it matters on ur opinion, personally i think affalo is the best all-around player but tucker is defintely better in scoring
2007-03-22 09:06:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Zachp94 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, in all honesty, Tucker scores more points than Afflalo but Afflalo is a better defender. Both players are adept passers and good team leaders but when it comes down to it you do not decide the player of the year by stats alone. It is based on the ability to come through when your team needs you and last weekend proved to me Tucker's inability to get it done for his team and Afflalo, despite his struggles throughout the game against IU, came through when the game was on the line. Tucker, missed several free throws in the Wisconsin game and when the game is decided by 7 or less points, free throws are important. Afflalo made 4 out of 4 late in the game with IU making a run and tightening the game. Now thats big time. NBA-wise, Afflalo is a better prospect. Tucker is an undersized big man and Afflalo can get it done at the 2 on both offense and defense. On the collegiate level, Afflalo has shown the ability to take over games with his jump shot and with his defense. As UCLA goes so does Afflalo. Same with Wisconsin and Tucker. UCLA is deeper (Collison, Ship Mbate Moute) than Wisconsin therefore Tucker had to shoulder the load all season and has gotten the publicity for player of the year. Afflalo though is a big time player and better.
2007-03-22 09:31:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by ratman 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Afflalo is the better over all player, who can up his game when his team needs him too. Case in point, against Kansas, when they needed to win to advance he had a great game. Tucker on the other hand was sitting at home, because he could not get the job done.
2007-03-26 09:04:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by killerbee213 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Arron Afflalo is the better player. He has a sweet jump shot, and there is no place in the NBA for a 6 foot 5 post up guy. Tucker is overrated.
2007-03-22 09:56:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by rathesungod88 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
i think Afflalo because of his defensive abilities. Both are pretty good scorers (i think Tucker has a slight advantage there) but Afflalo is more clutch than Tucker so it's pretty even in that part.
Defensively Afflalo is a lock down defender and he can help his team even when he has an off-shooting night.
Nickster
2007-03-22 09:09:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Nickster 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
it depends on what the team needs that gets them or has them. they are totally different types of players. if you needed a scorer who could knock down any shot the tucker is your man but if you need an all around player then afflalo would be the one
2007-03-22 09:13:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by James 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Aaron Afflalo, no question i have seen alot of pac-10 basketball and this guy may be the most clutch player in the nation.Not to mention he is a superior defender. although tucker can score very well he hasnt prove he can do it in a big game.
2007-03-22 09:08:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by brian 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Alando Tucker. he is putting up huge numbers, leading a top 10 team, and playing a very difficult schedule
By the way, he isnt even close to the most clutch player in the nation. i would probably have to say aaron brooks on that one. he had 2 game winning shots in a row. The pac 10 is also one of the weaker major conferences They suck. the hardest they have to play is oregon and USC, who are top 25 teams, and then its an easy schedule the rest of the way
2007-03-22 09:10:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
i think that tucker, on offense is just plain nasty, nto to say affalo isnt, but tucker can just create a lot more options for himself and for his teammates on offense. affalo does a lot of this too, but not as much as tucker.
but defensively is where the edge is given to affalo, he just shuts guys down a lot.
i like watching tucker more, but affalo is who i want on my team.
2007-03-22 09:08:56
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
i like tucker better
2007-03-22 09:17:20
·
answer #10
·
answered by Pistonsfan101 5
·
1⤊
0⤋