Isaiah Thomas went the fuck off....

puppylove_sugarsteel said:

Why couldn't he do that with any consistency as a dawg? Much better Pro than I thought he'd be. He was an average college baller. One could say he's much better PRO than Nate. Well, he just is.

average?

allpurpleallgold said:

I'd take college Nate over college Roy.

Interaesting call.

Freshman year - Nate, probably. Both missed half the season for different reasons.

Sophomore year - Nate, probably. Both were very good in their own ways. Nate's shot at OSU gives him the edge for me.

Junior year - Nate, definitely. Roy was a beast in the GAS before tearing the ligament, and had his moments after returning (the dunk at NC State, the block of Farmar), but he just missed too much time and was limited after his return. Nate was the flagship guy on the #1 seed.

Senior year - Nate didn't have one and Roy had the best single season of any Husky ever. He was the best player in America despite the media love affair with Redick and Ammo.

For me, the first two years were close that Roy's senior year easily trumps Robinson's advantage as a junior, but that's just me.

Both are all time greats. I thin kNate has gone from overrated to underrated in some ways.

dnc said:

allpurpleallgold said:

I'd take college Nate over college Roy.

Interaesting call.

Freshman year - Nate, probably. Both missed half the season for different reasons.

Sophomore year - Nate, probably. Both were very good in their own ways. Nate's shot at OSU gives him the edge for me.

Junior year - Nate, definitely. Roy was a beast in the GAS before tearing the ligament, and had his moments after returning (the dunk at NC State, the block of Farmar), but he just missed too much time and was limited after his return. Nate was the flagship guy on the #1 seed.

Senior year - Nate didn't have one and Roy had the best single season of any Husky ever. He was the best player in America despite the media love affair with Redick and Ammo.

For me, the first two years were close that Roy's senior year easily trumps Robinson's advantage as a junior, but that's just me.

Both are all time greats. I thin kNate has gone from overrated to underrated in some ways.

I think you lay out a good case for Roy. Although being the best player in America doesn't mean as much when your competition is Redick and your boy Morrison. I always view the who's the better player discussion as who would you take first for one game. There is something to be said for long term success blah blah blah. But if I need to win one game, there's just no way I'm taking Roy over Nate.

He_Needs_More_Time said:

allpurpleallgold said:

dnc said:

allpurpleallgold said:

I'd take college Nate over college Roy.

Interaesting call.

Freshman year - Nate, probably. Both missed half the season for different reasons.

Sophomore year - Nate, probably. Both were very good in their own ways. Nate's shot at OSU gives him the edge for me.

Junior year - Nate, definitely. Roy was a beast in the GAS before tearing the ligament, and had his moments after returning (the dunk at NC State, the block of Farmar), but he just missed too much time and was limited after his return. Nate was the flagship guy on the #1 seed.

Senior year - Nate didn't have one and Roy had the best single season of any Husky ever. He was the best player in America despite the media love affair with Redick and Ammo.

For me, the first two years were close that Roy's senior year easily trumps Robinson's advantage as a junior, but that's just me.

Both are all time greats. I thin kNate has gone from overrated to underrated in some ways.

I think you lay out a good case for Roy. Although being the best player in America doesn't mean as much when your competition is Redick and your boy Morrison. I always view the who's the better player discussion as who would you take first for one game. There is something to be said for long term success blah blah blah. But if I need to win one game, there's just no way I'm taking Roy over Nate.

I think that is the opposite myself. I think Nate had the better career(was better for longer) but Roy for one year and certainly for one year I'd take over anyone.

Roy also held back for the team his sophomore and junior year as UW had plenty of scorers. His senior year it was clearly his team and he showed everyone what he was capable of. Great mid range shooter, decent long range shooter, good post up moves, good passer, good rebounder for his size, great defender. He literally had no holes in his game his senior year.

I meant over the course of a season as long term success. You're right about Roy's game but I'd still take Nate and his holes.
































































Got.