Gallinari or Chandler?
I am just wondering who you guys think is the better player for the Nuggets now and going forward?
Personally I am a Gallinari fan as I love the way he plays and his great outside stroke, but Chandler has a better all around game.
Both are no superstar players and never will be, which is exactly the problem for Denver. They have nice players, in Lawson, Chandler, Manimal, Galinari and heck, even McGee when his mind is straight, but no superstars and no potential superstars either. Will make the play-offs every year if they keep the team together (like ATL always did with Smith/Johnson/Horford) but they will never win it with their current make-up.
I believe Lawson has star potential, you don't need a superstar to win it all, a couple of stars maybe, but certainly not superstars
100% agreed Greek Baller. I think teams just need to establish an identity look at their current pieces and work around it. When I look at Denver I see a high energy team. When I look at both players styles of play as a fit with Denver and consider their contracts I'd probably roll with Chandler. Chandler is even a very capable 3 point shooter (Gallinari's best attribute) but honestly right now I'm of the opinion "why choose if you don't have to???".
Ty is an amazing Point, he does have some star potential. This is coming from a Laker fan.
I like Gallinari. I think he's a great player and all. But I LOVE chandler. I have always been high on Chandler. He's a guy that doesn't have to start, but can contribute like a starter. Big and long, can play off the ball, but is also a good one-on-one player. Plus he has the size, quickness, and strength to guard several positions. I think he has to be more valuable for the Nuggets even though Gallinari is a better shooter.
I believe that Denver would've beaten Golden State if they had a healthy Gallo. 2 of those games were lost because they couldn't make a 3 when it counted. The lack of a legitimate shooter truly hampered them. So while Chandler fits with their identity, Gallo gives them an edge that they desperately need.
Its funny No_Left because I actually believe that too. Going off the question of the forum topic I chose one, but I wouldn't choose if I didn't have to (which they don't).
I think the main thing they were missing with Gallo was that they compliment each other well. If you look at Chandler's stats he was horrible against GS. I highly doubt the Warriors SF's could've handled them both had Gallo been able to play.
I think it's unfair to compare the Nuggets to Atlanta/anyone who stays stuck in mediocrity, the Nuggets were nearly the 2 seed last year and looked like the 2nd best team towards the end of the year before Gallo's injury. Some of the Nuggets offseason mistakes and the fact that Ujiri gave basically everyone on the team 5 year contracts just a year or 2 ago (which was actually a big mistake imo) will probably lead to them starting to fall into mediocrity but I think they could turn it around with a few trades.
Lawsons playoff statline was 21.3, 3.3, and 8. Also with an impressive 2.2 turnover rate with 39 minutes. I think Lawson is a potential superstar if he was the focal point of the offense but it's much more balanced in Denver.
I'm a fan of both but Galo is the type of player that will sometimes win you games but can shoot you out of a game. I've always loved Chandlers toughness defensively and athleticism. Both players have shot under 46% in their careers. And to my surprise Chander has more shot attempts per game in his career. Neither will ever make an all-star team but are good 2-3rd options.
Personally I prefer Gallinari but I agree that Chandler is still a great player. It could be a transitional year for Denver this coming season with a rookie Coach and Gallo out injured, Iggy moved on but they will come back strong fairly quickly.
i think Gallinari is the better player and he can be an all star.has a good all around game and he's a 7 footer