As you all may have heard, Charles Barkley wants to play next year. This news has made many Barkley fans, including me, happy. It also motivated me to update my Charles Barkley website. I have added a few articles on the home page, a guestbook and a message board. Don't forget to sign my guestbook and post your thoughts in my message board. I look forward to your thoughts on my Charles Barkley website. My website address: http://www.geocities.com/dion404/DionJ.html ------------------
No offense, but if chuck comes back , these young whipper snappers are gonna run circles around him no matter what! Yes, he was a good, if not a great player in his prime, but cmon! You know when you're really hungry and they say "Your eyes are bigger than your stomach"? Well, Chucks "ego is bigger than his ability" at this point and from here on out. Father time rules in this one... ------------------ Whatever you want to do, you have to do something else first.
Ok, let me fantasize a bit (I know, it won't happen this way, but would it be possible?): How about the Rockets a) renouncing the rights to Hakeem b) signing Webber c) re-signing Hakeem for the minimum d) signing Barkley for the minimum e) re-signing Bullard for the minimum There would be no space on the roster for Taylor if Webber signs. I assume that Anderson's contract still runs another year if he does not opt out (?). I wish the Rockets could get rid of Walt Williams, Cato and Rogers (good heart, but too inconsistent and injury-prone) somehow. Then the roster could look similar to this: PG: Francis (40 min.), Norris (8) SG: Mobley (38), Anderson (10) SF: Anderson (20), Langhi (12), Thomas (10), Bullard (6) PF: Webber (24), Barkley (24) C: Hakeem (20), Webber (16), Draft Pick (trade up somehow) (12), Collier (IR) Total average minutes: Francis 40 Webber 40 Mobley 38 Anderson 30 Barkley 24 Hakeem 20 Draft Pick (C) 12 Langhi 12 Thomas 10 Norris 8 Bullard 6 If you have Webber, Hakeem and Barkley would not need to play more than 20 minutes. Keep in mind that either Hakeem or Barkley or both would be injured most of the season and Webber would probably miss at least 15 games as well (history indicates that). Therefore, there should still be enough minutes for everyone to go around. At this stage in their careers, Hakeem and Barkley might be willing to play for the minimum if Webber is here, to go for one final chance to get a ring. The draft pick should be a shot blocker with potential. Anderson and Hakeem could focus almost exclusively on defense. Barkley would have to focus on rebounding and putbacks, not on scoring and there should not be many plays designed for him. I see at least a 1-2 % chance of this happening .
I hope Barkley does not try to come back. There is no way the Rockets would want him back if he did. Barkley is a horrible one on one defensive player, and this team needs to find a defensive stopper at the 4. BTW, the idea that Barkley could ever lead the league in rebounds at his age is pure fantasy. This is not due to his ability, but rather his inability to stay healthy, and recover from inevitable injuries. ------------------ Bob Rainey is my hero!
Ahhh...back to the old CB4 bashing. The round mound could lose a leg and still outrebound anyone in the league...not to mention score on them and pass better than them. Detractors, shut your silly pie holes!!! ------------------
This could be the greatest thing to ever happen to Mobley. All the Barkley bashers will finally leave cat alone! Come back Chuckster!
Give me a break, these young guys will run circles around Barkley? The guy was outplaying Portland's front line on brains alone! I'd take Barkley over most of these PFs, because Barkley could pace himself, rebound, and not expend all that energy. I'd take Barkley over any of these "young whipper snappers". You mean you would take Cliff Robinson, Marcus Camby, Horace Grant and other PFs like that? Please! ------------------ "I have a scale at home and it only goes up so far, I love that scale!" - Charles Barkley TNT Studios
Do you guys like my Charles Barkley website? ------------------ [This message has been edited by DJ (edited March 19, 2001).]
