KoB2011

It'll be really interesting to see where he ends up on an all-time list. I think you can make the case now that he is a top ten player ever. On a related note, I think Klay might be the second best shooter ever but he will likely never get quite that much credit.

I'd argue there has never been a shooter like him.

I think people forget just how good Steph is. Steph without Durant is in many ways the most dynamic offensive player in the league, and IMO, without question in that top 5 group of players that's really hard to separate at this point.

Lakers - LBJ Celtics - Kyrie probably maybe Bucks - Giannis Raptors - Kwahi Trail blazers - Dame Rockets - Harden Thunder - PG

They could be, but I think ruling out two really talented freshmen from that equation is premature. It isn't like those guys have been a model of success and consistency - we've done nothing but lose games with those three. I'm not blaming them for that, but it is the reality is we couldn't win games when they were expected to be complementary pieces and now we think we can count on them to be the guys on a winning program? I see all 5 games as question marks that have potential.

Okay.... then how do you justify the guy coming off of injury playing more? I'm not saying he is wrong, just that any certainty that LQ is automatically the 5th guy in that group seems to be based on nothing.

Yeah, I'm not the biggest ranking guy in the world either, but when we have three inconsistent players and another freshman, I'm not sure how they can be ignored.

But you think Hunter, a lower rated freshman coming off of injury, will play that much?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just not sure how you can have any confidence at all in that statement. Two guys who have been wildly inconsistent in the multiple seasons of data we have and a third guy who hasn't played. I'm not a huge recruiting rankings guys, but LQ is the highest ranked recruit of the group. My takeaway on LQ is it would be a wonderful get. He addresses what is probably our biggest need (shooting) and would give us 5 guys who have potential at 3 spots. How the playing time shakes out I think would be really hard to say at this point.

I'm not sure how we can come to that conclusion. None of those guys have proven to be consistent college players. The reality is all five guys (including LQ) bring some good things to the table, but it is likely that LQ is the best and most consistent shooter in that group. The odds of him playing the fewest minutes, given that there isn't any reason to think he has some big limitation in another area, seems small.

I'm in sales and I've wondered about that before - what stops people from making up their numbers? How would you go about verifying it?

Bashing an "insider" for being wrong is like bashing your TV for showing IU losing. Assuming they're being honest, "insiders" have no control over the content of their message.

Right, but he doesn't follow college basketball and says as much.

I think he was one of the highlights of the tournament. He openly admits he isn't a college basketball expert, but I think he showed everyone how to be a great fan this year. It was awesome.

Is Charles Barkley not a treasure? I don't understand how anyone can not be a fan of his.