more. I never once mentioned potential and i understand the difference just fine. I still believe Oden has more natural talent(god given if you fly that way) than say, Perkins(still using that as an example). I never said this would mean he'll automatically become better than him. I just believe he/the blazers all up, are more talented

The End


ok i officially no longer care:)

Celtics 21-2... if thats not talent, what is

Mr. Crackerz wrote:Celtics 21-2... if thats not talent, what is

Glen Davis isn't talent. KG would know...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uSay2aWTc0[/youtube]

xbay wrote:

Mr. Crackerz wrote:Celtics 21-2... if thats not talent, what is

Glen Davis isn't talent. KG would know...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uSay2aWTc0[/youtube]

LOL yeah my friend posted this on myspace last week. i mean out of all the players, big baby is the one... well, being a baby.

KG is still a jerk though. Pierce too

Glen Davis should break Garnett in two, he is that much bigger than him

migya wrote:Glen Davis should break Garnett in two, he is that much bigger than him

You know, I'd certainly pay to see that.

TMC wrote:

migya wrote:Glen Davis should break Garnett in two, he is that much bigger than him

You know, I'd certainly pay to see that.

I'd just watch it on YouTube