This is akin to saying in (fill in the blank) year, George W. Bush enjoyed arguably his best year in the White House. Geno stunk every year of his career as did Bush.
Or how about this. In (fill in the blank) year, Carmine Abbatiello posted on the internets a reasoned, well supported argument concerning a subject that he vaguely understood.
In 2006 Lawrence's per game average was 7 points, 4 rebounds, 6 assists, and 1.25 pps. He shot 38 percent from the floor, and 37 percent from 3.
In 2006 Patterson's per game average was 10 points, 3 rebounds, 1 assist, and 1.05 pps. He shot 35 percent from the floor and 32 percent from three.
To his credit, Patterson - an alleged shooting guard - did manage to score 3 more points per game than PG Lawrence, totalling about 100 points more than GL over the course of the season. To score that field goal and a half more per game Patterson required 120 more shots than GL over the course of a season; in fact, AP missed over 200 shots that year, 30 more misses than Lawrence had attempts.
Other than that 3 point per game difference in their scoring averages, Patterson performed worse than Lawrence in every statistical category. And you claim that Lawrence "stunk." If Lawrence stunk and Patterson was worse, what does that make Patterson? Not to you - because we wouldn't be here if you didn't believe him to be one of the greats - but what word would a person of even normal intelligence use to describe something that's worse than "stunk"? I'll go with sucked one dimensional #$%^ing ass. Others can make their own assessments.