Quote:
Originally Posted by st8ofmind  Did I claim that was the end all and be all?
Yep, C$ was so dynamic that there aren't videos of it.
All I'm saying is Billups is a better player, Stuckey is more of a specimen.
Stuckey can go off 1 or 2 feet, Billups almost always goes off two.
Chauncey is stronger now, by far, but Stuckey is put together like a brick house for a underclassmen rook. |
Don't get all twisted up with the meaningless stuff.
By your lack of response I would have to assume that fact #1 being established here is that you didn't personally see much of Chauncey before he was a Piston.
That alone sort of disqualifies you from making the comparison of a current Rodney to a young Chauncey that you didn't see play.
Quote:
|
Yep, C$ was so dynamic that there aren't videos of it.
|
There's alot of good stuff from the early and mid 90's that isn't on YouTube. It's a far cry from today when everything hits the net. I don't see any point being made there, except possibly a solidification of fact#1.
Quote:
|
All I'm saying is Billups is a better player, Stuckey is more of a specimen.
|
actually, what you said was
Quote:
|
And Stuckey has much better physical tools than Chauncey does/did.
|
which, after I questioned the "much better" and the "did" part, you then defined as
Quote:
height, quickness, explosion, speed, strength, vert, etc...
What am I missing?
|
So in light of what originally transpired I don't feel that this
Quote:
|
All I'm saying is Billups is a better player, Stuckey is more of a specimen.
|
Was really
all you were saying
If you want to back off of the "much better" stuff, then fine. But don't change the story. It's all on the same page for petes sake.