no. grant hill's brief 4 year stretch as a top 3-4 player was too phenomenal; you had to watch him back then to know how dominant he was. he was like lebron james before lebron james. and he's still a darn good player now.
You forget how good Grant Hill was in his years with Detroit. He was a top five player. Boozer has never even been a top 15 player.
Considering that Brand and Hill both had catastrophic, career-altering injuries that greatly changed their legacies, I'd say it's a little premature to speculate about what the rest of Boozer's career is going to look like. (also, off topic, but LOL at the fact that with Mullin's induction, Christian Laettner is the only Dream Teamer not in the hall of fame)
injuries are part of the game. I know he had a great early career. I watched it. Boozer was the third guy drafted on his Duke team.... lol crazy. yah, Boozer has had better luck with injuries... but neither Hill or Brand will be in the hall of fame. I think Boozer at least has a chance at it?
are you foreseeing him winning 2-3 rings until he retires? if that happens, then he will make the HOF. if not, no chance
the way the Bulls are playing now, and how young there are.... and having D. Rose on his team... 2-3 rings is not out of the question? Wouldn't you agree? Don't get me wrong. Grant Hill "at his best" blows him out of the water. But I'm talking entire NBA career. Shaq was the most dominant center of all time, during a short period of time. But that does not make im the best center of all time.
The point is, Boozer could blow his ACL tomorrow, and before they had their respective injuries, Brand and Hill were both better players than Boozer. It's too early. And he would have to be considerably better in his thirties to even sniff the hall. He's only at around 9700 points and 5700 boards for his career, has only made one all-nba team (3rd) and two all star teams. And he's been injury prone.
there are the heat/thunder rising so the bulls have a lot of challenge. secondly, shaq was not dominant for a "short period" of time. he was dominant for more than a decade. he's a top 5 center (or higher depending on who you ask) of all time. thirdly, grant hill will be considered a better player than boozer period. boozer may have a better CAREER b/c of longevity, but i think the majority of basketball heads will consider grant hill a better player. no one will remember boozer 20 years from now. i'm sure a lot of people will still remember grant hill.
i think a lot of people will remember Hill from his fantastic college game, and from an early NBA great career. You have to measure the entire career tho. The majority of his career he was not elite. I'm not saying Boozer is either. During Shaq's LA days, i honestly think he was more dominant than any big-man in history.
Weird how misfortune (Hill, Brand) seem to strike one school more than any other. Has there ever been a superstar out of Duke to have a successful career in the NBA? (Please, do not say Battier. As much as he impacts a game, he is far from a superstar). Is there some type of a curse?
No idea how that is, at all, relevant. BUT Shaq dominated an era in which there were no other dominant bigs. Hes the best of the worse, so what?
how is it not relevant??? Somebody was talking about how relevant grant hill was for a few years, and later not so much.. Yes he is from Duke to it's a direct comparrison. I was just saying Shaq was arguably the most dominant player at one time. But not the best over a career.
