The W
Views: 97872065
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
1.8.14 0703
The W - Basketball - Yao vs Amare
This thread has 10 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(1424 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (2 total)
albert44
Italian








Since: 12.2.02
From: houston , TX

Since last post: 3314 days
Last activity: 3046 days
#1 Posted on
Who's had the better rookie season-
Yao or Amare?
There stats are closer than one might think,
although Yao has posted his stats with fewer
minutes played per game, and he's already
getting the double team treatment.
From what little i've seen of Amare i'm guessing
he's benefitting from the double teams Marbury has
to pass out of.




albert44
Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1186 days
Last activity: 983 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Hard to say. I think that Amare will be the better player in the longrun, but then again I thought that Yao wasn't going to be that good either.

(edited by Grimis on 16.1.03 0841)


"Prsent day writers, especially of the Socilaist school of thought- base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts. People in general- with the exception of the writer himself- from the first group. The writer, all alone, forms the second and most impportant group. Surely ths is the weirderst and most conceited notion that ever entered a human brain!"
- Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850
Pages: 1Thread ahead: SlamBall! renewed
Next thread: Mavs vs Kings tonight
Previous thread: Help me out...
(1424 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Dallas Mavericks' point guard Jason Kidd recorded his 9,888th career assist in the Mavs' game against the Portland Trail Blazers on Wednesday night, passing Hall-of-Famer Oscar Robertson for fourth on the NBA's all-time career assist list.
The W - Basketball - Yao vs AmareRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.132 seconds.