NBA OFF TOPIC THREAD

[dtgold88]

Paul George.

There were tons of conversations about Lakers dealing for PG.

And Laker fans didn’t want to give up any of their kids to do it.

OK, let's go with PG if you like. He was either 26 or 28 (depending if it was when Indiana or OKC was going to deal him). Also an absurd comparison to not wanting to give up a young potential stud QB for a 37-year-old.

 

[dtgold88]

Nope. Not going to explain it.

There is a lot that goes on during the pre draft process.

I am not going to tell you what that data is.

Maybe someday when it becomes public I will clue you in.

If you say so, chief.

 

[Black Adam]

If you say so, chief.

Hey, that's ME, dammit...

 

[trojanfan12]

Paul George.

There were tons of conversations about Lakers dealing for PG.

And Laker fans didn’t want to give up any of their kids to do it.

OK, let's go with PG if you like. He was either 26 or 28 (depending if it was when Indiana or OKC was going to deal him). Also an absurd comparison to not wanting to give up a young potential stud QB for a 37-year-old.

Imo, you're both right on this.

Aaron Rodgers is a proven Super Bowl champion and is coming off of an MVP season....but, he's 37, hasn't always been the picture of health and can be kind of a high maintenance asshole.

Baker, especially the 2nd half of last season, has looked like a franchise qb that the Browns could win with for a long time, seems to be a good fit and he's only 26...but, he's also given reason to question if he has the drive to do what it takes to be a Super Bowl caliber qb and there are questions about his "ceiling".

Rodgers, assuming he stays healthy, gives the Browns a better chance to win a Super Bowl or 2 right now. Baker, assuming he stays committed, gives them a better chance for the future.

They could do like Tampa, mortgage the future and go all in on winning right now...or they could stay the course and look to win in the future.

If they go all in and it doesn't work, they're screwed for years to come and people will question the wisdom of trading a 26 year old with upside for a 37 year old.

If they stay the course, and Baker isn't the guy, they're screwed for years to come and people will question why they didn't trade for Rodgers when they had the chance. These types of decisions are why every GM probably has at least 1 desk drawer filled with antacids. lol

End of the day, as Wiggy pointed out earlier, it really doesn't matter because Rodgers isn't interested in the Browns anyway.

 

[tlance]

Imo, you're both right on this.

Aaron Rodgers is a proven Super Bowl champion and is coming off of an MVP season....but, he's 37, hasn't always been the picture of health and can be kind of a high maintenance asshole.

Baker, especially the 2nd half of last season, has looked like a franchise qb that the Browns could win with for a long time, seems to be a good fit and he's only 26...but, he's also given reason to question if he has the drive to do what it takes to be a Super Bowl caliber qb and there are questions about his "ceiling".

Rodgers, assuming he stays healthy, gives the Browns a better chance to win a Super Bowl or 2 right now. Baker, assuming he stays committed, gives them a better chance for the future.

They could do like Tampa, mortgage the future and go all in on winning right now...or they could stay the course and look to win in the future.

If they go all in and it doesn't work, they're screwed for years to come and people will question the wisdom of trading a 26 year old with upside for a 37 year old.

If they stay the course, and Baker isn't the guy, they're screwed for years to come and people will question why they didn't trade for Rodgers when they had the chance. These types of decisions are why every GM probably has at least 1 desk drawer filled with antacids. lol

End of the day, as Wiggy pointed out earlier, it really doesn't matter because Rodgers isn't interested in the Browns anyway.

Whatever path taken is a gamble.

Going all in to win now is like going for it on 4th down. You miss and you look stupid.

But the at doesn’t necessarily mean it is the wrong decision.

QBs who are good, but not great create impossible decisions for a front office.

 

[tlance]

But you told us this - "Nothing earth shattering from this crop, especially because no info to report on Lawrence since he sat out a lot of the pre draft stuff the others did."

which means he has no info to report on Lawrence because he didn't get to see him throw in shorts, no pressure and to receivers covered by air. His info comes from that and not what he did in actual games?

If you are going to quote me, quote me right.

There isn’t any info on Lawrence.

Fields and Lance show elite qualities.

The reason I said nothing earth shattering is because I figured you would go on with your typical “but anyone could predict that Fields and Lance will be good” BS.

And I won’t post about Lawrence one way or the other because my friend doesn’t have data on him.

 

[Wamu]

@Stakesarehigh @Shanemansj13 @dtgold88

You hear about this yet?

Massage therapist looses license after targeting Ohio State football players for sexual encounters

Article said 5 players have banged her after massage sessions. And more than 20 players have received services from her through social media. Didn't mention her name, but she's 41.

 

[Wamu]

Report: Chris Webber, TNT split ahead on NBA playoffs


Adios mutha fucka!!!

 

[thunderc]

anyone should listen to any offer.....but no way they'd make the deal either.

Yup of course you listen out of respect, doesn’t mean you do it close enough to repeat anything that was said.

 

[Wamu]

Jerry West offended after not making Jeanie Buss' list of top 5 Lakers


He has a point. Jeanie put Phil in her top 5 list. Yeah, there was no bias in that selection.

 

[Black Adam]

@Stakesarehigh @Shanemansj13 @dtgold88

You hear about this yet?

Massage therapist looses license after targeting Ohio State football players for sexual encounters

Article said 5 players have banged her after massage sessions. And more than 20 players have received services from her through social media. Didn't mention her name, but she's 41.

clearly she was trying to make a li'l on the side...

#worldsoldestprofession

 

[Black Adam]

Jerry West offended after not making Jeanie Buss' list of top 5 Lakers


He has a point. Jeanie put Phil in her top 5 list. Yeah, there was no bias in that selection.

guess it matters who ya blow...

 

[WiggyRuss]

Because it's easy to find your QB of the future picking late in the draft which they'll likely be doing with AR (or Baker)?

Before you say "but AR was" I'll remind you there are many more who were not.

@shopson67 kind of funny coming from a Rams fan who drafted a QB #1 overall that failed- and then had to spend a ton of picks and dead cap space for a couple years of Matt Stafford.

He is basically arguing for how the Rams did things. But they better hope they get some real miles out of Stafford because if he gets hurt or starts getting ineffective because of age then they are going to be up shit creek on the QB hunt with all the first round picks they have dealt.

It will be interesting to see who took the right approach

the Rams dealing multiple first rounders, their former #1 overall QB, and taking a huge cap hit to get Stafford.

Or the Browns- keeping the #1 overall QB and their assets and not blowing up their cap. (part of the reason why we have 2 DB's from the Rams secondary playing for the Browns right now).

I bet the Browns are more successful over the next 5 years.

 

[trojanfan12]

Jerry West offended after not making Jeanie Buss' list of top 5 Lakers


He has a point. Jeanie put Phil in her top 5 list. Yeah, there was no bias in that selection.

To be fair, the question was Who are the 5 most important Lakers of all time? There was no designation as to players, executives, owners, etc. and she was kind of put on the spot.

How do you pick the 5 most important Lakers out of a range that wide? You could ask 10 different Lakers fans that same question and outside of most agreeing that Magic was #1...the rest of those lists would be different. Heck, if it was just the 5 most important Lakers players, it would be impossible to come up with just 5.

She also didn't include her Dad and you could make a very strong case that he was the most important Laker of all time.

 

[WiggyRuss]

What do you guys think?

The Rams just gave up 2 first rounders for Matt Stafford. They had a former #1 overall QB (who had previously gone to the Super Bowl), they got rid of him, took a huge cap hit, in order to bring in Stafford. They are obviously "going for it"- after giving up multiple first rounders.

The Browns price for Rodgers would be steeper. Since they have Love and are pot-committed (poker reference), they might not/probably would not even want Baker. In order to get Rodgers it would probably take 2 first round picks plus a good young player or two. This obviously will not happen.

Who will have more success over the next 5 years.

The team that gave up on their #1 overall QB, traded off major assets, took cap hits, in order to win.

Or the team that is backing their #1 overall QB, keeping the assets, and managing the cap in order to win both now and later.

Rams or Browns?

who is making the right choice, and how does it look 5 years from now?

One analyst I saw actually predicted a Browns/Rams Super Bowl. That would be fun.

 

[Wamu]

To be fair, the question was Who are the 5 most important Lakers of all time? There was no designation as to players, executives, owners, etc. and she was kind of put on the spot.

How do you pick the 5 most important Lakers out of a range that wide? You could ask 10 different Lakers fans that same question and outside of most agreeing that Magic was #1...the rest of those lists would be different. Heck, if it was just the 5 most important Lakers players, it would be impossible to come up with just 5.

She also didn't include her Dad and you could make a very strong case that he was the most important Laker of all time.

It's next to impossible to only pick five like you said. But I just can't put Phil on my top 5 list. I understand why Jeanie put him on her list, she was fuckin' him. Taking the entire history of the Lakers organization into consideration this would be my five.

Mikan (the story of the Lakers can't be told without their first superstar)
Dr. Buss (I can't leave him off my list)
West
KAJ
Magic (can't leave my all time favorite Laker off this list)

I could do another list.

Baylor
Wilt
Shaq
Kobe
Phil (could have went with Big Game James) <---biased reason, he's my 2nd favorite Laker of all time

 

[Black Adam]

What do you guys think?

The Rams just gave up 2 first rounders for Matt Stafford. They had a former #1 overall QB (who had previously gone to the Super Bowl), they got rid of him, took a huge cap hit, in order to bring in Stafford. They are obviously "going for it"- after giving up multiple first rounders.

The Browns price for Rodgers would be steeper. Since they have Love and are pot-committed (poker reference), they might not/probably would not even want Baker. In order to get Rodgers it would probably take 2 first round picks plus a good young player or two. This obviously will not happen.

Who will have more success over the next 5 years.

The team that gave up on their #1 overall QB, traded off major assets, took cap hits, in order to win.

Or the team that is backing their #1 overall QB, keeping the assets, and managing the cap in order to win both now and later.

Rams or Browns?

who is making the right choice, and how does it look 5 years from now?

One analyst I saw actually predicted a Browns/Rams Super Bowl. That would be fun.

I'll try to discuss it straight up. Imo the Rams kinda blew it getting Stafford. Goff was never going to develop into a great QB, but MS is an older QB who does have skills, but highly doubtful he'll get any better...

So in the short term the Brownies have a leg up in the QB department because they DO have a guy who's younger, and still has some upside...

As far as a Browns Superbowl it's too early to discuss that I think, but hey, time'll tell...

 

[trojanfan12]

It's next to impossible to only pick five like you said. But I just can't put Phil on my top 5 list. I understand why Jeanie put him on her list, she was fuckin' him. Taking the entire history of the Lakers organization into consideration this would be my five.

Mikan (the story of the Lakers can't be told without their first superstar)
Dr. Buss (I can't leave him off my list)
West
KAJ
Magic (can't leave my all time favorite Laker off this list)

I could do another list.

Baylor
Wilt
Shaq
Kobe
Phil (could have went with Big Game James) <---biased reason, he's my 2nd favorite Laker of all time

I could see Phil before Lebron. Phil did win a total of 5 titles with 2 different Lakers teams (Kobe being the common denominator).

To really do it any justice, you'd basically have to pick the 5 most important per era.

Along with the ones you named...what about Jack Kent Cooke. Without him, they might never have come to LA and the Forum doesn't get built.

Then there's Jeanie herself. She saved the Lakers from her brother.

 

[shopson67]

And Baker lit up those 2 rough defenses. 53-80, 677 yards (almost 8.5 yps), 6 TDs and 1 INT. All without his #1 WR

FYI, against the Steelers in the playoffs, Baker was without his #1 WR, RG, lost his RT AND his backup and his LT. Went 21-34 for 3 TDs and 0 INTs. also didn't have his coach/play caller

He had his #1 WR (Landry). OBJ has been a wasted acquisition to this point; they seem better with him off the field.

 

[trojanfan12]

What do you guys think?

The Rams just gave up 2 first rounders for Matt Stafford. They had a former #1 overall QB (who had previously gone to the Super Bowl), they got rid of him, took a huge cap hit, in order to bring in Stafford. They are obviously "going for it"- after giving up multiple first rounders.

The Browns price for Rodgers would be steeper. Since they have Love and are pot-committed (poker reference), they might not/probably would not even want Baker. In order to get Rodgers it would probably take 2 first round picks plus a good young player or two. This obviously will not happen.

Who will have more success over the next 5 years.

The team that gave up on their #1 overall QB, traded off major assets, took cap hits, in order to win.

Or the team that is backing their #1 overall QB, keeping the assets, and managing the cap in order to win both now and later.

Rams or Browns?

who is making the right choice, and how does it look 5 years from now?

One analyst I saw actually predicted a Browns/Rams Super Bowl. That would be fun.

It's interesting.

For basketball, I'm all about "win now" because it's easier to turn things around in basketball. You can add one great player to a bad team and at least make the playoffs. Even if you're not a destination franchise, you can turn things around virtually overnight if you can draft a special player.

In football, I think you have to be more patient. Adding a great player, even a great qb, to a bad team...might get you a win or 2 more, but you're not going to the playoffs. It takes more time to get the right pieces and get everyone on the same page.

I think that recently being in the Super Bowl is likely what's driving the Rams decision to try to win now. What's interesting about this, imo, is that through no real fault of his own, Stafford is pretty much an unknown quantity in the playoffs because he comes from a team that never makes the playoffs. Now he's on a team that expects to go to the Super Bowl.

Personally, I would go the Browns route. I think both can be successful, it just may be that the Browns success may be a season or 2 away.