Reply With Quote
Classic Threads Forum
Good to see Whotttt back in action
Classic Threads Forum
1. whottt is apparently clueless to the fact that not playing a lot of minutes early in a career doesn't mean you suck. Just like having over 10,000 posts in a Spurs messageboard doesn't mean you aren't a ing re . Case in point: whottt is a ing re with over 10,000 posts on this messageboard.
2. whottt keeps making up, like claiming that I said that sucking for the first four years in an NBA career will make a player play longer. While in fact, all I said is that Ben Wallace has less wear and tear on his body than an average NBA player at the age of 31 has. That's still not refutable. And, that does bode well for Ben Wallace to play longer and be more effective longer and later in his career. I never guaranteed that. I said it wasn't an exact science. But, whottt got so offended at the idea that I would bring up David Robinson's name that he had to circle jerk with David Robinson himself and start a tirade of irrelevant facts to argue with me.
3. whottt continues to confuse "playing well at an advanced age" with "having a long career." He seems incapable of understanding simple differences in phrases he in fact was the first to use in this discussion. And, as soon as he realized he couldn't keep up the original argument, he changed it to "longer career" and "better numbers than other hall of fame centers." Did I mention whottt is a ing re ?
4. whottt's obsession with hanging on David Robinson's testicles appear to blur his sense of reality as he keeps on wanting to delineate the differences between David Robinson and Ben Wallace when in fact I only mentioned David Robinson as an example of a player who started his NBA careere late and still played well at an advanced age. There was not mention of playing AS WELL AS HIS PRIME or playing AS WELL OR BETTER THAN OTHER HALL OF FAME CENTERS. And, I absolutely never claimed that Ben Wallace was as good as David Robinson. I never compared them but for the fact they both started their NBA careers later than most. But, the D-Rob on his lips won't let it go.
5. whottt wants other examples, fine I'll give other examples of players who started their career late and still were effective and played well at an advanced age. Mind you, whottt thinks 32 years old is too old in the NBA:
-Elvin Hayes: He turned 24 years old in his rookie season. He was still effective at age 36 when he averaged 37 minutes per game, 16 ppg, 9 rpg.
-Dennis Rodman: He was 25 when he was drafted in 1986. He started getting regular minutes in 1987-88 when he was 26. He was still playing well in 1997-98 season at the age of 36 with the Chicago Bulls when he played 80 games, averaged 15 rebounds a game in 36 minutes a game for a CHAMPIONSHIP team.
-Dikembe Mutombo: Dikembe was 25 years old his first season in the NBA. He remained pretty effective until the 2001-02 season at the age of 35 where he still played 36 minutes a game and hauled 11 rebounds a game down.
-Sam Cassell: Sam was 24 years old in his first season in 1993-94. He got his first all star selection in 2003-04 at the age of 33. His numbers this season are still very good at age 35.
So what does all of this mean? Nothing really. But, YOU WHOTTT were the one who typed:
"Link to some kind of evidence that having a late start to a career will extend it?
As far as I know...none of the guys known for playing well at an advanced age got late starts to their career...in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career.
Well the only guys I see that played at a high level well late into their 30's...aren't guys who sucked until they were 26.
And I am asking you for some kind of evidence to back that theory up...Karl Malone and Kareem Abdul Jabbar are not examples you can use...they didn't suck until they were 25."
You said don't use Karl Malone and Kareem Abdul Jabbar as examples. So, it's fair to say using other players as examples is what you were looking for. You're the one who typed, "guys that played at a high level well late into their 30's."
You think 32 is old. Those players above played well in their mid-30s.
Ben is 31 years old. I think he can play well into his mid-30s.
There is no guarantee that starting his career late will definitely allow him to play well and longer. But, I think it helps. And, the wear and tear he has not been as much of toll on his body as other 31 year olds. That should help. That's not the only reason though. Ben Wallace is a workout beast. He's in great condition and is one of the strongest players in the league. He doesn't drink alcohol and keeps a good diet. And, Arnie Kandor is one of the best if not the best strength and conditioning coaches in all professional sports. All of those will help Ben play longer and play well when he is older in the league. You just chose to ignore the fact that I mentioned Ben is a workout junkie just like D-Rob, and I did mention that. That is also a factor.
And, whottt, you're still a ing re .
Last edited by JamStone; 03-19-2006 at 11:45 PM.
Pistons have four players the Wallaces, McDyess and Billups that will be 32, 32, 32 and 30 next season. They have little in the way of bench depth. They will be tapped out for some time salary cap-wise. By the '08 season strong odds are they will be an aging team fighting injury problems, not a dynasty.
We eagerly await Whottt's response. Looks like Jamstone's holding his own here...
This guy just don't want to win you know. He wants to bury you, he wants to humiliate you, he wants to prove to the whole world that you was nothing but some kind of a... a freak the first time out.*
*I hope this thread goes long enough where I can squeeze a quote from all the sequels in here...
some serious posting going in here
What the is a "weight training regiment"?
Im glad my first post ever on this site has caused so much ruckus, but I beleive you are going off topic. The biggest point was I never said Wallace was to be the "cornerstone" of this dynasty. He would just be a perfect piece to our dynasty so that we may continue it.
Spurs should get in eddie griffin he's a reliable shot blocker and a relatively consistent scorer off the bench but to build a dynasty spurs would need a new young phenom forward to lessen the weight on Duncan
My apologies. I meant regimen. That must be the first misspelling ever in the history of this messageboard, right?
Hmmm....
Maybe we should get Ben Wallace?
Oh, wait, since that's very unlikely, isn't this whole thread a moot point?
Holdinh his own what? Ass?
Jamstone not only doesn't read his own posts, he also doesn't read mine, and he counts on others not reading them either.
Cornerstone, perfect piece...whatever...
31 years old and the word, "dynasty". aren't words that usually fit well together.
When all else fails, just insult the other person and just call him stupid.
The great art of debate on sports messageboards ...
You did say that.
And it means exactly jack ....While in fact, all I said is that Ben Wallace has less wear and tear on his body than an average NBA player at the age of 31 has. That's still not refutable.
It doesn't bode for ...And, that does bode well for Ben Wallace to play longer and be more effective longer and later in his career. I never guaranteed that. I said it wasn't an exact science.
Look at the guys who played the longest...were they guys who sucked early in their careers?
Karl Malone? Nope.
Kareem? Nope.
Age is age...and you seem to think we are talking about football.
No I didn't tool....You are the one backtracking like a mother er...you started out talking about advanced age as being 36 and 37, brought up David Robinson, and kicked your own ass severely in doing so...and now you have backtracked to 35...3. whottt continues to confuse "playing well at an advanced age" with "having a long career." He seems incapable of understanding simple differences in phrases he in fact was the first to use in this discussion. And, as soon as he realized he couldn't keep up the original argument, he changed it to "longer career" and "better numbers than other hall of fame centers." Did I mention whottt is a ing re ?
On top of that...I included both having a long career and advanced age in disproving your point, several times...You are just too ing stupid to read evidentally.
Elvin Hayes didn't suck his first 4 years in the league...neither did David Robinson, or Karl Malone...unlike Ben Wallace.5. whottt wants other examples, fine I'll give other examples of players who started their career late and still were effective and played well at an advanced age. Mind you, whottt thinks 32 years old is too old in the NBA:
-Elvin Hayes: He turned 24 years old in his rookie season. He was still effective at age 36 when he averaged 37 minutes per game, 16 ppg, 9 rpg.
-Dennis Rodman: He was 25 when he was drafted in 1986. He started getting regular minutes in 1987-88 when he was 26. He was still playing well in 1997-98 season at the age of 36 with the Chicago Bulls when he played 80 games, averaged 15 rebounds a game in 36 minutes a game for a CHAMPIONSHIP team.
He hd also played in the finals and went into the conference finals half a dozen times by that age....exactly how is that having less miles than a typical player of the same age?
Having less miles on him didn't keep him from missing half the season in 94-95 either...you ing .
Didn't suck his first 4 years in the league...unlike Ben Wallace.-Dikembe Mutombo: Dikembe was 25 years old his first season in the NBA. He remained pretty effective until the 2001-02 season at the age of 35 where he still played 36 minutes a game and hauled 11 rebounds a game down.
-Sam Cassell: Sam was 24 years old in his first season in 1993-94. He got his first all star selection in 2003-04 at the age of 33. His numbers this season are still very good at age 35.
Sam Cassell also broke down in the playoffs that first year he made the All Star game... ing his team in the process and last year he sucked total ass...
Not as good investment for a 5 year 10 mil a year deal.
You complete wit.
I can't help it that you don't realize your examples suck ass, don't back up your point, and only serve to make you look even stupider to the knowledgable fan than you already look.
No I don't...I just don't think it's a good age at which to sign players to 5 year deals at 10 million a year and consider them a cornerstone...er, "the perfect piece", to a 5 year dynasty run.You think 32 is old.
It also didn't take them 4 years to stop sucking...Those players above played well in their mid-30s.
You would...you'd also lick his nuts if he let you...but the point is...you'd be a total dumbass to sign him to a 5 year deal making 10 mil a year if you are trying to make a dynasty run.Ben is 31 years old. I think he can play well into his mid-30s.
Prove it...There is no guarantee that starting his career late will definitely allow him to play well and longer. But, I think it helps. And, the wear and tear he has not been as much of toll on his body as other 31 year olds.
my examples of Bruce Bowen and Mark Eaton are better than any you have come up with...but you'd stil be a dumbass to count on them for 5 years as of major contributions at high $$$$$, at the age of 32 and beyond.
That should help. That's not the only reason though. Ben Wallace is a workout beast. He's in great condition and is one of the strongest players in the league. He doesn't drink alcohol and keeps a good diet. And, Arnie Kandor is one of the best if not the best strength and conditioning coaches in all professional sports. All of those will help Ben play longer and play well when he is older in the league. You just chose to ignore the fact that I mentioned Ben is a workout junkie just like D-Rob, and I did mention that. That is also a factor.
Yet Drob being a work out junkie didn't stop him from getting a career altering injury at the very age Wallace is now...and neither did getting a late start to his career...You utter dumbass.
Welcome to the internets.
Not once in this thread did I say "sucking for the first four years in an NBA career will make a player play longer." Find the ing quote, whottt. Find it and quote me. Find it and quote me. You take someone's comments and then twist them into something you believe they mean. Find where I said sucking for the first four years in an NBA career will make a player play longer. Does David Robinson's in your eyes give you trouble reading?
Ok, and? In your opinion it means jack . In my opinion, I think it (bear with me now) COULD help Ben Wallace play longer. I dont' speak in absolutes. There are no certainties in professional sports.And it means exactly jack ....
Your opinion that it doesn't help. You can't prove it doesn't not help.It doesn't bode for ...
Look at the guys who played the longest...were they guys who sucked early in their careers?
Karl Malone? Nope.
Kareem? Nope.
Age is age...and you seem to think we are talking about football.
You included having a long career about 10 posts later. Your first post on this spoke of not thinking of any single player "PLAYING WELL AT AN ADVANCED AGE" who had a late start in their career.No I didn't tool....You are the one backtracking like a mother er...you started out talking about advanced age as being 36 and 37, brought up David Robinson, and kicked your own ass severely in doing so...and now you have backtracked to 35...
On top of that...I included both having a long career and advanced age in disproving your point, several times...You are just too ing stupid to read evidentally.
Several posts later you started comparing Hall of Fame centers and started comparing career years. You ing twisted your original argument so that you could make a stronger one. Playing well at an advanced age doesn't mean the player should have career years at an advanced age. You keep making nonsensical conclusions, and you continue to change your argument so that it sounds stronger.
Tell me I backtrack all you want. You're still trying to find ways to morph your original argument, while you wiggle on David Robinson's lap.
You stupid little man. YOUR ING ORIGINAL comment was:Elvin Hayes didn't suck his first 4 years in the league...neither did David Robinson, or Karl Malone...unlike Ben Wallace.
"I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."
Where is there anything about a player sucking early on in his career? You your ingself spoke of a player "that got A LATE START TO HIS CAREER." Doesn't matter the reason. LATE START.
READING IS FUNDAMENTAL.
You ing toilet brain. Your words. Your ing words. LATE START TO CAREER. Nothing about sucking. Why do you keep retorting with that point?? I can't believe how much of a ing re you are. They were your words. Late start to his careere. Not, sucking to start a career. Read your own words. I can't believe you are still making that stupid ing point.
Who said Dennis Rodman had less mileage at 36? Again, you don't understand your OWN ING COMMENT.He hd also played in the finals and went into the conference finals half a dozen times by that age....exactly how is that having less miles than a typical player of the same age?
"I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."
Dennis Rodman played well at an advanced age, and he was an NBA player that got a late start to his career. It responds to YOUR OWN STATEMENT. Stop changing the argument. Take a deep breath. Let the oxygen get into your brain. Now, take your time and STOP BEING A ING RE .
Michael Jordan missed his most of his second season in 1984-95 when he was 21 years old. Was that wear and tear and mileage? You stupid ing baboon.Having less miles on him didn't keep him from missing half the season in 94-95 either...you ing .
Injuries can happen early on in your career, the middle of your career, or at the end of your career. Injuries are a variable. They can happen to best conditioned atheletes. Amare Stoudemire doesn't have a lot of wear and tear on his body yet. Just because Rodman had a season injury in 94-95 doesn't mean it was due to the mileage on his body ...you ing .
I cannot even take you seriously ...
Dikembe didn't play in the NBA until he was 25. That's the analogy with Ben Wallace. You honestly don't understand simple question and answer type of discussion do you?Didn't suck his first 4 years in the league...unlike Ben Wallace.
"I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."
I listed players who played well at an advanced age that got late starts to their careers. It was responding to your statement that you couldn't think of any. It has nothing to do with any of them sucking their first 4 years in the league. Now you sound like a ing 4 year old just repeating the same thing to annoy his mommy.
I want some candy!
I want some candy!
I want some candy!
I want some candy!
I want some candy!
I want some candy!
I want some candy!
Maybe sooner or later the mommy will get the kid some candy. But, in a discussion like this, repeating something that is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the argument doesn't make it more credible the more times you say it. Do you want some candy?
Sam Cassell also broke down in the playoffs that first year he made the All Star game... ing his team in the process and last year he sucked total ass...
Not as good investment for a 5 year 10 mil a year deal.
You complete wit.
I can't help it that you don't realize your examples suck ass, don't back up your point, and only serve to make you look even stupider to the knowledgable fan than you already look.
Every example responded to this:
"I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."
They may not prove that starting later in a career definitely leads to a playing longer, but that's not why I listed them. I listed them to respond to your ING QUOTE FOR THE ING 100th TIME.
I don't claim that it is an absolute guarantee that starting a career late definitely will allow a player play longer. You INFERRED THAT. You're the ing moron who first made that statement. It wasn't even something I wrote in the first place.
"Actually, Ben Wallace is 31 years old, about a year and a half older than Tim Duncan. And, Ben Wallace did not get regular starter minutes in the league until the 2000-01 season, so it's more like he's in his 7th or 8th season in the league. In face, he has less NBA wear and tear on his body than a guy like Tim Duncan. And, with his conditioning and weight training regiment, he's the type of athlete that could (not guaranteed, but possible) have a longer career than the average player."
You are the imbecile who twisted that into an ABSOLUTE THEORY claiming I believe anyone who sucks their first four years in the league will play longer.
WHOTTT, YOU made that up.
I said it COULD help.
Then you started rambling all about not thinking of any player who played well at an advanced age who got a late start to his career. That's where David Robinson and the other players I listed come int. Can you follow a simple discussion?
I would actually agree. I don't think 32 is a good age to sign players to a 5 year 10 million dollar contract. But, it's going to happen. In fact, Ben will get more than that. He may not earn his salary the last few years of his contract, but he can still be a key player on a championship contending team.No I don't...I just don't think it's a good age at which to sign players to 5 year deals at 10 million a year and consider them a cornerstone...er, "the perfect piece", to a 5 year dynasty run.
There probably have been plenty of players on championship teams that were making more than they were worth, but still they were keys to those championship teams.
I want some candy!It also didn't take them 4 years to stop sucking...
I want some candy!
How do licking someone's nuts taste like, since you're the foremost expert on the subject?You would...you'd also lick his nuts if he let you...but the point is...you'd be a total dumbass to sign him to a 5 year deal making 10 mil a year if you are trying to make a dynasty run.
And, what you don't realize is that I don't THINK Ben should get a 5 year deal. I think it should be a four year deal with a team option on the last year. But, I know that's not realistically going to happen. And, I know that Ben will command at the very least $10 million a year. That's the reality of NBA contracts.
Your favorite boyfriend, David Robinson, at age 37, when you admittingly said he was 1/5 the s of the player he was in his prime was paid $10 million that year. 37 years old. S of a player.
Maybe you also disagree with him being paid that much at his age. But, again, that's the way of NBA contracts.
Simple math, dumbass."And, the wear and tear he has not been as much of toll on his body as other 31 year olds."
Prove it...
Rasheed Wallace and Ben Wallace are the same age, in fact they were born within in a week of each other. Rasheed got into the league a year before Ben, and started playing big minutes right away.
RASHEED: 777 games, 26,841 minutes
BEN: 682 games, 21,169 minutes
That's why I think Ben has less wear and tear on his body.
Heck, Tim Duncan is YOUNGER than Ben and came into the league a year after Ben, and I think Ben has less wear and tear on his body.
TIM: 651 games, 24,741 minutes
30 fewer games than Ben Wallace and over 3,500 more minutes played.
How many all-star games did Bruce Bowen and Mark Eaton make? One?my examples of Bruce Bowen and Mark Eaton are better than any you have come up with...but you'd stil be a dumbass to count on them for 5 years as of major contributions at high $$$$$, at the age of 32 and beyond.
You can't compare, because even in their prime in their mid-20s, they wouldn't be worth a 5 year contract at high $$$$$. Even at age 27, you wouldn't give those players a big contract. But, you want to use them in comparison?
I haven't said this in a little while. whottt, you're a ing re .
True, David Robinson didn't have quite the work ethic Ben Wallace has in keeping their respective bodies in great shape.Yet Drob being a work out junkie didn't stop him from getting a career altering injury at the very age Wallace is now...and neither did getting a late start to his career...You utter dumbass.
Do you want some candy?
Ok
You clearly think that a player who sucks his first 4 years(translated for dum Pistonsfans: and therefore can't get his worthless ass on the court to see meaningful minutes) will be benfitted by the early sucking later in his career.
Excellent...now shut the up about it.
Sure I can...I can look at the all time greats in terms of longevity(this means both in terms of years played, as well as age played too, dumbass)...and see that none of them sucked ass like Wallace their first 4 years in the league.Your opinion that it doesn't help. You can't prove it doesn't not help.
Lie...I said all this in the same post you keep quoting...
Observe idiot from the same thread a quote from you....you were the one who started bringing up HOF'ers...
Where was I...oh yeah...in the middle of exposing you as full of .
More...
And...
Back to the lies of Jamstone...
Hey dumbass...how many 50 years old are currently playing in the NBA? Now why do you think that is...you dumb .
Then shut the up...and go find a thread that you have something to contribute towards...And, what you don't realize is that I don't THINK Ben should get a 5 year deal. I think it should be a four year deal with a team option on the last year.
Stop trying to turn Ben Wallace's sucking into a positive...it's not.
Idiot...when was this ever a discussion about All Stars?How many all-star games did Bruce Bowen and Mark Eaton make? One?
Your troglodyte translation was not what I wrote or meant. That's what I've been saying this entire time. You inferred I didn't even say. All I said is that Ben had less wear and tear on his body than most 31 year old NBA players. Refute that. I just showed you examples of Rasheed Wallace and Tim Duncan who are the same age or younger than Ben and have played MORE NBA MINUTES than Ben. Your infantile mind cannot make a simple dedcutive conclusion that fewer minutes over that stretch of time can equate to less wear and tear on a player's body.
How can I shut up about it when you keep bringing it the up? You misquote me, mistranslate me, and put words in my mouth, and you can't even deny it. Go sit on a ing cu ber. Better yet, go call your boyfriend, Admiral ingwhottt.
Still stuck on "sucking" when that was never any argument I made. And, how about the all time greats who only played through til their early 30s and only had 11-12 year careers? Does that mean starting early and being great means you sucked later? You keep trying to speak in absolutes, when each player is a case-by-case study, each independant of each other. I say starting late can help a player play longer. You twist it to become an absolute theory that I believe any and all players who start late or who suck early in their career will have longer careers. You take in no variables such as career ending or career altering injuries, the way those players keep their body in shape, or just finding the right situation and team to play longer. Every NBA player is different, otherwise you would want to suck the penis of every NBA player who has ever played the game like you do David Robinson.
<<more to come>>
Not to interrupt or to make sense or anything. But at some point, the wear and tear thing is irrelevant and age becomes the most dominant factor.
Besides, the minutes Tim Duncan put in at the age of 21-26 are much different than the minutes Ben Wallace put in at 26-31. The body recovers worse the older you get. It just does. So it isn't really fair to use any kind of "he only logged x number of minutes argument." If Ben Wallace lasts, it will be because of his freaky genetics, and not because he logged less minutes as a young player.
That is all. Continue.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
