Michael Porter Commits To Washington

[CatsTopPac]

I've had one other interaction with you this year, and you came off as a huge homer. You even prefaced it by saying, "this is probably a homer move". What the hell else am I supposed to think? You should apologize for your initial impression being that of a homer. Once again, I don't really give a shit what your opinion on this matter is. I have mine, and it's not going to change, and we'll see if it turns out to be correct or not. Last time we got into it, I believe it was me who turned out to be correct.

I did not come off as a huge homer. I brought up that AZ was playing as a 3 seed in the context of an argument about how you chose seeding. And then I brought up other ratings that supported my assertion. My acknowledgement that them being a 3 seed at the time could be perceived as a homer move, except for the fact that I brought in a ton of other info on them and other teams to support a claim about a process, not just asserting that AZ is better and that's it. That doesn't mean that I am a huge homer or that anything I post is therefore done so as a homer. My overall concern was with your process of selecting seeds and had nothing to do with a particular team. You just couldn't (and still can't) get over that I was more interested in the process, not any one team. I put forth plenty of others who agreed with me.

All you want to do is be correct, and you refuse to enter into any other discussion to the contrary. If I was a homer, I would have blown you up for you thinking that Oregon is the frontrunner this coming season (on the Pac thread). But, I agree, so I'm not going to argue it. I'm pretty sure that a homer would have argued that. I also, in this thread put forth half of the Pac that has at least as good of a chance as UW of fulfilling your predictions, and you won't discuss any of them. All you want to do is be right, and you throw everything you can at it without considering any other alternative.

My challenge in this thread is with you putting the cart in front of the horse over a year down the road with players that haven't even put on the uniform, and are missing some other teams/players/coaches that are looking at least as good as UW. It has nothing to do with AZ. I didn't just tell you that AZ would be the best, and not discuss anything that didn't conform with my assertion. You did, with UW. I brought up great coaches, players, and teams from the CONFERENCE that make your assertion difficult to compare with other schools. You refused to have the discussion. That doesn't make me a homer.

Back in Feb, I disagreed with a process of yours, and used AZ (among other teams) as an example. I acknowledged that using AZ as ONE of my examples could be seen as a homer move. But I also brought in other teams and information for my support. All you saw was that I am an AZ fan with questions about another Pac team that you have as better than AZ (in both situations), and you automatically can't see anything other than me being a huge homer, and that you have to be correct in the face of absolutely any other information to the contrary.

I also was pretty realistic with AZ's weaknesses last year going into the season, predicted their overall record and Pac record. I was concerned with their development and chemistry. A homer does none of that. I can't really bring any of this up because it goes against whatever you are trying to argue, and you just can't be wrong about anything. So I'm the huge homer. Got it.

 

[mcnabb7542]

There are some AZ fans that are pretty cool...this douche is not one of them. Even his brethren think he's a dumbass.

Well every team has a homer, I mean @craigk217 is the biggest Domer Homer I ever met, but I still put up with him and stupid Soxs!

 

[CatsTopPac]

All you want to do is derail the thread and only focus on your points. Anyone that brings up substantial disagreements is in your crosshairs.

You know you have no real argument against the fact that you have very little to stand on concerning UW being a possible frontrunner with the best starting 5 and best duo over a year from now. How is it hard to understand that you can't make predictions like that with absolutely any degree of certainty, especially based primarily on two players that haven't even played a minute on a team that is largely mediocre, in a conference that has plenty of talent? Of course that is going to bring disagreement. You can't even acknowledge that you might have been talking out of your ass?

And I'm the homer for bringing up that there are other teams and players in the conference that are looking like they might be in better shape?

 

[craigk217]

Well every team has a homer, I mean @craigk217 is the biggest Domer Homer I ever met, but I still put up with him and stupid Soxs!

Bech, plz



You've, obviously, not met many Domers then.

Spoiler

And fooook the M's. That 9th inning walkoff other nite was

You derailin threads, again?

 

[ericd7633]

I did not come off as a huge homer. I brought up that AZ was playing as a 3 seed in the context of an argument about how you chose seeding. And then I brought up other ratings that supported my assertion. My acknowledgement that them being a 3 seed at the time could be perceived as a homer move, except for the fact that I brought in a ton of other info on them and other teams to support a claim about a process, not just asserting that AZ is better and that's it. That doesn't mean that I am a huge homer or that anything I post is therefore done so as a homer. My overall concern was with your process of selecting seeds and had nothing to do with a particular team. You just couldn't (and still can't) get over that I was more interested in the process, not any one team. I put forth plenty of others who agreed with me.

All you want to do is be correct, and you refuse to enter into any other discussion to the contrary. If I was a homer, I would have blown you up for you thinking that Oregon is the frontrunner this coming season (on the Pac thread). But, I agree, so I'm not going to argue it. I'm pretty sure that a homer would have argued that. I also, in this thread put forth half of the Pac that has at least as good of a chance as UW of fulfilling your predictions, and you won't discuss any of them. All you want to do is be right, and you throw everything you can at it without considering any other alternative.

My challenge in this thread is with you putting the cart in front of the horse over a year down the road with players that haven't even put on the uniform, and are missing some other teams/players/coaches that are looking at least as good as UW. It has nothing to do with AZ. I didn't just tell you that AZ would be the best, and not discuss anything that didn't conform with my assertion. You did, with UW. I brought up great coaches, players, and teams from the CONFERENCE that make your assertion difficult to compare with other schools. You refused to have the discussion. That doesn't make me a homer.

Back in Feb, I disagreed with a process of yours, and used AZ (among other teams) as an example. I acknowledged that using AZ as ONE of my examples could be seen as a homer move. But I also brought in other teams and information for my support. All you saw was that I am an AZ fan with questions about another Pac team that you have as better than AZ (in both situations), and you automatically can't see anything other than me being a huge homer, and that you have to be correct in the face of absolutely any other information to the contrary.

I also was pretty realistic with AZ's weaknesses last year going into the season, predicted their overall record and Pac record. I was concerned with their development and chemistry. A homer does none of that. I can't really bring any of this up because it goes against whatever you are trying to argue, and you just can't be wrong about anything. So I'm the huge homer. Got it.

You brought up a ton of irrelevant bull shit, which I told you at the time meant nothing, and what do you know, I turned out to be correct. We won't know for another 20 months if what I'm saying will be correct or not(well actually like 9 months if/when Fultz declares for the NBA or not).

And in case you haven't figured it out, I'm assuming AZ won't land the #1, #3, and #5 players in the 2017 class because they've NEVER landed that.

 

[mcnabb7542]

Bech, plz



You've, obviously, not met many Domers then.

Spoiler

And fooook the M's. That 9th inning walkoff other nite was

You derailin threads, again?

I clearly stated above Romar will shet the bed with this talent!

 

[CatsTopPac]

You brought up a ton of irrelevant bull shit, which I told you at the time meant nothing, and what do you know, I turned out to be correct. We won't know for another 20 months if what I'm saying will be correct or not(well actually like 9 months if/when Fultz declares for the NBA or not).

And in case you haven't figured it out, I'm assuming AZ won't land the #1, #3, and #5 players in the 2017 class because they've NEVER landed that.

Again, you just gotta be correct. Thanks for playing.

Are you also assuming that Trier will leave and AZ won't get one of those recruits? I have no idea, because you won't talk about anything other than your vague little argument. And I stated that AZ would only need two of three, and that's not counting any of the other 5-stars that could really develop into one of the best players in the conference. I also put up UCLA's possible recruits. I talked about other programs, coaches, and players that could all throw a wrench in your theories. But again, all you focus on is me talking about AZ. For you, it all starts and ends there. Way to once again miss the overwhelming majority of my point.

 

[ericd7633]

All you want to do is derail the thread and only focus on your points. Anyone that brings up substantial disagreements is in your crosshairs.

You know you have no real argument against the fact that you have very little to stand on concerning UW being a possible frontrunner with the best starting 5 and best duo over a year from now. How is it hard to understand that you can't make predictions like that with absolutely any degree of certainty, especially based primarily on two players that haven't even played a minute on a team that is largely mediocre, in a conference that has plenty of talent? Of course that is going to bring disagreement. You can't even acknowledge that you might have been talking out of your ass?

And I'm the homer for bringing up that there are other teams and players in the conference that are looking like they might be in better shape?

Chrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiistttttt. People can bring up other teams/players. I'm saying based on them having Porter, along w/Fultz and their other pieces, it may not matter what anybody else brings in. If UCLA brings in Duval, they'd certainly be in the discussion, and if Ball returns, but they'll also lose Alford and Hamilton(unless he gets another year of eligibility).

 

[ericd7633]

Again, you just gotta be correct. Thanks for playing.

Are you also assuming that Trier will leave and AZ won't get one of those recruits? I have no idea, because you won't talk about anything other than your vague little argument. And I stated that AZ would only need two of three, and that's not counting any of the other 5-stars that could really develop into one of the best players in the conference. I also put up UCLA's possible recruits. I talked about other programs, coaches, and players that could all throw a wrench in your theories. But again, all you focus on is me talking about AZ. For you, it all starts and ends there. Way to once again miss the overwhelming majority of my point.

I don't think AZ ends up with Ayton, Bamba or Duval. Trier staying would obviously be a boost. Frankly he probably should stay his junior year, odds aren't good he's a first round pick in 2017.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Chrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiistttttt. People can bring up other teams/players. I'm saying based on them having Porter, along w/Fultz and their other pieces, it may not matter what anybody else brings in. If UCLA brings in Duval, they'd certainly be in the discussion, and if Ball returns, but they'll also lose Alford and Hamilton(unless he gets another year of eligibility).

Holy shit you are talking about someone other than UW???? Wow, that only took a dozen or so posts. Man, big steps, congrats.

So if UCLA keeps Ball, gets Duval, they could be in the discussion. Glad to hear. That's different from you saying that there is literally no combination that is better than Fultz and Porter.

And what about if UCLA keeps Ball, gets Duval, and still has Leaf and Anigbogu coming off solid years? And let's say they also get Trent Jr. or Walker, and Bowen or Wilkes? All of that is certainly possible, if not probable, and would give them a starting 5 of all 5-stars. Wouldn't that challenge UW? Two top 5 recruits and 3 other 5-stars as the best starting 5? With some other 4 stars coming back and coming in, wouldn't that also be a hell of an argument against 2 top five recruits and a 4 star and some developing freshmen?

 

[CatsTopPac]

I don't think AZ ends up with Ayton, Bamba or Duval. Trier staying would obviously be a boost. Frankly he probably should stay his junior year, odds aren't good he's a first round pick in 2017.

They might get one of them, and they might get none of them. But it sounds like not only are you banking on Fultz staying for your predictions, but also on some recruits not going to AZ, right? If Trier has a hell of a year and stays, and they end up with Ayton, then those two could certainly challenge Fultz and Porter, right? Same with if Markannan, Smith, Trier, Alkins, and Simmons all stay, and play well. Hell, what if they get another couple/few 5-stars in '17. Wouldn't that go up against UW's starting 5 and team as possible frontrunners?

That's what I'm saying, you have to guess at who other teams would or wouldn't get, and who would or wouldn't stay, after next year, in order to make predictions like that. UCLA and AZ are two teams that could very well have a better duo, better starting 5, and more of a case for frontrunner. And that isn't even counting the other teams I named that do very well without having a bunch of 5-stars coming in. Utah and Oregon come to mind. And there might be a darkhorse of another team that could emerge that we are all missing right now. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that you are wrong or that I am right. I'm just saying that it's a bit presumptuous to call something like that a year out. THE PAC is too talented.

 

[ericd7633]

Holy shit you are talking about someone other than UW???? Wow, that only took a dozen or so posts. Man, big steps, congrats.

So if UCLA keeps Ball, gets Duval, they could be in the discussion. Glad to hear. That's different from you saying that there is literally no combination that is better than Fultz and Porter.

And what about if UCLA keeps Ball, gets Duval, and still has Leaf and Anigbogu coming off solid years? And let's say they also get Trent Jr. or Walker, and Bowen or Wilkes? All of that is certainly possible, if not probable, and would give them a starting 5 of all 5-stars. Wouldn't that challenge UW? Two top 5 recruits and 3 other 5-stars as the best starting 5? With some other 4 stars coming back and coming in, wouldn't that also be a hell of an argument against 2 top five recruits and a 4 star and some developing freshmen?

And I would still take Fultz and Porter over any hypothetical duo you throw out. Fultz is projected as a top 3 pick.

Also, FYI, it's literally impossible for UCLA to get Duval, Trent Jr., Walker, Bowen and Wilkes. Considering they already have 3 commits for 2017, that would give them a total of 8 players in the 2017 class...again impossible.

 

[CatsTopPac]

And I would still take Fultz and Porter over any hypothetical duo you throw out. Fultz is projected as a top 3 pick.

Also, FYI, it's literally impossible for UCLA to get Duval, Trent Jr., Walker, Bowen and Wilkes. Considering they already have 3 commits for 2017, that would give them a total of 8 players in the 2017 class...again impossible.

First of all, try your reading comprehension again. I said Trent Jr OR Walker, Bowen OR Wilkes. And players can decommit too, especially if they see the writing on the wall of others coming in above them, etc.

Second of all, it looks like Trier is expected to be a first round pick, and so is Ray Smith. So AZ has two potential first round picks and that is before anyone in '17 (Porter or otherwise) factors in. What if they stay? Again, you seem to be banking on more than just Fultz staying.

 

[ericd7633]

They might get one of them, and they might get none of them. But it sounds like not only are you banking on Fultz staying for your predictions, but also on some recruits not going to AZ, right? If Trier has a hell of a year and stays, and they end up with Ayton, then those two could certainly challenge Fultz and Porter, right? Same with if Markannan, Smith, Trier, Alkins, and Simmons all stay, and play well. Hell, what if they get another couple/few 5-stars in '17. Wouldn't that go up against UW's starting 5 and team as possible frontrunners?

That's what I'm saying, you have to guess at who other teams would or wouldn't get, and who would or wouldn't stay, after next year, in order to make predictions like that. UCLA and AZ are two teams that could very well have a better duo, better starting 5, and more of a case for frontrunner. And that isn't even counting the other teams I named that do very well without having a bunch of 5-stars coming in. Utah and Oregon come to mind. And there might be a darkhorse of another team that could emerge that we are all missing right now. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that you are wrong or that I am right. I'm just saying that it's a bit presumptuous to call something like that a year out. THE PAC is too talented.

I'm not banking on Fultz doing anything. If I had to guess my guess is he would leave because he's projected to go top 3 and wouldn't blame him. And Fultz is on a different level than Trier. So if AZ does get Ayton, Fultz and Porter is still a better combination IMO. But there isn't one site out there that thinks Trier is better than Fultz at least from a draft standpoint. Both Fultz and Porter are projected top 3 picks. My how dumb of me to suggest they could be the best duo in the conference if Fultz stays.

 

[CatsTopPac]

I'm not banking on Fultz doing anything. If I had to guess my guess is he would leave because he's projected to go top 3 and wouldn't blame him. And Fultz is on a different level than Trier. So if AZ does get Ayton, Fultz and Porter is still a better combination IMO. But there isn't one site out there that thinks Trier is better than Fultz at least from a draft standpoint. Both Fultz and Porter are projected top 3 picks. My how dumb of me to suggest they could be the best duo in the conference if Fultz stays.

Nah, that's not dumb of you at all. I never said so. You said they will be. And they haven't even put on the jersey. And until today, you wouldn't even entertain a discussion otherwise. That's dumb.

You keep missing every point I have ever tried to make with you. You may very well be right in absolutely everything you assert. The point is that you make claims like thinking UW will have the best duo and starting 5, and all you are doing is guessing at what the Pac landscape could be in a year, and were relentless in attacking me for questioning that. You have no idea how well or weak any of these players could be by then. You have no idea who will stay or go (with the exception of saying that Fultz needs to stay). Markannan could come out of nowhere and absolutely tear up the Pac next year and decide to stay. Or, Porter could come in and just absolutely shit the bed. You are banking all of your predictions on guys that have never played a single minute, and relentlessly attack me for saying that you might not be correct.

All I'm saying is that you are saying that because of these two guys (who have never worn the jersey), and a mediocre team, that in over a year, UW will have the best duo, best starting 5, and could be frontrunners in the Pac. That's mighty presumptuous given the rest of the players, coaches, and teams in the Pac.

You just have no idea what is going to happen in the next year to make such predictions and than not listen to anyone who says otherwise. Again, there are just too many possibilities for things to not go how you think, for you to no even listen to an argument to the contrary.

 

[ericd7633]

First of all, try your reading comprehension again. I said Trent Jr OR Walker, Bowen OR Wilkes. And players can decommit too, especially if they see the writing on the wall of others coming in above them, etc.

Second of all, it looks like Trier is expected to be a first round pick, and so is Ray Smith. So AZ has two potential first round picks and that is before anyone in '17 (Porter or otherwise) factors in. What if they stay? Again, you seem to be banking on more than just Fultz staying.

And getting three more 2017 commits isn't going to happen either because they won't have room for them, unless some of those talented incoming freshman leave.

And I've seen 4 mocks, 2 have him in the late 20's, and 2 have him a second round pick, expecting that type of player to be a first round pick isn't something I would bank on.

 

[ericd7633]

Nah, that's not dumb of you at all. I never said so. You said they will be. And they haven't even put on the jersey. And until today, you wouldn't even entertain a discussion otherwise. That's dumb.

You keep missing every point I have ever tried to make with you. You may very well be right in absolutely everything you assert. The point is that you make claims like thinking UW will have the best duo and starting 5, and all you are doing is guessing at what the Pac landscape could be in a year, and were relentless in attacking me for questioning that. You have no idea how well or weak any of these players could be by then. You have no idea who will stay or go (with the exception of saying that Fultz needs to stay). Markannan could come out of nowhere and absolutely tear up the Pac next year and decide to stay. Or, Porter could come in and just absolutely shit the bed. You are banking all of your predictions on guys that have never played a single minute, and relentlessly attack me for saying that you might not be correct.

All I'm saying is that you are saying that because of these two guys (who have never worn the jersey), and a mediocre team, that in over a year, UW will have the best duo, best starting 5, and could be frontrunners in the Pac. That's mighty presumptuous given the rest of the players, coaches, and teams in the Pac.

You just have no idea what is going to happen in the next year to make such predictions and than not listen to anyone who says otherwise. Again, there are just too many possibilities for things to not go how you think, for you to no even listen to an argument to the contrary.

All of that is fine and dandy. If Fultz plays with Porter, I could see them being the Pac 12 front runners. Again, it's just my opinion. I think they will be the best duo, and could potentially have the best starting 5.

 

[CatsTopPac]

And getting three more 2017 commits isn't going to happen either because they won't have room for them, unless some of those talented incoming freshman leave.

Or someone transfers, or redshirts, or decommits, etc.

And I've seen 4 mocks, 2 have him in the late 20's, and 2 have him a second round pick, expecting that type of player to be a first round pick isn't something I would bank on.

You said "odds aren't good that he is a first-round draft pick." Half of them you note, have him in the first. So he's looking at 50% prediction right now, it's before the year has even begun. That's not counting if he stays healthy and improves. How can you be so confident that he doesn't? All the dude needs to do is improve between his freshman and sophomore year and he's got at least a 50-50 shot. How are those odds not good enough to consider?

 

[CatsTopPac]

All of that is fine and dandy. If Fultz plays with Porter, I could see them being the Pac 12 front runners. Again, it's just my opinion. I think they will be the best duo, and could potentially have the best starting 5.

You went from thinking UW will have the best 5 to could potentially. But fine. I still think that you might very well be right, but I'll put my money on the field in all those bets and take them right now.

 

[ericd7633]

Or someone transfers, or redshirts, or decommits, etc.



You said "odds aren't good that he is a first-round draft pick." Half of them you note, have him in the first. So he's looking at 50% prediction right now, it's before the year has even begun. That's not counting if he stays healthy and improves. How can you be so confident that he doesn't? All the dude needs to do is improve between his freshman and sophomore year and he's got at least a 50-50 shot. How are those odds not good enough to consider?

The two mocks that have him in the first round are at picks 27 and 28. And he may improve, chances are he will, but he could still improve as a player and not his stock because he's a limited player.

Still his draft position doesn't compare to that of Fultz who's top 3.