What about Shawn Kemp? After the lockout, he came back and was overweight and was never the same. Also, Chris Webber. He was a beast, don't get me wrong, but could never acheive what was expected of him in the playoffs
Steve Francis was very exciting to watch and had a ton of heart, but what he gave you was what you got. He was an inefficient shoot-first point guard, and players like that (Marbury, Arenas, Iverson) are hard to become great if there isn't a perfect storm for them. The last team in recent memory with a player remotely close to those types of players that won the championship were the Spurs with Tony Parker; he was in a great system with a great coach and a HOF player in Duncan.
Iverson was a great player, and a 1st-ballot HOF. Arenas was a great player, and an annual all-nba selection before his injuries. Marbury was just a selfish and greedy b*stard, and that overtook his talent. You also forgot Chauncey Billups, who's a shoot-first PG. And he's been very successful. We have plenty of shoot-fire PG in today's game who are also inefficient (Rose/Westbrook), but they have made their team better. It's not about position, but about impact. Steve Francis was an all-star. He just wasn't as good as an Iverson or Rose to be impactful with the style he plays. People today are so caught up in "position" and what a player should do at their "position." Should we criticize Dirk for not rebounding and defense b/c he's a PF? Should we criticize Lebron James for not leaving the playmaking duties to his Mike Bibby/Chalmers? Is Tim Duncan a PF or a C? Ridiculous argument that comes up all the time on this board.
You could say that about any player just about, even more so with the opposite of that. When was the last time a high assist, pass first point guard won an NBA championship as the best player on the team? Most players are good enough to win by themselves, not even the greatest players.
VC should've stayed in Toronto. The "Air Canada" Center was the perfect name for his home court... being that he jumped so high on dunks.
I know not many are fond of Scottie Pippen on this board but I always wondered how he would have done without Jordan for a longer period of time in his "prime years". In the 93-94 season without Jordan, His numbers were mostly career highs and the bulls as a team were only 2 games worse than the previous years championship team.
VC was overrated in his prime. He was soft, a mediocre defender and was more hype than substance. A legitimate all star at his peak, but not on par with Kobe or TMAC. Dude was mentally weak and his teammates couldn't count on him.
Not to mention the supposed story of stuff being injected into his knees... Neither Rose or Westbrook make their teams better. Their teams were already good, they just carried the scoring (and failed at that in the playoffs...) when nobody else was brave enough to shoot. People DO criticize Dirk for not being a rebounding machine at his size, especially when talks of all time rankings come up.
What???? Now, I have criticized Rose a ton and doesn't believe he deserved the MVP, but what??? Unless you replace a Chris Paul or Deron Williams on those teams (just those 2 players at that position), anybody else wouldn't make those teams better than what those 2 guys did. And do you know how ironic it is that Dirk won his championship the year he rebounded the least (8.1rpg-lowest of his playoff career), and defended the least (Dallas had to play zone to win a ring)? But yet, last playoff run was his best scoring run (counting over 4 games), and clutchest run. And now his ranking among the all-time PFs is higher than it has ever been. In the NBA, it's not about position. It's about what you can do at that position. Again, you wouldn't want your SF or SG to be playmakers and lead the team in assists if they have that capability? You don't want Lebron James to create plays, but rather Chalmers, the guy who plays PG? With your logic, you're basically restricting players to their positions. In today's NBA, the best players are way too good to restrict them as they are much better all-around players, even the PGs (they can score, rebound, shoot...). Derrick Rose: 25, 4, 8 on 45% fg Westbrook: 23, 5, 9 on 44% fg Those are what you called superstar production. Or is that too superficial for you? word to Cxbobby
I wonder what version of the nba people watch sometimes. Chicago was completely dependent on Rose. He was like Isiah Thomas with more athleticism.
Although they are dependent on him offensively (although that's by design b/c Deng proved to be more than an adequate 15-17ppg scorer and Thibs didn't know how to utilize Boozer with the P&R), the Bulls are dominant b/c they dominate on the boards and defense, something they don't need Rose very much as they play even better defense and rebounding with him out. But still, for him to say Rose doesn't make the Bulls better for what he does on offense is absurd.
Injury edition: 1) Ralph Sampson 2) Yao Ming 3) Grant Hill Death edition 1) Len Bias 2) Drazen Petrovic 3) ???
Yao - what could have been x a million!!! Grant Hill - I remember those Detroit v Miami games and how many he would take on Zo any chance he could. Plus how smooth he looks collecting triple doubles. Penny - This guy had an awesome 95 Finals series! He can post-up, drive/dish/finish, shoot from the perimeter, wiry strong, quick first step...I thought he and Shaq were going to collect rings like trading cards.
I completely disagree, you realize Chicago had the best record right, most of all they only have one true star player. "They just carried the scoring load," So basically, Rose and Westbrook are one dimensional scorers, even though both are among the best playmakers and even passers in the league. Do you realize both player are not even 24, yet and have only complete their 3rd season at one of the hardest positions in the league. If you really are in tune or analyze NBA history compare their 3rd seasons with some of the other great point guards out there, then you might somewhat surprised to find out that these two have some of the best starts ever for point guards. What exactly are these two players doing wrong outside of maybe shot selection, which can always be an issue for any young player? Yes, Rose did have Carlos Boozer and Joakim Noah, but let's get real in that neither one is that much of gamebreaker, while both missed alot of time this year. As far as games missed, Boozer only appeared in 59 games, while Noah only suited up for 48 games. Yet, the Bulls magically reached 62 victories, because of their wonderful supporting cast of Luol Deng, Kyle Korver, C.J. Watson, Omar Asik, and Ronnie Brewer. It's ridiculous to insinuate it's Rose's fault, when his teammates cannot capitalize on opportunities he is giving them by scoring in boatloads or setting them up for assist and easier baskets. The Bulls would barely win 40 games without Rose. Russell Westbrook was one of the biggest reasons the Thunder almost took the Championship Lakers to game 7. He's the real playmaker for OKC, not Durant who is truly a one-dimensional scorer. If you take him out of his scoring rhythm, he can be almost a non-factor in a game. Westbrook on the other hand, maybe one of the best playmakers in the game and rising. He can make things happen beyond scoring. He can single-handily run offense, while being a player who is capable of being an explosive scorer or an high-assist facilitator. You are going to be hard press to find alot of point guards who are doing as well as Westbrook and Rose in their first three seasons.
