#158415
AvatarAvatar
Scott42444
Participant

I am with you here. I always thought that the comparisons weren’t based on what the player is now. I always thought that if it says, Blake Griffin/Karl Malone the comparison is that with Griffin’s work ethic he has the physical tools to become a similar player as Karl Malone a few years into his career. I think the Boozer comparison is valid as well as far as what Boozer’s game is at it’s peak will be comparable to what Blake Griffin’s game will be at it’s peak.

Is that not the way we should look at it? I mean, how can you compare any rookie to the NBA’s all-time leading scorer? That just doesn’t make sense to me. I think that if you take Blake Griffin in his prime, assuming that he develops the way people feel he is capable, you could put him on the 1997 Jazz and he could take the role of Karl Malone without it being the end of the world for the Jazz. Probably not, but that is his absolute peak, which he actually CAN achieve if everything goes well.

0