RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Quality of Play
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3516
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 12:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I missed the discussion on quality of play. I believe the quality of play in college basketball continues to go up every year. The pace of improvement may have slowed in the past few years but overall quality continues upward. I know it is blasphemous to say in some parts, but I would go so far as to say that the NCAA champions of any year from 1998-2007 with the possible exception of 2002 UConn would not win the NCAA championship this year. And I don't believe that a 5 seed or lower from that era would even be able to get an at large bid today.

A'ja Wilson last season was as good or better than Stewart in her rookie year. Perhaps the biggest difference in comparing the quality difference between college and the WNBA in the first decade of the W is that the WNBA has improved so much. And part of the reason for the better play is the contraction of teams. Sure, when you consolidate the talent of what of all the college teams into only 12 pro teams and have players that stay a decade or more (and generally improve over time) there will be a huge difference in quality. But this has nothing to do with the quality of play at the college level. It is better than ever.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9430



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 10:51 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I agree ... I think the floor in college basketball is much higher than it was 20 years ago, but I'm not convinced there has been a similar increase in elite talent. In other words, teams are better top to bottom but there are still the same number, or maybe slightly less due to volleyball, of potential pro stars.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
canadaball



Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 332



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 11:26 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
I missed the discussion on quality of play. I believe the quality of play in college basketball continues to go up every year. The pace of improvement may have slowed in the past few years but overall quality continues upward. I know it is blasphemous to say in some parts, but I would go so far as to say that the NCAA champions of any year from 1998-2007 with the possible exception of 2002 UConn would not win the NCAA championship this year. And I don't believe that a 5 seed or lower from that era would even be able to get an at large bid today.

A'ja Wilson last season was as good or better than Stewart in her rookie year. Perhaps the biggest difference in comparing the quality difference between college and the WNBA in the first decade of the W is that the WNBA has improved so much. And part of the reason for the better play is the contraction of teams. Sure, when you consolidate the talent of what of all the college teams into only 12 pro teams and have players that stay a decade or more (and generally improve over time) there will be a huge difference in quality. But this has nothing to do with the quality of play at the college level. It is better than ever.




OK, I'll bite. I completely disagree. We can argue about the quality of more routine players, but contraction has nothing to do with the number of superstars in the sport. Consider, again, my Stewart challenge: She currently competes (both ends of floor) with the likes of Fowles, Parker, Griner, DelaD, Charles, and Cambage; Hall of Famers all. Now jump ahead 5 years, when Stew, at 30, is still in her prime. Other than Cam (will she ever show up), who is left to compete? You mention Wilson with her top notch rookie season, but she is still way off the caliber of the above crew, as evidenced by her mediocre performance in the World Championships.(6 assists; 13 turnovers...ugh).
On the other thread, I mentioned the passing of the baton we have been lucky to enjoy. Leslie to LJ to Parker to Stewart; Swoopes to DT to Maya....you get the idea; When I survey players under age 25 (WNBA and college), I just do not see the surefire superstars that seemed to pop up almost every year from 1998-2015. Remember, also, that, unlike men's sports, great women basketball players almost never arise from the obscurity of smaller programs. We can see our W all time greats coming from a long way off, and, for me, the cupboard looks pretty barren compared to those golden years.


root_thing



Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 4701
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 12:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

canadaball wrote:

OK, I'll bite. I completely disagree. We can argue about the quality of more routine players, but contraction has nothing to do with the number of superstars in the sport. Consider my Stewart challenge: She currently competes (both ends of floor) with the likes of Fowles, Parker, Griner, DelaD, Charles, and Cambage; Hall of Famers all. Now jump ahead 5 years, when Stew, at 30, is still in her prime. Other than Cam (will she ever show up), who is left to compete? You mention Wilson with her top notch rookie season, but she is still way off the caliber of the above crew, as evidenced by her mediocre performance in the World Championships.(6 assists; 13 turnovers...ugh).
On the other thread, I mentioned the passing of the baton we have been lucky to enjoy. Leslie to LJ to Parker to Stewart; Swoopes to DT to Maya....you get the idea; When I survey players under age 25 (WNBA and college), I just do not see the surefire superstars that seemed to pop up almost every year from 1998-2015. Remember, also, that, unlike men's sports, great women basketball players almost never arise from the obscurity of smaller programs. We can see our W all time greats coming from a long way off, and, for me, the cupboard looks pretty barren compared to those golden years.


At one point you said that your claims of an overall decline didn't apply to the WNBA -- only to college. Then later, you seemed to change your mind. Now, you've confirmed that you're applying this theory to the WNBA. I'm glad because this should be easy to prove or disprove. No more hedging or equivocating. See you in five years. Very Happy



_________________
Even now by the gate with your long hair blowing
And the colors of the day that lie along your arms
You must barter your life to make sure you are living
And the crowd that has come
You give them the colors
And the bells and wind and the dream
canadaball



Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 332



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 12:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

root_thing wrote:
canadaball wrote:

OK, I'll bite. I completely disagree. We can argue about the quality of more routine players, but contraction has nothing to do with the number of superstars in the sport. Consider my Stewart challenge: She currently competes (both ends of floor) with the likes of Fowles, Parker, Griner, DelaD, Charles, and Cambage; Hall of Famers all. Now jump ahead 5 years, when Stew, at 30, is still in her prime. Other than Cam (will she ever show up), who is left to compete? You mention Wilson with her top notch rookie season, but she is still way off the caliber of the above crew, as evidenced by her mediocre performance in the World Championships.(6 assists; 13 turnovers...ugh).
On the other thread, I mentioned the passing of the baton we have been lucky to enjoy. Leslie to LJ to Parker to Stewart; Swoopes to DT to Maya....you get the idea; When I survey players under age 25 (WNBA and college), I just do not see the surefire superstars that seemed to pop up almost every year from 1998-2015. Remember, also, that, unlike men's sports, great women basketball players almost never arise from the obscurity of smaller programs. We can see our W all time greats coming from a long way off, and, for me, the cupboard looks pretty barren compared to those golden years.


At one point you said that your claims of an overall decline didn't apply to the WNBA -- only to college. Then later, you seemed to change your mind. Now, you've confirmed that you're applying this theory to the WNBA. I'm glad because this should be easy to prove or disprove. No more hedging or equivocating. See you in five years. Very Happy



No way you can credit the quality of today's W to the young players. I just extended my alarm at the lack of future superstars to the young WNBA players since Stewart's class of 2016. By my count, with the current 4 college classes, that is 6 years of players bereft of superstars. I agree that the current WNBA quality is great, but the reason for this is the presence of the older players. A good example is to examine the 2 major college hotshots/record breakers that we have seen since Stew: Kelsey Plum and Kelsey Mitchell (Wilson already noted).....No future Hall of Famers with these 2; heck, they are borderline starters on two bad teams; of course, with each passing year, more older players will retire, allowing the lesser young ones to rise, but it will not be by virtue of transcending talent.




Last edited by canadaball on 03/06/19 12:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 58173
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 12:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

canadaball wrote:
You mention Wilson with her top notch rookie season, but she is still way off the caliber of the above crew, as evidenced by her mediocre performance in the World Championships.(6 assists; 13 turnovers...ugh)


Wilson was considerably better in her first WC than Stewart was in hers



_________________
It's time I had some time alone
canadaball



Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 332



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 12:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
canadaball wrote:
You mention Wilson with her top notch rookie season, but she is still way off the caliber of the above crew, as evidenced by her mediocre performance in the World Championships.(6 assists; 13 turnovers...ugh)


Wilson was considerably better in her first WC than Stewart was in hers


Come on now, Stewart was a college junior on a team of pros, and she barely played. It was her obvious talent and scintullating future that got her the bench role (see Bird on 2002 team). Wilson just not in their class. Watching both players, Stewart's skill set is (and was even as a rookie) far superior to Wilson. No knock on the South Carolina star, but you cannot compare her to an all time great. Whenever they have met (in college and the W), Stewart's edge in ability is significant. To her credit, Ajia made the jump to the pros by exhibiting a much improved intermediate range jumper, but there is a lot more to improve to join the Seattle MVP at the next level......and what I find frightening is that Wilson is the only player in a 6 year span that can even be mentioned as maybe, maybe moving to the superstar level (I am doubtful); then again, by the time she hits 30, with the disappearance of all the great bigs, won't take much to be called great.




Last edited by canadaball on 03/06/19 1:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 7927
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 1:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Azzi Fudd will be a star period



_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
canadaball



Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 332



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 1:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
Azzi Fudd will be a star period


A high school sophomore.....that would make 8 barren years to await one superstar (if you are correct).


Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 20876
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 1:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So we're assuming the college junior that would absolutely go #1 in the draft this year is going to be pretty ordinary then, huh?



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
canadaball



Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 332



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 1:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
So we're assuming the college junior that would absolutely go #1 in the draft this year is going to be pretty ordinary then, huh?


Failing to call Sabrina a future all time great does not = "ordinary". She is a phenomenal passer, and good shooter; however there are some questions as to just how good she will be. Firstly, what is her position? As a 2, she does lack explosiveness ( I would call in "bounce") usually seen here (Hayes and Loyd being examples) plus she is just not a good defender. As a pg, one wonders about her open court ball handling and speed (she does seem a bit lead footed), I have noted earlier that the W has had guards with these weaknesses who are booking the Hall of Fame, but let's wait and see. In line with my theme, I also think the level of player she is currently meeting in college is way, way below what awaits in the W. It is a nagging doubt that recent "great" Pac 12 stars like Plum, Canada, and, to a lesser extent, Weise (another slow one) have hardly lit up the W. One thing for sure...she is not in the class of DT, Stew, Maya, Griner, DelaD, Parker etc.




Last edited by canadaball on 03/06/19 2:10 pm; edited 2 times in total
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5264
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 2:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

No one can prove or quantify whether there are more or better or more-better players now than then. But put me in the camp that says 2002 UConn, 1998 UTK, 1995 UConn, and some LaTech, Texas and USC teams from the 80's could compete favorably with any college team this year.

I don't really see anyone in college right now whom I would call a superstar, nor would I yet append that honorific to A'ja Wilson. High school superstardom is even more murky, with perhaps Bueckers and Fudd having the best identifiable chances as of now.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 58173
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 2:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
I agree ... I think the floor in college basketball is much higher than it was 20 years ago, but I'm not convinced there has been a similar increase in elite talent.


Which is why the elite players stand out less. A ten is more dominant when the average player is a three then when the average player is a six.



_________________
It's time I had some time alone
canadaball



Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 332



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 3:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
I agree ... I think the floor in college basketball is much higher than it was 20 years ago, but I'm not convinced there has been a similar increase in elite talent.


Which is why the elite players stand out less. A ten is more dominant when the average player is a three then when the average player is a six.


No way when talking the special ones...Plop a Parker, Maya, DT, Grinier etc. in college today, and they would stand out even more than they did. Truly elite players (there just aren't any now in college) do not need weaker competition to stand out; after all, that is the origin of the term "all time great"....and unlike 1998-2016, you won't see any among the younger players.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9430



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 3:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
I agree ... I think the floor in college basketball is much higher than it was 20 years ago, but I'm not convinced there has been a similar increase in elite talent.


Which is why the elite players stand out less. A ten is more dominant when the average player is a three then when the average player is a six.


Excellent point ... and maybe that's why it's harder to put spectacular numbers in the WNBA.

I do think, however, that it's hard to argue that the rising participation levels in volleyball and other sports do not subtract from the total of elite athletes playing basketball -- especially volleyball, which rewards pretty much the same skill set.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 8858



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 3:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
I agree ... I think the floor in college basketball is much higher than it was 20 years ago, but I'm not convinced there has been a similar increase in elite talent.


Which is why the elite players stand out less. A ten is more dominant when the average player is a three then when the average player is a six.


Excellent point ... and maybe that's why it's harder to put spectacular numbers in the WNBA.

I do think, however, that it's hard to argue that the rising participation levels in volleyball and other sports do not subtract from the total of elite athletes playing basketball -- especially volleyball, which rewards pretty much the same skill set.


So does volleyball result in fewer injuries than basketball? I could see that making the sport more attractive to kids or their parents. Volleyball may be more fun than basketball to, being less of a contact sport.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 24428



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 4:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I don't know the numbers, but can well imagine that there are increasing numbers of girls playing sports in general. It's certainly a monumental increase since my day.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
canadaball



Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 332



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 4:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
I agree ... I think the floor in college basketball is much higher than it was 20 years ago, but I'm not convinced there has been a similar increase in elite talent.


Which is why the elite players stand out less. A ten is more dominant when the average player is a three then when the average player is a six.


Here is another way to illustrate the fallacy of this thinking. Take any player from the 2017 to 2023 classes. I say you cannot find any 4 year slot from 1998-2016 where they would rank up there with the very special top players. As discussed earlier, we all can acknowledge there have been several weak senior classes, but, in the past, and unlike today, they were usually surrounded by talent full years so that every year from 1998-2016 featured at least one, and quite often multiple, all time greats.....and don't tell me we only knew they were great b/c of their post graduate years in the WNBA. The players, that we all know, were earmarked for greatness early in their college careers. Please tell me just one younger player now (6 years worth of classes), who you can confidently predict is heading for the top.


root_thing



Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 4701
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 5:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Volleyball has always existed as a sport competing with basketball for athletes. What proof is there that we're losing more players to volleyball now than before? And since colleges are recruiting foreign basketball players much more actively than in previous years, wouldn't that offset -- maybe more than offset -- the loss to volleyball?

Generally speaking, the assumption in most sports is that the modern-day athlete is bigger, stronger, faster than athletes of prior eras. Even in sports where they aren't getting bigger -- like figure skating -- competitors are more skilled. The bar is being set higher, training techniques are getting better, new equipment that measures and aids performance has been invented, knowledge of nutrition and dietary practices have improved. Arguing that women's basketball is regressing is counter-intuitive. The burden of proof is on those making the contrarian argument. However, all I'm hearing so far is a lot of unsubstantiated claims and subjective opinion. It's got that nostalgia and grumpy old man vibe. Razz



_________________
Even now by the gate with your long hair blowing
And the colors of the day that lie along your arms
You must barter your life to make sure you are living
And the crowd that has come
You give them the colors
And the bells and wind and the dream
canadaball



Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 332



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 5:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

root_thing wrote:
Volleyball has always existed as a sport competing with basketball for athletes. What proof is there that we're losing more players to volleyball now than before? And since colleges are recruiting foreign basketball players much more actively than in previous years, wouldn't that offset -- maybe more than offset -- the loss to volleyball?

Generally speaking, the assumption in most sports is that the modern-day athlete is bigger, stronger, faster than athletes of prior eras. Even in sports where they aren't getting bigger -- like figure skating -- competitors are more skilled. The bar is being set higher, training techniques are getting better, new equipment that measures and aids performance has been invented, knowledge of nutrition and dietary practices have improved. Arguing that women's basketball is regressing is counter-intuitive. The burden of proof is on those making the contrarian argument. However, all I'm hearing so far is a lot of unsubstantiated claims and subjective opinion. It's got that nostalgia and grumpy old man vibe. Razz



Open your eyes...Obviously now opinion is involved....but please name me one player in classes 1917-1923 (that is a 6 year period with thousands of players) who is of the quality of so many Hall of Famers like Swoopes, Leslie, Parker, DelaD, DT, Griner, Catchings, Maya, Fowles, Stewie and on and on.


Luuuc



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18992



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 5:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

canadaball wrote:
please name me one player in classes 1917-1923 (that is a 6 year period with thousands of players) who is of the quality of so many Hall of Famers like Swoopes, Leslie, Parker, DelaD, DT, Griner, Catchings, Maya, Fowles, Stewie and on and on.

I couldn't name you one player from that period period, let alone a good one.



_________________
Seems rike no one takes me serirousreee
root_thing



Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 4701
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 8:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Luuuc wrote:
canadaball wrote:
please name me one player in classes 1917-1923 (that is a 6 year period with thousands of players) who is of the quality of so many Hall of Famers like Swoopes, Leslie, Parker, DelaD, DT, Griner, Catchings, Maya, Fowles, Stewie and on and on.

I couldn't name you one player from that period period, let alone a good one.


I knew some of these people were old, but not that old! Shocked Wink

Even without the typos, it's absurd to use 20-20 hindsight to compare all-time greats with players who are only beginning their careers or haven't graduated college yet. Anybody we name, you're (canadaball, not Luuuc) going to say there's no way they are as impressive as a bunch of hall-of-famers which is, of course, true by definition. Duh. It's a debating cheap trick and you know it.



_________________
Even now by the gate with your long hair blowing
And the colors of the day that lie along your arms
You must barter your life to make sure you are living
And the crowd that has come
You give them the colors
And the bells and wind and the dream
canadaball



Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 332



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 8:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

root_thing wrote:
Luuuc wrote:
canadaball wrote:
please name me one player in classes 1917-1923 (that is a 6 year period with thousands of players) who is of the quality of so many Hall of Famers like Swoopes, Leslie, Parker, DelaD, DT, Griner, Catchings, Maya, Fowles, Stewie and on and on.

I couldn't name you one player from that period period, let alone a good one.


I knew some of these people were old, but not that old! Shocked Wink

Even without the typos, it's absurd to use 20-20 hindsight to compare all-time greats with players who are only beginning their careers or haven't graduated college yet. Anybody we name, you're going to say there's no way they are as impressive as a bunch of hall-of-famers which is, of course, true by definition. Duh. It's a debating cheap trick and you know it.



. No tricks here; You should reread the thread. I have specifically , and consistently, stated that the future all time Mount Rushmore types were obvious from early in their college careers; in fact, as I noted, that is what makes women's basketball a bit different. Anyone could see pretty quickly that DT, Parker, Maya, Griner et al were very special. Sorry, but I see none of that special greatness in the 2017-23 classes. Plight, for example, brought up Angel's (sure Hall of Famer, but, like Augustus, not quite ready for Mt. Rushmore) obscure freshmen year, but I noted that by early in her 2nd year at Louisville, the super talent was obvious. Bird's injury shortened rookie season at UConn was also mentioned, but her sophomore year was outstanding.




Last edited by canadaball on 03/06/19 8:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
root_thing



Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 4701
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 8:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

canadaball wrote:
root_thing wrote:
Luuuc wrote:
canadaball wrote:
please name me one player in classes 1917-1923 (that is a 6 year period with thousands of players) who is of the quality of so many Hall of Famers like Swoopes, Leslie, Parker, DelaD, DT, Griner, Catchings, Maya, Fowles, Stewie and on and on.

I couldn't name you one player from that period period, let alone a good one.


I knew some of these people were old, but not that old! Shocked Wink

Even without the typos, it's absurd to use 20-20 hindsight to compare all-time greats with players who are only beginning their careers or haven't graduated college yet. Anybody we name, you're going to say there's no way they are as impressive as a bunch of hall-of-famers which is, of course, true by definition. Duh. It's a debating cheap trick and you know it.



. No tricks here; I have specifically , and consistently, stated that the future all time Mount Rushmore types were obvious from early in their college careers; in fact, as I noted, that is what makes women's basketball a bit different. Anyone could see pretty quickly that DT, Parker, Maya, Griner et al were very special. Sorry, but I see none of that special greatness in the 2017-23 classes.


Prove to me that these players were "obvious" Mount Rushmore types from early in their college careers. You repeating it over and over again still doesn't give it factual weight.



_________________
Even now by the gate with your long hair blowing
And the colors of the day that lie along your arms
You must barter your life to make sure you are living
And the crowd that has come
You give them the colors
And the bells and wind and the dream
canadaball



Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 332



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/19 8:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

root_thing wrote:
canadaball wrote:
root_thing wrote:
Luuuc wrote:
canadaball wrote:
please name me one player in classes 1917-1923 (that is a 6 year period with thousands of players) who is of the quality of so many Hall of Famers like Swoopes, Leslie, Parker, DelaD, DT, Griner, Catchings, Maya, Fowles, Stewie and on and on.

I couldn't name you one player from that period period, let alone a good one.


I knew some of these people were old, but not that old! Shocked Wink

Even without the typos, it's absurd to use 20-20 hindsight to compare all-time greats with players who are only beginning their careers or haven't graduated college yet. Anybody we name, you're going to say there's no way they are as impressive as a bunch of hall-of-famers which is, of course, true by definition. Duh. It's a debating cheap trick and you know it.



. No tricks here; I have specifically , and consistently, stated that the future all time Mount Rushmore types were obvious from early in their college careers; in fact, as I noted, that is what makes women's basketball a bit different. Anyone could see pretty quickly that DT, Parker, Maya, Griner et al were very special. Sorry, but I see none of that special greatness in the 2017-23 classes.


Prove to me that these players were "obvious" Mount Rushmore types from early in their college careers. You repeating it over and over again still doesn't give it factual weight.


I guess you have not seen players like Catchings, DT, Maya etc. while they were in college. Watching great players is not about "facts"; their talent speaks for itself, but you must have seen them to understand. Their play in the W just amplified the collegiate greatness.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin