going back to Geoff's original question

by Spesh , Los Angeles, Saturday, June 06, 2009, 16:43 (6262 days ago) @ BPH

I think 2005 had more talent at the top, and I think the 2009 team has more talent at the bottom.

It's certainly a tough question. I just think the '05 team's talent differential at the top is worth more than the '09 team's talent differential at the bottom.

locked

323 views

Complete thread:

Geoff posed an interesting question over on NDN - Jay, 2009-06-05, 09:58
- this is what I wrote about the pre-2005 team - Pat, 2009-06-08, 09:36
- Yes and no - Spesh, 2009-06-05, 12:49
  - My post was based on choosing an entire roster - Geoff, 2009-06-06, 07:19
    - do I have to take Minter? - Spesh, 2009-06-06, 07:40
      - I just don't understand this viewpoint - BPH, 2009-06-06, 16:11
        
        going back to Geoff's original question - Spesh, 2009-06-06, 16:43
        
        I guess I don't agree with the first part - BPH, 2009-06-06, 18:18
        
        my take - Spesh, 2009-06-06, 22:11
        
        One thing about Mays - ReginaldVelJohnson, 2009-06-07, 19:26
        
        true - Spesh, 2009-06-08, 06:00
      - No, and neither would I - Geoff, 2009-06-06, 09:13
        
        Al Golden? - Spesh, 2009-06-06, 10:27
- Raw talent, yes. - ReginaldVelJohnson, 2009-06-05, 10:59
  - Even the position groups you mentioned are debatable... - BPH, 2009-06-05, 11:20
    - Clausen equal to Quinn's yr in 2005? - JD in Portland, 2009-06-05, 21:04
      - Equal going into the season, yes - BPH, 2009-06-06, 00:52
        
        maybe so, I hope you are right - JD in Portland, 2009-06-06, 11:42
        
        Well said. - FunkDoctorSpock, 2009-06-06, 07:31
    - Very true. - ReginaldVelJohnson, 2009-06-05, 11:42
- Yes. - FunkDoctorSpock, 2009-06-05, 10:43
  - Agree with Funk, and further... - scriptcomesfirst, 2009-06-08, 07:06

the Polo Grounds

going back to Geoff's original question