partner, you truly impress me more and more with every post. I'll have to borrow from Will to compliment: On that note, I have to say that some people are unassuming when they tackle a subject. I try to do the same thing(it comes from being forced to watch Pollyana too many times as a kid... 'if you look for the bad in mankind, you shall surely find it' originally Abraham Lincoln) and play devil's advocate to be fair to others(alot of times I drastically fail, since it's so damn fun to ridicule - but anyway). Here's to open mindedness... [irony]you ******* Barkley haters[/irony]
4chuckie, Considering that you are getting offended by what Clyde had to say about Barkley - you ripping into Clyde is doing the same thing. What gives? All I can say is that I like both players for many different reasons - and all their antics aren't one of the reasons I like them. As many of you have iterarted, no one is perfect. So Clyde made a mistake - big whoop - like none of us have ever done something boneheaded. Besides, it isn't like Chuck is the poor tortured soul that keeps takin crap from others. Just like a year or two ago - he was the one talkin about Elie and Drexler - that time Elie and Drexler took the high road - now Clyde had a stab at it and Barkley took the high road - SAME THING! We don't know what went down behind closed doors - who knows what the circumstances were? I am not trying to defend Clyde by any means, in fact I think it was very stupid of him to bring up something so old, but there is no need to start comparing who is better or that Clyde has an inferiority complex - squabbles happen. Everyone knows what those two have accomplished - both have been remarkable and were incredible in their primes - thats the only thing that should matter. Last thing, someone mentioned how when a otherwise quiet person makes such a brash remark, it should be heeded to - that is in many ways true - think about it - when Hakeem says something - PEOPLE NOTICE cuz they know its just not coming for the hell of it. So, lemme get of my high horse GO CHUCK, hope to see ya soon GO GLIDE, good luck at UH Rockit
achebe, cheers. Yes, I read Will's comment after I posted, or I would have quoted it myself. The media never could keep up with Barkley. Many of them exposed themselves as fools, also, for even trying to argue with him about race and role models.
As much as I HATE to say this. But in your notes as to 1st tier stars you have 1. Point guard - Magic 1. Shooting guard - MJ 1. Small Foward - Larry Bird 1. Center - Hakeem Olajuwon 2. Power Fowards Barkley and Malone. 95 percent of "Peoples observations" are going to put Malone as the 1st tier this generation Power Foward and Barkley as 2nd tier. theFreak nailed it. Clyde was as "second tiered" as Barkley. This whole thing is funny to me. -Clyde gives his honest opinion. But he loses your respect for being open mouthed about another player when he doesn't have to. Chuck is on record lambasting teammates, and other players, but its ok because you expected it. -Clyde didn't have to say anything at all about a player since he has nothing to do with him currently. What did Iverson have to do with Barkley? -Barkley did rag on Mobley and Dickerson last year. To the point that he sounded off about Drew being the best of the 3 (my *assumption* being that Drew was better at feeding him in the post) rookie guards Houston drafted last year. Better than Price and Maloney also. This from the player who preceeded Maloney's huge deal with saying how Maloney deserved a long deal. He did rag on Francis and the other kids this year for not showing up early to practice. (funny though that by clutch's accounts he was the first to want to leave everyday).
PAYASO Where did you get that last post from? I've met barkley, and all I saw him do was buy people drinks. I've heard from a friend of mine that worked at Nike that the only NBA star who was nice was barkley. Not MJ, PAyton...etc, who were always at the Nike compound, but Barkley. She said that he spent almost all of his time playing with children in the campus store. Also I saw a practice in Austin with no cameras, and Barkley was being really sweet to all the children ther after practice. All I've ever heard is how nice he is. He was really nice to me...I'm 5,8, male and pudgy, he had no reason to give me the time of day. I think your wrong about this one.
When I mention 1st-tier superstar, I'm not talking about the who should belong on some traditional 1st team with a pg, sg, sf, pf, and center. The hell with positions. When I'm talking about 1st tier superstars, I'm talking about a players' achievements on the court in combination with national recognition. Which makes Clyde a 'perceived' 2nd tier star, and Barkley a 'perceived' 1st tier star. But whatever, this wasn't even the original point i was making about Clyde. LIKE I'VED SAID OVER and OVER, Clyde FEELS, yes feels like he's a 2nd tier superstar. He feels he's been slighted throughout his career. He feels he doesn't get the recognition he deserved. And when Barkley came over and made Clyde the 3rd wheel, Clyde was once again felt underappreciated. Which then led to some resentment for Barkley. That was the original intent of my argument if you would have taken the time to read. The fact that I'm using the word superstar instead of player provides a lot of incite. Being a superstar to begin with, doesn't not necessarily make you a better player than normal star players. It's a word that has been more or less created by the media. If you want to make a case that Clyde is amongst the 1st tier of players in the last 2 decades, you can probably make a good argument. But is he a 1st tier superstar? NO! Clyde has never achieved that kind of national recognition and fame. And trust me when I say that he deeply resents that fact.
Since when did "Fame" have anything to do with who is a superstar in the NBA. If your going to use fame as the indication as to who is a superstar, or amount of Jersey's sold. Hakeem just may have to come off of your list of 1st tiered superstars. Living outside of Texas, I have never. Never. Ever....had someone, not even in the championship years, claim Hakeem to be their favorite player.
I think Barkley coulda trained harder and played a tad more defense but the thing is Drexler didn't have to complain at this time or in the way he did even though it was nowhere near as bad as what Pip did. One thing I know about Clyde is that my friend delivered some pizzas to his place for a party or something and he left a real stingy tip. The moral of the story is that you will be remembered in a somewhat better light by fans like me if you don't complain about fellow superstars inadequacies and do leave decent tips. ------------------ ***Elie... we don't need no stinkin Elie Mobley's takin over ROCKETS IN 2000 BABY***
This goes for anyone who says they lost respect for Clyde, If you lost respect for Clyde then you were never a fan of his to begin with.
Clyde was a great player, and in my opinion (OK TheFreak, I said it more pointedly than “a good argument for”) was the 2nd best two guard from 85-95. But you can make a much better case of Dumars or Mitch being the equal of say Clyde than Clyde being the equal of the #1 SG during that period (this was my point here). Still any way you cut it, Clyde is in fine company. But 5 individuals who could most dominate on the court during that period were Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Barkley and Malone. Ordering the first 2 are easy, the last 3 are hard--I give the edge to Duncan because of the ring, and Barkley over Malone because he didn't need a great pure point guard to set him up and could do more to set up his teammates (I guess I should really drop Duncan anyway because he came after 95). I don't think anyone else during this period warrants being in this class--what I would call a "superstar" (granted this is subjective, I use the term to be totally dominant player). There are some other great, great players during that period--Clyde, Robinson, Ewing, Oneal, Payton, Dumars, Pippen, Mitch, Miller, Penny, and even D. Wilkins, but I don't think any of these guys could carry a team quite like the 5 players I mentioned could do in their peak. And rings can't be the final criteria either, as Pippen has 6, and Malone and Barkley have 0--it just so happened Pippen played with the best player and those others played against them both. As far as Barkley not being clutch, I guess you don’t remember him shooting over the Admiral to eliminate the Spurs nor leading the Suns past the Sonics to the finals in 93, nor leading the team that came the closest to eliminating us in our championship years (yes KJ was the major factor keeping game 7 close in 96, but Barkley was just about broken down by then and had killed us time and again before; besides it was Elie not Clyde that hit the clincher anyway). If anyone was clutch in the Portland years, he went not by the name of Clyde but by the name of Danny Ainge (by the criteria either of hitting free throws or keeping is team in the championship series with inspired play). I will say Clyde was totally clutch in game 5 against Utah in 1996, and saved our bacon, though I don’t remember too many other playoff series or playoff games in which Clyde stepped up like that. For all you guys bringing up the Iverson thing, Iverson said very nice things about Barkley and his contributions to the NBA this weekend. As I have said before, if the 2 parties involved moved on about their little verbal spat, ya'll in the peanut gallery should definitely move on about it. That's my main problem with Clyde's comments. I still respect him and his basketball ability, but he was just being "messy" in talking about stuff years ago and expressing a personal grudge. No one is denying Barkley hasn't made mistakes, but he owns up to them and moves on, that makes a world of difference to me. Finally as far as Barkley ragging on other players that it is quite a limited view of this side of him. Who was the #1 cheerleader for Maloney and Drew and others. Who passed Mobley the ball to win he game in the second professional game of his life. If you start with guys who bring up lesser players spirits, Barkley has too be on the short list in terms of most supportive guys. On the other hand I doubt it would be much fun to be a modestly talented and inexperienced guy on MJ’s team. I know this thread is getting tired but there are more things to point out with each post. I don’t hate Clyde, but I was disappointed he chose to be “messy”, especially so publicly. Everybody should be able to relate to an ex-friend or co-worker disparaging others years later-how often has that gone over well or garnered more respect. As someone said a couple of posts ago, he had the chance at the high road and didn’t take it. He is still a great Rocket and a great player, but you can still be disappointed in his recent actions.
I see your point Sir. I still think the gap between 2nd and 3rd best 2-guard is just as wide as the gap between 1st and 2nd though. The fact that Clyde took his team to the Finals twice is just an amazing feat. Put Dumars or Richmond on that team instead of Drexler, and they might not make the playoffs. He was so far and away the best player on that team it wasn't even funny. There was nobody close to KJs ability on those Blazer teams for Clyde to have as a sidekick and take the pressure off. There's a reason those teams almost won rings, and I don't think it was Rick Adelman. Also consider that Clyde was just as likely to come up with a game-saving steal as he was a game-winning shot. I believe that the absolute best players to ever play must dominate on both sides of the ball, and Clyde did that. These are some of the many reasons why I feel Clyde and Barkley's careers are just about even.
TheFreak, I think your view is reasonable, though I don't really agree. I just don't think Clyde or even Malone could quite be the 1 man force on the court that Barkley could in his peak. Jordan and Hakeem, yes, they could, and they could have a huge impact on the defensive end in addition (though Barkley contributions on the defensive glass often do not get recognized). And while Drexler was overall very good on D, he certainly couldn't slow down MJ they way Joe D., Starks, Payton or even Mad Max could. Thus I am not sure how big a factor his D was. As far as the Joe D./ Clyde comparison, I am not sure about that one. I would probably give the edge to Clyde because of his rebounding, but as an overall player they are not that far apart (both great, but not phenomenal players). Further I think Joe D. got the finals MVP matching up specifically against Clyde. Also, in my view those Portland teams were absolutely loaded--Clyde, Buck, Porter, Kersey, Cliff Robinson, Duck, Ainge--I thought there was no question they had the best talent in the league for 3 years running (I bet they had the best overall record from 89-92 too) yet didn't bring home a single ring because they didn't have go-to-guys as good as their opponents (lost versus Piston's, Lakers & Bulls those years in NBA and WC finals).
Clyde was never a good defender himself. That's the irony of his criticism of Barkley. He was a very average man to man defender who got all of his steals the way Barkley did, hitting the passing lanes. Like sir scarvajal said, the Blazers would still have been a playoff team without Drexler. Probably would have made it to the second round still.
*I've been following the Rockets now since 1994. As I live in Germany, I obviosly don't have the proximity and the possiblities you guys have over the big pond, but I keep up-to-date over the net on a daily basis.* From my point of view, I do not think that the Barkley deal did very much good to the Rockets in any way, apart from publicity and PR. I was happy, too, at first, even stunned, euphoric, gee.... but in the long wrong - sorry - it just didn't work out. It also seems that this organization seems to be obsessed with great players and has been willing to sacrifice a lot of talent in acquiring them. Drexler, Barkley, Pippen, now Francis.... The truth is, that while this might work occasionally, like in Drexler's case, it is far from being a guarantee for success. After losing against the Sonics in the second round 1996 and Barkley's arrival the string of players leaving or being traded would list up as follows: 1.Sam Cassell ---- traded for Barkley ( probably the biggest mistake ever... 2.Robert Horry ---- problems with Barkley, traded 3.Clyde Drexler ---- problems with Barkley, retired 4.Scottie Pippen ---- problems with Barkley, traded Adding to that all the other minor (or major) problems with some other players, like Hakeem and some of the rookies you can see a major pattern unfold, which I would not like to comment on. The truth is: In taking Barkley on board and keeping him there, the Rockets traded consistency, talent and harmony for PR, limelight, flashy stunts and excesses. Maybe that was what the front office wanted in the first place anyway: To make the team more interesting to the public (the Rocks were never hugely popular, DESPITE the 2 championships....). Sorry, but 15 boards here and there, 25 points one day ...then subpar the 3 following games, then out with an injury for 10 etc. isn't helping a team, only the papers.... What winning is all about is consistency and team harmony, nothing more but also nothing less. And Barkley, couldn't contribute to either. What he DID achieve was put the Rockets in the media, almost on a daily basis, and what kind of achievement that is, is a matter of debate. Sorry, but I believe every word Clyde said................... And if I could turn back time.... I'd rather have Cassell, Drexler and Pippen back, instead of Barkley......
Freak- You make a good point about Clyde not having a KJ on his team, but KJ was injured often when CB4 was in Phoenix. Wasn't it Elliott Perry (guy with the knee high socks) who got a lot of PT due to KJ's chronic injuries. Also I would agree that Dumars might have been close to Clyde in ability, but Clyde was able to carry his team, whereas Dumars is more of an all around player that never had to really carry his team (mostly because of Isiah being the man in Detroit). So I do give the edge to Clyde, although I think Dumars could have been closer to Clyde if he was in a different system where he was asked to be the man. I would also agree with the assesment of the five dominant players from the 90's. Jordan was obviously first, Dream was 2nd. However i would have CB/Karl at 3 & 4 just because they did it for a longer time. I think those 4 are the obvious ones. For 5th I would probably go with Shaq, just because he can physically dominate any game, even though he wasn't around for all of the 90's. I think if you were talking about the late 90's you may have an entire new cast of characters (Shaq, Duncan, Iverson, etc).
Payaso what was I thinking? I guess I can't read.....I totally agree with you. Sorry...You were talking about Glide, not CB4
