Reply With Quote
Saw below, shat on it. "Youtube takes"
Except the whole point I making. See below...
Should help you follow along.
Last edited by My Fault; 07-16-2014 at 08:52 PM.
Saw below, shat on it. "Youtube takes"
Wait so you don't think Green is simply just better on D but actually better overall?Saw below, shat on it. "Youtube takes"
HolyWait so you don't think Green is simply just better on D but actually better overall?
Is English your first language? Or are you drunk and/or re ed?
Just giving you too much credit apparently.
Defense is one thing but you don't win without points and on the end Wade is another level better. Show me YouTube takes, numbers or anything proving otherwise.
You'd make a great GM.Just giving you too much credit apparently.
Defense is one thing but you don't win without points and on the end Wade is another level better. Show me YouTube takes, numbers or anything proving otherwise.
When did I say defense didn't matter? Picking and choosing...You'd make a great GM.
The gap between the two on D isn't as big as it is on the other end. You started so well..
You're either mistaking Wade as still being an elite top 10 scorer & playmaker, or as someone who isn't a complete bag on defense.
How do the win shares vs Green for the playoffs look? Offense, defense? How about per minute?
Next year he'll be another year older, and won't have one of the best wing defenders playing next to him anymore. It's gonna be a ing mess. He'll still score and sometimes look good doing it, so you and ESPN can pretend he's still 2008 Wade.
Now we're predicting the future? Are you going back anything you say?
So I was right about English not being your first language it seems.
Or obviously you don't have anything to back your stupidity. Numbers and a link backing them, is that too hard for you to understand?
Guy, I've posted numbers and video. The only numbers you've posted were that Wade had a better D Rating than Green which was completely ing incorrect (and re ed to even believe possible). You look like a moron right now scrambling to save face and failing.
The numbers you posted were completely off and you never admitted the source, I admitted to being wrong but the numbers I pulled (which I sourced) showed it wasn't that big of a gap. You posted a video of the Spurs offense doing what it was meant to do, get guys out of position through ball movement. We've made it clear that we are talking overall, yet you've done nothing but hang on to that slight edge Green had on D. So either you you're to stupid to understand what overall means or picking and choosing just to hold on to one thing you've been right about. Again we are talking overall, both ends of the court and more than just one series.Guy, I've posted numbers and video. The only numbers you've posted were that Wade had a better D Rating than Green which was completely ing incorrect (and re ed to even believe possible). You look like a moron right now scrambling to save face and failing.
You can just stop posting now because until you post numbers that shows Green is a better player than Wade (overall not just on defense) then you've lost here. I told you I went to basketball reference, your turn.
The idea that you think Green would put up better numbers than Wade if they switched positions is hilariously re ed.
It's like saying Green is better than Harden because he's so superior on defense.
they're actually not off, they're the defensive ratings for Green and Wade in the series we were discussing. Feel free to look up the finals numbers to verify.
Except for the fact we are not discussing that series, we are talking overall.
Again, should help you follow along...
but he was better defensively for 5 games
The idea that you think switching out Danny ing Green who was barely an NBA player, before the Spurs fixed his shooting stroke, is better than Dwyane Wade is one of the stupidest things I've seen posted here. For the Spurs system and salary I would take Green over Wade but only for those reasons.
I know Wade (although I don't the guy) is better than Green and using 5 games to judge otherwise is cherry picking.
I will bookmark this thread and you should do the same, next year we will see who bumps this. Considering you didn't join here until the Spurs were successful, I doubt you'll stick around anyways.
Maybe you should watch those "youtube takes" again, dip
I get it now, looking at that join date explains it all...Maybe you should watch those "youtube takes" again, dip
You know there are more games played than the finals, right?
Oh boy, join date on internet forum = first day as a Spurs fanI get it now, looking at that join date explains it all...
You know there are more games played than the finals, right?
Grasping at straws now
Yes, that's how atrocious Wade's D has become.
Just pointing out how hilariously convenient that join date is and how I can see the correlation of that and the fact you seen to think the finals is all the basketball played.Oh boy, join date on internet forum = first day as a Spurs fan
Grasping at straws now
Stand in the corner and drain 3's.
(Unless Wade is guarding him, then he becomes Tony Parker)
Green's not close to Wade on offense, but he's not a waste either. The difference on the other end is bigger, where Wade is a complete waste. Then factor in health / probability of playing over 60 (or even 50) games next year. Subtract endorsements and ESPN highlights if were factoring in those. Not seeing where the confusion is. Did you see Wade try to guard Stephenson in the ECF games 1 and 2? Yikes. Fortunately Spo found somewhere else to hide him, which he couldn't do in the finals.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions