Does anyone think its nonsense to say a rookie has to prove through a whole season how good they are before ranking them top 5 at there position. Regardless if you're personal opinion is that the player is or isn't, is it really none sense to say " Hey this rookie is good and seems to have a bright future but I'm not ranking this guy top 5 until he does it for the whole season". Then for your reasoning you take into account only 20 games have been played, missing a allstar from last year, and the rookie hasn't even played a college season worth of games yet and how we all know teams tend to change up there defenses once they learn about the player.
So does it make sense to wait till the season is over before you think the guy is top 5 at his position or does it make no sense at all and its ridiculous to say you wanna wait till the end of the season.
As an example how many people had Brandon Jennings as one of the best point guards in the league after 15-20 games?
I think it makes sense to wait.
In my opinion to be a "Top ___" player at a position you need to show consistency. Heck i dont even like putting players in those top 5 or 10 list until thay have played at a consistently good level for at least 2 or 3 seasons.
I wish i was a "vet" like stanford hoops....so damn intelligent.
I think we should wait 3 more years on Lebron, clearly, he hasnt played 10 yet how can we say hes great?
Now to be serious, the differences between Brandon Jennings last year and Griffin this year are off the charts.
Jennings had 1 great game. And was other wise, solid. He is a solid PG. No one actually thought he was a top 5 pg cuz he dropped double nickels on the warriors.
Griffin has been consistant, and the PF position is pretty weak right now. Bosh has looked soft. Griffin is clearly a better rebounder than Bosh. I never made an argument about Griffin without putting a disclaimer *barring injuries*. If Griffin doesnt get injured, i think he is absolutely a top 5 PF in this league. And start reading at the 3rd paragraph of this link if you think Im alone on this one:
But if a rookie is doing it 20 games into the season you pretty much have a good idea of what he is going to do the whole season baring injury or a terrible slump but with that being said I can't put a rookie in a top five of any position unless it's center too many proven vets at every positions
Okay, it really doesnt matter how many damn games hes played...OK!? What matters is that hes averaging 21 and 11 and hes beasting up on the boards and down low and nobody can gaurd him and that hes playing at the caliber of a top 5 pf in the game. Theres not even a question, hes playing BETTER than milsap and duncan and kg and maybe even amare. At this point in time, he is playing like a top 5 pf in the game. so shut up about how many games hes played, because its irrelivant.
I can't say that he is playing better than Amare and Milsap may have him on some things but Blake is putting up numbers. I think he is a top 10 and possilby top 5 pf. He has all the talent and even though this is his rookie year, He was actually around the NBA for a whole year before he played. You can learn a lot of things without being physically capable. I think it would be better to wait because he still has holes in his game but next year with more improvement at this rate he could be a top 3 pf easy. His passing is pretty good, his rebounding is sick, He can score at will down low, He can eve handle the rock pretty well. He hustles on D and gets blocks. I think unlike Jennings who shot a low percentage, Blake is solid and will get better plus he has only begun to tap into his vast potential. I think Blake is more than just hype but I understand why some may want to wait but you will be waiting to say the same thing many are saying now so why wait.
I've said it once, I'll say it again. Plenty of rookies or any player for that matter can have great games for 5-10 games, and then really suck the next few because they play someone on the same level or a higher level. The great players have great games consistently no matter what the competition.
Example Tyreke Evans can average 20, 5, 5 for 10-15 games and then the next night when he plays against someone like Kobe or Dwade and get 10, 5, 2. But Blake Griffin can average a double double for 10-15 games and then the next night against someone like Tim Duncan, Big Al, KG, or any great 4, he still gets a double double. Who's the better player. Everyone knows that, Blake Griffin
Yeah you have to wait. The rookie wall is definitely a factor. Except on the rarest occasions when you have a Wilt Chamberlain or Shaq type of guy who is on a whole nother planet physically.