look on the bright side, at least the Rocks didn't overpay Webber

When did he ever say that he wanted to play for the Rockets? I must have missed that. I do remember an upset Christina crying about how nobody pursued him on the market when he thought he was the sheeat...

If I remember correctly, he mentioned that he talked to Francis who told him something along the lines of Houston not being interested. I don't remember the exact details, though.

I don't think it's a silly standard when they both signed 6-7 year deals in the exact same off-season based on what their respective teams thought they were worth.

I'd rather pay $12MM for a 25/12 guy than $6MM for a 15/7 guy. No, the numbers aren't double, but a bunch of 15/7 guys aren't going to take you anywhere.

I'd rather take my chances on guys who haven't been there, than someone who's been there MANY times and failed EVERY time. Especially when I've got to pay that guy 100 million bucks and he's already been in the league 9 years. I prefer not to pin my future on that guy.

Did HE fail, or were his teams simply not good enough? Last year, they lost to the (by far) best team in the league. Is that really failing? How many years did it take before Hakeem won a title? 10? Should we have decided since he hadn't won, he never would?

 

well, thank god you weren't the rockets' GM in 1993, frustrated that olajuwon had been there MANY times and failed EVERY time. every player FAILS; winning championships in the NBA is rarely instaneous.

you look at SAC's postseason performance with webber, and it's progressing normally. years 1 and 2, they extended obviously better teams in round 1 to 5 games; year three, they finally won a first round series; this year, they climbed the round 2 hump... not really a lot to be ashamed of -- it's not as if they're #1 seeds losing to #8 seeds every year...

 

Do I think the Rockets were better off signing a healthy Mo Taylor over Chris Webber? Perhaps not for the first year or two, but for the longterm, yes.

What makes you think we'll be better with Mo over Webber in 3 or 4 or 5 years? We're likely going to be over the cap regardless w/ Francis, Mobley, and Griffin extensions, so saving that money doesn't really help us. Do you think Webber is on the decline?

 

Huh? Akeem went to the Finals in his SECOND year, leading his team to two wins over the '86 Celtics, a team regarded by many as the best team of all-time. In addition, he has always RAISED his level of play, win or lose, in the playoffs. Webber LOWERS his level of play, AND he loses -- until this year, so far, when he has a great deal of talent around him.

I wouldn't say winning one series in 3 years is a lot of progression, but...

This year the Kings aren't a team led by Webber, they're a team that includes Webber (Desert Scar has pointed this out in propping up the Kings' chances this year). As I pointed out earlier, they were 19-9 without him this year. I want my franchise guy to be the one whose shoulders I jump on in the crunch, and I still don't see Webber doing that right now.

 

His game is not just outside shots. The guy wouldn't be nearly as good as he is if that is all he could do. The analogy to Shaq is a bad one because Shaq can't dribble, so there is little reason he should try. Webber has good inside post moves, and an excellent jump hook that I have seen. It seems that, in most cases, going to that move would be more successful for him than shooting 18 footers most of the game. If he does not make the shot, he can probably draw a foul. But he rarely does this...I see it maybe twice a game. Okay, though, so what? That is his game, right? Shooting 20 footers is his game. Well, Mo Taylor shoots 20 footers at least as well, and I think better. I have said before, I now wish we had signed Webber. But I can certainly see where others would think it was not in the Rockets best interest.

It is true that Webber's style of play does seem to fit in well with the Kings offense...when he is shooting well. When he is not, it seems to hurt the Kings badly. This is partly why I think the Kings did so well when Webber was injured earlier this season. When he wasn't there, then OTHER players were taking 20 footers, and there are a lot more players on that team that can hit that shot with more regularity than him.

 

Absolutely I think he is on the decline. I think his best year was last year. In 3 years, I'm hoping that Griffin will be out-performing Webber, thus making us better.

 

Obviously the discussion is way over your head. How could having a worse player be better??? Long term, short term, any friggin term you want...I'll take the guy who is better. Take the Rocket glasses off for a second and admit that we would be a better team with Webber. We would be a better team this year, next year and in 4 years.

Not to mention that he gets you assists, blocks and steals as well

You guys keep saying 'wait until they play the Spurs or Lakers'...wake up people, those are the only 2 west conf teams to win it all since we did it....meaning that if you are going to judge a guy's talent by the # of times he has won a ring, then we had better trade Francis, Cat, Berkman, Bagwell, Oswalt, and David Carr to LA or San An and try to get Shaq or Duncan.

Funny how you guys sit here and say that Webber isnt the guy you want because HE fails in playoffs and he should be carrying his team etc etc etc....but you say in the same breath that the Kings are as good without him as they are with him...

Just out of curiosity, do you Webber haters feel the same way about Garnett? What if this was Kg we were talking about? Would we still be better off with Mo because of his Maravich like scoring ability?

 

Absolutely I think he is on the decline. I think his best year was last year. In 3 years, I'm hoping that Griffin will be out-performing Webber, thus making us better.

Well, that makes sense then. I don't think Webber is anywhere near his declining point yet. I think he'll play at this level or higher for several more years to come, so that's why I would have preferred Webber.

 

come on, freak -- after the '86 season, the rockets failed to get out of the second round, and most years, the first round, every single season until 1994. did '86 really earn dream a nearly decade-long free pass? by that rationale, should we still be excusing shawn kemp?

and i see no evidence webber's game is flatlining; it's certainly not regressing. if he's hit his ceiling, which is possible, it's still a pretty high ceiling.

don't be so literal -- of course it's progression. if, over three years, you lose in round 1, then lose in round 2, then (at the very least), lose round 3... what else would you call that?

every great player has had to learn to win, and that includes jordan. it's not going to happen overnight.

freak, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. the kings lose, it's webber's fault; when they start to win, suddenly it's a talented team with long coattails. doesn't really work that way. webber may not be the cog, but his efforts cannot be dismissed. he's played very well thus far, and at least the guy's still playing and gets another chance to prove one of us wrong.

 

While I do think the Rockets could have made the playoffs this year with a healthy Webber, therefore making us a better team, I also agree with the posters who say he is overrated.
Looking around the league, can you name one so-called superstar who has a better supporting cast than Webber?
superstar-Webber
stars-Peja, Bibby
solid starters/subs-Vlade, Christie, Hedo, Pollard, Jackson
Since playoff rotations are usually shortened to 8, I'm just talking about the top 8.
A case could be made for Dallas:
superstar- Webber=Dirk
stars- Bibby>Nash, Peja>Finley
starters/subs- Divac=LaFraentz, Christie>Griffin, Pollard<ZhiZhi, Hedo>Buckner, Van Exel=Jackson
Other than Dallas, no other team is even close to the depth and talent of Sacramento, 1-8.
How does this relate to Webber?
If he can't win with the best supporting cast in the league, homecourt throughout the playoffs, and the Lakers looking more vulnerable than ever (especially Shaq), what does that say about his ability as a leader and a clutch performer?
That, I think, is the biggest part of the MoT/Webber argument.
Everyone agrees that Webber is better, but with that talent and much larger contract comes much more responsibility.
MoT was supposed to be the third option of a team that might have squeeked into the backdoor of the playoffs.
Webber was supposed to be the main man on a legit title contender.
The only reason the Rockets should have considered signing Webber was if they thought he could instantly make them a title favorite. Otherwise, it would be a waste to build around a guy who has already peaked short of the championship.
Instead, they chose to stick with Taylor, add Griffin, and wait/hope/pray that Francis/Mobley/Griff can mature into a championship caliber club.
Personally, I think they made the right decision.
If Webber and the Kings fall short again, I do not think anyone would be foolish enough to dispute that the Rockets would have done the same.

 

The difference is that Hakeem always raised his level of play in the playoffs. His numbers, as great as they were during the year, always INCREASED come playoff time. It's been just the opposite with Webber.

I don't think he can ever reach the level he achieved last year -- that, and the fact that he'll be in his 10th season next year are what I'm basing by belief that he's on the decline on.

I think the team's gotten better, but I'll go back to my point that Webber isn't a clutch performer, and it will be his/the Kings' undoing in the end.

When people use the phrase "learn how to win", it usually means the guy is trying to do it all on his own, or not playing smart (Jordan, Hakeem). Not knowing how to win and not having what it takes are two different things, IMO. I think Webber fits into the latter category.

Again, I go back to Webber's playoff history -- if your team loses, and you raise your level of play, it may not be your fault. However, if your team loses, and you LOWER your level of play, you must bear that burden.

 

maybe, just maybe, we should, ya know, wait until at least the laker series starts before we start writing webber and the kings off.

and btw, the lakers haven't looked too terribly vulnerable thus far.

did the playoffs end and i somehow miss it? the kings are four wins away from playing for a championship; what in h-e-double hockey sticks are you talking about webber's "already peaked short of the championship"??

and why would he have to deliver immeadiate title hopes? it's not like he's on the backside of his career; he still has 3-5 solid years ahead of him.

i don't for the life of me understand how the kings' success is the least bit relevant to the rockets' likelihood of success... were we signing the entire 12-man SAC roster, or just one of its players?

 

Ric...just forget it...these guys are completely changing the tune of the argument by choosing to discuss how Webber's teams have fared (or not fared) in the playoffs rather than admit that they are wrong in thinking that Mo T is better for us than Webber would have been. Its hopeless.

 

TheFreak...just forget it...these guys are completely misinterpreting the argument and attempting to paint it into a "Mo Taylor is a better player than Chris Webber" argument. It's hopeless.

 

[q]Also, people said for years that Dream couldn't succeed against the Sonics because their defense really flustered him. [/q]

In the 87, 88, and 93 playoff series against Seattle, Hakeem avergaged close to 30 ppg, so I don't think that ever was a valid point of criticism, if it ever was one by the masses. Hakeem did struggle mightily in the 1996 series, but that was when his physical abilities were already in decline.

In regards to the main argument, I was a huge proponent of signing Webber in the offseason. Give me a 20 ppg, 10 rpg, 4 apg, 45% fg playoff choker anytime.

One other fact, Webber led the NBA in rebounding in 1999. For a guy who is an average rebounder, that must be some aberration.

Let's face it. There just aren't any NBA superstars in the game today who really elevate there game to another level. Just because everyone can't do what Olajuwon, Jordan, or Bird did, it shouldn't be a poor reflection on their overall game, and it doesn't mean they can't lead their team to a championship.

 

Freak painted this...not me

I said we would have been better off with C Web....he disagreed.

 

his production is off by nth percentiles and it actually increased against the mavericks. yeah, yeah, the mavs are a horrible defensive team, so what? you still gotta go out and hit your shots, and he did (to the tune of 55%).

it certainly wasn't the team's undoing against the mavericks, everyone's pick to challenge the lakers. he stepped up big time and played extremely well against them.

also, do you truly understand what it means to be a "clutch performer"? we've romaniticized the idea, but really, in the end, delivering in the clutch simply means you play up to your expected performance level.

that's it.

if you hit 50% of your shots and average the expected 25/11, then you're more often than not going to succeed. and webber has done that. if he misses a crucial shot, it's not necessarily an indication he's choking. i mean, you do realize, in any given game, even those with nothing on the line, he'll miss half his shots, right?

some guys (mario elie comes to mind) do things we're not expecting. but the reality is, elie will miss that same shot he hit in '95 7 out of 10 times. don't think for a minute that his likelihood for making that shot actually increases when the game's on the line. it doesn't.

clutch is an ambiguous, almost meaningless term. and i think it's silly to hang that designation on an athlete who's expected level of success is only 50% even in the most optimum of circumstances.

so, kobe and shaq haven't had to learn how to win, how to bring the best out of each other and their teammates? there was just this magical switch phil jackson found, and poof! off they go, winning championships every year?

 

i've contributed 4... maybe 5 posts to this thread, and i've never once typed mo taylor's name (unless you're counting this instance).

 

Not taking your own advice, I see. I was merely getting my own parting shots in just as I "quit arguing" as you have "quit arguing." But now I really will leave, because this argument is essentially subjective, and little can be accomplished by arguing about it.

 

If you will notice the layout of my post, it is more mocking NJRockets "parting" post rather than you. You were not the only person posting in favor of Webber in this thread outside of NJRocket.