'The Thunder don't need Westbrook's scoring' - @GoddamnyacacProf

[CantStop]

reported @Goatpoacher for that sig.

 

[Goatpoacher]

reported @Goatpoacher for that sig.

Did you report OP as well ?

Or yourself for your own misleading signature?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

You gave the impression he was saying the THunder would be better off with Anthony Carter's corpse rather than Westbrook. Instead he's basically saying the thunder would be better with CP3, who is probably the best PG in the league?

Really, it's crazy to say the thunder would benefit from a cp3/westbrook swap?

Most importantly, you should have provided full context. Your post is misleading, period.

No I didn't. He's saying the Thunder don't need Westbrook's scoring because they have all these offensive weapons.

The question remains who are all these offensive weapons on the Thunder last season? Thabo? Fisher? Perkins?

No, those guys, Perkins and them, Thabo, they'd benefit from a guy setting them up for easy buckets. That's why Paul would be better for that squad than Russ.

He thinks that having Paul instead of Westbrook would have made them into legitimate contenders.

 

[CantStop]

No I didn't. He's saying the Thunder don't need Westbrook's scoring because they have all these offensive weapons.

The question remains who are all these offensive weapons on the Thunder last season? Thabo? Fisher? Perkins?

profasi is a fukking idiot. probably one of the dumbest posters on the site. doesnt even watch the nba other than the Lakers just to see them lose.

 

[Goatpoacher]

No I didn't. He's saying the Thunder don't need Westbrook's scoring because they have all these offensive weapons.

The question remains who are all these offensive weapons on the Thunder last season? Thabo? Fisher? Perkins?

Let's clarify who is contending what.

You believe and contend that it is Prof's belief and contention that the Thunder are better as currently constructed sans Russell Westbrook? In other words, in Prof's view, the team as of now, with Westbrook sidelined, is better then the team with Westbrook?

I don't see evidence of such a claim. The post you selectively quoted clearly had him talking about cp3 being a better fit. I'm not sure why you completely ignored the cp3 aspect of his post.

 

[Bilz]

I wonder how the Thunder would perform in a playoff series if Westbrook played but Durant was replaced with Derek Fisher.

The opposite apparently proved that Durant is a worthless idiot who can't lead a team so let's see how Westbrook does in the same conditions

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Let's clarify who is contending what.

You believe and contend that it is Prof's belief and contention that the Thunder are better as currently constructed sans Russell Westbrook? In other words, in Prof's view, the team as of now, with Westbrook sidelined, is better then the team with Westbrook?

I don't see evidence of such a claim. The post you selectively quoted clearly had him talking about cp3 being a better fit. I'm not sure why you completely ignored the cp3 aspect of his post.

No that's not what I believe at all, I took that part because he believes that a PG shouldn't be taking more shots/ or scoring more than Durant. That is the underlying point behind of all this, which I mentioned in the question.

My point was they'd be better replacing Westbrook with a real pg, not simply removing him.

If the Thunder had all these offensive weapons like he claimed, surely even without their starting PG they could've averaged more points than this -

Series against the Grizzlies (without Westbrook)

Ibaka: - 12.6 points on 37%
Perkins - 2.3 points on 16% (not to mention he averaged 23 minutes)
Sefolosha - 4.6 points on 37%
Fisher - 9.0 points on 40%
Martin - 14.1 points on 41%

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I wonder how the Thunder would perform in a playoff series if Westbrook played but Durant was replaced with Derek Fisher.

The opposite apparently proved that Durant is a worthless idiot who can't lead a team so let's see how Westbrook does in the same conditions

 

[Bilz]

Aren't you and Swagnificent the same poster?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Aren't you and Swagnificent the same poster?

No. What made you think some dumb shyt like that?

 

[Goatpoacher]

No that's not what I believe at all, I took that part because he believes that a PG shouldn't be taking more shots/ or scoring more than Durant. That is the underlying point behind of all this, which I mentioned in the question.

So, you don't believe Prof makes such a contention, yet you selectively quote him in a way that makes it appear he is saying precisely that?

Be a gentleman and edit your OP then? I don't like being misled and your OP is misleading.

 

[Bilz]

No. What made you think some dumb shyt like that?

Your posts are very similar

Anyway, your agendas are too strong to be taken seriously and you blatantly misuse stats to back up these agendas. First of all, Durant is a much more consistent scorer than Westbrook. If Westbrook outscores Durant, it means they BOTH went off and they probably won easily. If Durant outscores Westbrook it often means that Westbrook had a bad game. You ignore that and insist that the Thunder are better off with Westbrook being the main scorer. They're not. Theyre better when they both play well regardless of individual score totals.

Furthermore, you always dismiss all of the statistical evidence that shows that the Lakers have been better when Kobe scores less even though the evidence is much stronger than the evidence you are using in favor of Westbrook. Why? Because it doesn't fit your agenda.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

So, you don't believe Prof makes such a contention, yet you selectively quote him in a way that makes it appear he is saying precisely that?

Be a gentleman and edit your OP then? I don't like being misled and your OP is misleading.

If it wasn't a Kobe detractor , you wouldn't be in here . Either answer the question or KIM.

 

[Goatpoacher]

Somebody reading your thread title see's the following: "The THunder Don't need Westbrook's scoring" and you cite Goddamnyamanprof

THen you have a poll that reads as follows:
Is Profasi a clown for thinking this?

1. Yes but he can't help it, because he's an idiot
2. No, he's right this time but he's still an idiot

Then you begin with a misleading quotation from him, your quotation meaning something very different from what was actually stated.

This is execrable behavior.

If it wasn't a Kobe detractor , you wouldn't be in here . Either answer the question or KIM.

Prof can defend himself.

I'm asking you to defend yourself.

 

[Goatpoacher]

I appreciate the edit. Now, to answer your question, I'm of the opinion paul/durant would work slightly better then westbrook/durant. But i'm a cp3stan.