|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Jul 26, 2008 10:22:18 GMT -5
I am happy with all of the Cavs rating changes, they are fair. And Detroit, I would rather have Rondo, just for the record. dosent suprise me, ur a divison rival
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Nets on Jul 26, 2008 11:10:50 GMT -5
NJ, the points are still in effect i think, i think he would of been an 85 if it wernt for the ratings bost Damn if thats right then I shouldnt have made J-Ho a 90...I did that cuz I thought that the "90" would stay at least for this next season...I knew that he didnt deserve to be a 90 but I didnt think that he would go down with the boost....I should have boosted West...
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Jul 26, 2008 11:47:45 GMT -5
I have 3 main issues 1.I truly believe Stuckey deserves to be a 75, this guy plays like a vetran already and will probally be starting for this pistons this year o next. i know he had a hand injury in the beginning of the year, but yet he still put up great numbers as a BACKUP PG, If this guy were starting he would be putting up at least 17 and 5 a game, he got us to the ECF last year, if not for him ORlando probally would of beat us. Rajon Rondo got boosted up to a 75, and if u took a pool of all the gms, who they would rather have i bet 70-80% would say Stuckey, I mean during the regular season Stuckey almost averaged better stats than Rondo and he was a sixth man plus rondo got 29 mins a game stuckey got 16, If you would please cm's re think this one over The thing is, Detroit, that we don't really wanna raise rookies that high yet, and try to limit the amount of rookie rating changes. Don't worry though, if he's as good as I hear, he should be up there in no time. I tried to make the same arguement for Amare that you made for Dwight, no dice.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Hawks on Jul 26, 2008 12:19:27 GMT -5
I'm good with my team's boosts.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Jul 26, 2008 12:24:39 GMT -5
I have 3 main issues 1.I truly believe Stuckey deserves to be a 75, this guy plays like a vetran already and will probally be starting for this pistons this year o next. i know he had a hand injury in the beginning of the year, but yet he still put up great numbers as a BACKUP PG, If this guy were starting he would be putting up at least 17 and 5 a game, he got us to the ECF last year, if not for him ORlando probally would of beat us. Rajon Rondo got boosted up to a 75, and if u took a pool of all the gms, who they would rather have i bet 70-80% would say Stuckey, I mean during the regular season Stuckey almost averaged better stats than Rondo and he was a sixth man plus rondo got 29 mins a game stuckey got 16, If you would please cm's re think this one over The thing is, Detroit, that we don't really wanna raise rookies that high yet, and try to limit the amount of rookie rating changes. Don't worry though, if he's as good as I hear, he should be up there in no time. I tried to make the same arguement for Amare that you made for Dwight, no dice. i know u dont wanna raise rookies but look at the 07 draft class durant, he was the best guard in the draft, better than conley and i can only name 3 rookies better than him in the 07 draft, Durant, Oden(still has yet to play), and Horford there ratings are all above 80, and stuckey is a 72. thats why i belive he should be at least a 75 so please just talk it over ;D
|
|
|
Post by Memphis Grizzlies on Jul 26, 2008 13:12:17 GMT -5
bynum definitely should be higher if chandler is an 84 dunno why horford got boosted stephen jackson is fine where he is same as stuckey
|
|
|
Post by Washington Wizards on Jul 27, 2008 1:32:42 GMT -5
83 - Granger 19.6ppg 6.1rpg 2.1apg 82 - Terry 15.5ppg 2.5rpg 3.2apg 81 - Jackson 20.1ppg 4.4rpg 4.1apg
see i think jackson should at least be rated higher than terry and same as granger if not an 84 like broy...
|
|
|
Post by theanswer - IND on Jul 27, 2008 1:49:01 GMT -5
granger has one good season same as dunleavy and he is rated 83 to 79 come on guys dunleavy should be boosted as well as jackson both should be boosted but 1 or 2 rating points.
|
|
|
Post by supremegm - MIA on Jul 27, 2008 9:00:11 GMT -5
not sure where your argument comes in of comparing dunleavy to granger.. dunleavy averaged less ppg, less rpg, less bpg, less spg, more turnovers per game while playing exactly the same mpg for the same team... & he has no defense
|
|
|
Post by Washington Wizards on Jul 27, 2008 21:38:34 GMT -5
what do u guys think of my jackson argument?
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Jul 27, 2008 22:04:28 GMT -5
jackson has played well but i think where he is at is fair, he would stugle if he were in a diffrent uni then GS
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Cavaliers on Jul 27, 2008 22:07:40 GMT -5
you guys all need to stop whining about this. Dunleavy is fine at a 79, infact you should be happy he is a 79. Jackson is fine at an 81. The only one that really has an argument is Detroit with stuckey because when given the minutes he comes up big. If stuckey was on Indy he'd be a 77.
|
|
|
Post by theanswer - IND on Jul 27, 2008 22:09:53 GMT -5
yer stuckey need a raise so does dunleavy
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Cavaliers on Jul 27, 2008 22:23:37 GMT -5
yer stuckey need a raise so does dunleavy lol did you just hear what i said?
|
|
|
Post by theanswer - IND on Jul 27, 2008 22:33:37 GMT -5
yes but i still think he should be an 80
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Jul 28, 2008 9:27:22 GMT -5
I can't believe the amount you are complaining about ONE point. I think the more you complain in this manner, the less likely it may be he gets anything more (I don't know how likely it would've been that he got MORE of a boost even before your complain-fest...but this really isn't helping).
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Nets on Jul 28, 2008 9:57:35 GMT -5
That 1 point would make him an 80, and thats a lot (I not saying that he should be an 80, just saying that the 1 point in this case means a lot)
|
|
|
Post by Oklahoma City Thunder on Aug 2, 2008 1:51:34 GMT -5
Alright heres my lengthy post to all arguements made in this thread.
1. Dunleavy is staying at 79 and Jackson is staying at 81. Explanations for both have already been made by me earlier in this thread.
2. Stuckey is staying at 72. The staff and I have pretty much come to a conclusion that we wont be prematurely raising rookies after their 1st season. We did with Tyrus Thomas and Bargnani last season and we had to lower them this season due to poor showings in their 2nd seasons. Dwight Howard is good at 90. He isnt the best defensive player and is a liability at the foul line (shoots 55%). Billups has been an 83 ever since the league began and he hasnt done anything special since then.
3. I will consider the Bynum-Horford arguement. Its undeniable what Hoford did in his rookie season. He was the main reason, IMO, why the Hawks made the playoffs. They had been lacking an inside guy for so long. Bynum has had 1 good half season. Yes, it was a dominant half season, but it was a half season. I will revisit this, though. Again the rookie case with Thornton. Raising him 2 points was a but much IMO. Durant is rated where he is becasue of where he was drafted (#1).
4. Miami, you make some good arguements and will deff be considering those 2 ratings (Boozer and Chandler) West I think is fine at 85. As for Rasheed Wallace, he probably should have gone down to a 84 last season, but was looked over. Its kind of like the AK-47 arguement. the guy was rated so high in NBA Live 07 (originally a 90) and is slowly coing down to where he is supposed to be rated.
5. Overall, I think you guys should be satisified with these ratings. I will let you know on the Horford-Bynum and Boozer-Chandler ASAP
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia 76ers on Aug 5, 2008 9:24:55 GMT -5
IMO, Nazr should have been a 71-72 considering SAR is a 72, Kwame is a 70, Fyre a 79 (I think you guys missed him, he's way too high at 79. He should be around 10 pts lower), Nene a 76, Elson a 70 and Swift a 73.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Aug 5, 2008 10:14:10 GMT -5
Wow Frye yea...he should be like 73 max...69 wouldn't really be a bad rating either.
|
|