[Favre4Ever]

Phailadelphia, on 24 June 2012 - 03:06 AM, said:

No not really. Through the first 3 rounds he was shooting 48%. That's crazy good efficiency.

Doesn't the seesaw get old though?

I think I would rather have somebody who doesn't have the same ceiling as Westbrook, but is instead consistently good, over a guy who is so up and down.

[BwareDWare94]

Favre4Ever, on 24 June 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

Doesn't the seesaw get old though?

I think I would rather have somebody who doesn't have the same ceiling as Westbrook, but is instead consistently good, over a guy who is so up and down.

You can't tell Phail that Westbrook isn't consistently good. He'll just reply as if you don't know how to watch and evaluate basketball players.

[Phailadelphia]

Favre4Ever, on 24 June 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

Doesn't the seesaw get old though?

I think I would rather have somebody who doesn't have the same ceiling as Westbrook, but is instead consistently good, over a guy who is so up and down.

Of course it does, but you have to keep in mind he's 23 years old and is nowhere near his prime. He came into the league as a very raw product. No one thought he'd be more than a defensive role player. Give him another 2-3 years. He's too young to receive the criticism he gets.

[Phailadelphia]

BwareDWare94, on 24 June 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

You can't tell Phail that Westbrook isn't consistently good. He'll just reply as if you don't know how to watch and evaluate basketball players.

Well, I've watched at least 275+ Thunder games and the national NBA sports media agrees with me so I'm pretty confident I'm in the right.