Official Bracketology Thread

#201
#201
BigZiti09 said:
Actually I wasn't able to watch that pitiful performance.

I'm a vol fan.

Nobody and I mean nobody worships coaches like you do. There's never been anyone in the history of message board posting go all in on a coach like you did for Martin. Any argument you try and make about me liking an actual good coach falls flat to anyone who witnessed the 30,000 posts you made defending Cuonzo Martin.
Click to expand...

Somebody’s mad lulz
 
#203
#203
bleedingTNorange said:
More false statements from Ziti, say it isn’t so Joe
Click to expand...

Tell me again how many top 50 rpi wins Missouri has.....

Was it 2 like you said or was it zero? I can't remember.

Also, did Northwestern make it to the dance at 18-12 (8-10) or did they make the NIT? I can't remember.
 
#206
#206
BigZiti09 said:
Tell me again how many top 50 rpi wins Missouri has.....

Was it 2 like you said or was it zero? I can't remember.

Also, did Northwestern make it to the dance at 18-12 (8-10) or did they make the NIT? I can't remember.
Click to expand...

So you’re admitting you purposely brought false info to the board?
 
#213
#213
BigZiti09 said:
Difference in my mistake is that mine was over a little detail that doesn't really have much bearing on the argument. Stokes is still better than Grant.

Your entire argument was blown to shreds with the bogus crap you brought.
Click to expand...

Just can’t admit when you’re wrong can you? It’s ok, we know, you’re right everyone else is wrong.
 
#215
#215
Other pro Williams stat:

Williams while handling the ball more than Stokes did turned it over less.


Literally every stat you can find favors Williams other than rebounding. No idea who anyone can still say Stokes was better.
 
#216
#216
BigZiti09 said:
I'm not wrong. 5* PF who was drafted after 2.5 years of college ball is better than Grant Williams.

Crazy take I know.
Click to expand...

So exactly how Much better in all categories does Williams have to outperform Stokes to overcome the biased you have because his recruiting ranking was vastly undervalued?
 
#217
#217
BruinVol said:
So exactly how Much better in all categories does Williams have to outperform Stokes to overcome the biased you have because his recruiting ranking was vastly undervalued?
Click to expand...

I've already said he was underrated. The problem is that you guys can't take a simple statement like Stokes was better without assuming that means I think Grant sucks which is why this argument is pointless.

Can't have a legit conversation without it turning into something it's not.
 
#219
#219
BigZiti09 said:
I've already said he was underrated. The problem is that you guys can't take a simple statement like Stokes was better without assuming that means I think Grant sucks which is why this argument is pointless.

Can't have a legit conversation without it turning into something it's not.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are saying Grant sucks. I just think you are way over valuing stokes recruiting ranking and the fact he was a bad NBA draft. He couldn't cut it because his only game was power and he didn't have enough skill. The numbers prove williams is better and most would say he is better using the eye test as well

Don't confuse my discussion with you with BTOs. Other than coming at you for misinfo on Williams shooting the 3 I think our discussion has been civil
 
#220
#220
BruinVol said:
I don't think you are saying Grant sucks. I just think you are way over valuing stokes recruiting ranking and the fact he was a bad NBA draft. He couldn't cut it because his only game was power and he didn't have enough skill. The numbers prove williams is better and most would say he is better using the eye test as well
Click to expand...

This x 100

Nobody had once said Ziti is saying Grant sucks, he’s looking for a pity party now, good lord.
 
#221
#221
BruinVol said:
I don't think you are saying Grant sucks. I just think you are way over valuing stokes recruiting ranking and the fact he was a bad NBA draft. He couldn't cut it because his only game was power and he didn't have enough skill. The numbers prove williams is better and most would say he is better using the eye test as well
Click to expand...

I'm going off eye test and experience of watching both over time.

If Grant had played 5 years ago and Stokes was playing now you guys would be on the other side of the argument.

Seen similar things happen in football. New guy is always better than the old guy until their both gone and you can compare the two without the bias of hype.
 
#223
#223
BigZiti09 said:
I'm going off eye test and experience of watching both over time.

If Grant had played 5 years ago and Stokes was playing now you guys would be on the other side of the argument.

Seen similar things happen in football. New guy is always better than the old guy until their both gone and you can compare the two without the bias of hype.
Click to expand...

I agree for most fans. The newest is usually considered the best but For myself I keenly remember the style of player Stokes was. Bull in a China shop that lacked skill.
 
#224
#224
BruinVol said:
I agree for most fans. The newest is usually considered the best but For myself I keenly remember the style of player Stokes was. Bull in a China shop that lacked skill.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you don't like his style? So what? Doesn't mean he wasn't better.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top