Jerry Meyer reevaluates Blake

[gracefor24]

You camt really use wins/losses in this debate.

Nope. The bottom-line is Rose is a REALLY good pg but Blake has a chance to be a top 5 PF of all time.

 

[Dem Coltz]

You cant really use wins/losses in this debate.

Yes you can dude. If you switched Rose and Blake and put Rose on the Clippers and gave him those players he would shoot more, play in more blowout losses, and probably average 30 a game (while the team's winning pct might not be too different). Just like any situation. When Kobe's Lakers were a .500 team for years he scored more because who else was going to take the shots, Smush Parker or Chris Mihm? That's why he averaged 30+ then, but the last few years as they started winning games his scoring average dropped (after getting Gasol, healthy Bynum, Ariza, etc). When you have other good players on your team you take less shots because the possessions are distributed more evenly among the team. This is pretty simple logic. Blake is gonna be a big time star and will be on teams that contend, but he's on a team right now that's weak and that has to factor into statistical comparisons whether you like it or not.

 

[PeteHoops]

You cant really use wins/losses in this debate.

Which debate? The original re-ranking of the Rivals100 or the new debate Blake or Rose?

I kid...

I remember looking at the list and based on what I saw from video on most of them I thought Blake should have been a top 10 type player. At the time though I had no problem with most of the top 10. It just speaks to the work ethic he has that he will do WHAT EVER it takes to be the best (he should try releasing his shot at the top instead of the way down, just a suggestion)

As for Rose vs. Blake really who wouldn't love to have either? But if I'm the Knicks (Raymond Felton is having a nicer year than expected) I would take Rose and if I'm the Suns i'd take Blake its all situational...The Clips could definitely use both...

 

[ByronHoustonsSweatyPalms]

Hind sight is 20-20.

 

[stoops4pres]

Yeah, that has made a huge difference.

Still, Rose is averaging 23 and 8 in his 3rd year. Great stats but not anything that separates him from his competition in Paul, Westbrook, Rondo, Williams, Nash.

Griffin is averaging 22 and 13 as a ROOKIE!! That is nuts, who was the last guy to do that? He's also averaging like 3 assists a game. It's absolutely ridiculous. Not only this season but historically as well.

Scary to think how Griffin will be in his 3rd year. I would probably take him in his 3rd year over Rose at that point. Right now though, I would take Rose. But as you pointed out, Rose is in his 3rd year and Blake his first. That is probably my only reason why I would take Rose right now.

 

[stoops4pres]

Yes you can dude. If you switched Rose and Blake and put Rose on the Clippers and gave him those players he would shoot more, play in more blowout losses, and probably average 30 a game (while the team's winning pct might not be too different). Just like any situation.When Kobe's Lakers were a .500 team for years he scored more because who else was going to take the shots, Smush Parker or Chris Mihm? That's why he averaged 30+ then, but the last few years as they started winning games his scoring average dropped (after getting Gasol, healthy Bynum, Ariza, etc). When you have other good players on your team you take less shots because the possessions are distributed more evenly among the team. This is pretty simple logic. Blake is gonna be a big time star and will be on teams that contend, but he's on a team right now that's weak and that has to factor into statistical comparisons whether you like it or not.

While you could be right, you nor anyone else knows that Rose's stats would indeed proliferate that much. That is conjecture.

And its not like Blake is just padding his stats in blow-out losses. He is accruing his numbers against everyone, regardless of circumstance.