Awwww, come on, tod the bod. You don't watch the games, do you? Are you really going to try and defend your weakest point? Ah, so Bill Worrell is your lifeline? Is that your final answer? Here, let me try and shed some light on this: Perhaps Worrell meant that Mobley was double-teamed in ways that he normally isn't. Since it is only normal that he is double-teamed, perhaps Minn found some new and interesting ways to do it. BTW, it is rather ironic that your "fact" that the the Rockets will live and die with Mobley comes after a game in which Mobley had one of his worst shooting nights ever and we still won against a quality opponent.
I'm guessing that you heard Worrell and either 1.) Interpreted wrong, or 2.)interpreted the way you wanted to. Double-teaming Mobley is done by pretty much every team but Toronto, who got slaughtered, and and LA, and that is because LA never double teams perimeter guys. Mobley had an off night, so did Francis shooting-wise. If you're going to compare Mobley to Starks after an off-night, you would have to compare him to Dominique Wilkins when he goes off for 35. I just don't see the comparison since Starks is a guy who was, and still is, a shooter and defender on a post-up team and now pick and roll team, who needs others to get him involved in the offense, and Mobley is a leader and go-to guy who can create his own shot on a perimeter-oriented team. ------------------ Dream a deadly Dream. . .
Maybe Mobley will help us win a championship just like Starks did..... Man, that would make the comparison CREEPY!! ------------------ There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
My problem with the comparison isn't even skill level, although Mobley is a better player. It's that they're not even that similar in STYLE. Starks never got that many ISO's like Mobley, and was more of a jump shooter than anything else. SUre, he'd take people one on one occasionally, but that wasn't his game. Perhaps a comparison with Eddie Johnson w/attitude would be better suited. Mobley's game is all about speed and beating his man. Mobley doesn't need to spot up for a shot; he can create his own. Yeah, they both make bad shots occasionally. But if you want to say that makes them similar players, then about 1/2 the league is like Starks. ------------------ Why is it that everytime BC defeats a major conference opponent, that opponent promptly goes on a losing streak? PS. Notre Dame sucks
todd, Rule #1 Never take a man seriously who tries to deconstruct cuttino mobley's game, yet can't spell his name. Rule #2 john starks was a jump shooter first, gum chewer second, defender third, and driver fourth. Rule #3 the new york knicks offense NEVER "ran" through john starks. the phrase "ran" through implies he was the focus. starks was only the focus of wrigley spearmint. now then, cuttino mobley, if you trying to find a comparison, can be compared to...no one. really. how many guys have the same game as cuttino? 1. first step 2. pull up jumper 3. left handed 4. grit (not the food ) 5. handles 6. 3 point effectiveness try to find one that fits, todd. i don't think you can. and i don't go for the crap about their approach to the game being the same. starks believed he could "shoot" his was out of a slump. LITERALLY. one long jumper after another. do you recall the finals against houston where he jacked 22 footer after 22 footer? cuttino, even on his off nights, mixes up his selection. does he make mistakes? sure. are they occasionally ridiculous? sure. but please fess up, todd. the man's on his way to being one of the top 3 sg's in the west, and if he can maintain his pace over the next 4 years, maybe one of the top 3 or 4 in the league. even at his best, john starks was always one dimensional. even at cuttino's worst (insofar that this is his, hmmm, 3rd year) he is an excellent scorer and an excellent rebounding guard. make amends, todd.
If you look at all of Cats numbers through is first 3 years, they are slightly ahead of Kobe Bryants numbers. Kobe now is a 30 point scorer and he had to do it with Shaq getting a lot of the touchs. Mobley only has to 'compete' with Francis for shots. Some day, in the not so future, Mobley will certainly be a 25ppg scorer, and no one can deny that ------------------ "GiddyUP!!!" Krammer from Seinfeld
Watching Mobley from a game to game basis can be extremely rewarding or excruciating, with that said, there probably isnt a more fearless player in the league. My major concern with Cat is that he doesn't have the presence of mind to put in an effort to minimize his mistakes. Against the T-wolves he just seemed to hold the ball without realizing how much time was ticking away, and when he committed the 24 sec violation for the 2nd time in consecutive possesions that was either selfish or as Clutch said in his game notes "STUPIDITY". If he doesn't show an effort to adjust to defenses and just wants to worry about the number of shots he takes then I don't see him playing his whole career in Houston either. P.S.: For both of you Cat-lovers and Haters, the dudes' name is spelled MOBLEY not Mobely. ------------------ Don't look at the feet
Just for the sake of arguing Mobley for the most part isn't doubled by design. When Mobley holds onto the ball and milks the clock as he does so often he invites the double team. When Mobley holds the ball say on the wing and a taller player comes over to double him it makes the pass very difficult. When Mobley milks the clock until 4-5 its a no-brainer for the D to double him and force either a stupid pass or shot. Mobley is not usualy doubled by design its usualy a result of Mobley creating the trouble for himself. An example of this that I'm sure everyone remembers is the Golden State game where Moochie bailed him out. ------------------ ``It's bigger than chalupas,''.....Wesley Person
Hold up everyone. John Starks was a damn fine player, for a great Knicks team in the early 90's. 2nd team NBA All-Defensive team in 1992. Mobley might make 1st-team All-Defense on the Rockets someday, but that's about it. Starks made the damn All-Star team in 1994. He has won 6th man of the year. He scored 19 ppg on a Knicks team with quality low post scorers like Patrick Ewing, Anthony Mason, and occasionally Charles Smith. Ewing averaged over 24 a game that season. Hubert Davis and Oakley both chipped in 11. D. Harper was also on that team. Don't tell me Starks couldn't average in the 20's (in his prime), if he was on a rebuilding team with the offensive focus being on him, instead of an important cog on a championship contending team. The guy wasn't a slouch in creating for himself either. He could get to the basket. He averaged over 5 APG for 3 STAIGHT YEARS!!!! He averaged 5.9 apg in 93-94, which is almost more than Stevie!!! Mobley has yet to average over 2.6 APG, including playing one full year, 30 mpg at the point. You don't get over 5 apg by dumping it in to Ewing. You get over 5 apg by creating. Starks wasn't a spectacular rebounder, but Mobley isn't that great of a rebounder either. So what if Mobes manages to gather 3.6 rpg last year and 4.7 boards this year. That's because we don't have any rebounders. Our freaking leading rebounder is Hakeem at 7.2 rpg this year. So the rebounding numbers are inflated and deceptive. A more accurate representation of his rebounding abilities would be his rookie year when he averaged 2.3 rpg in 29.7 mpg. That's when we had actual rebounders with a slightly rejuvenated Olajuwon, Barkley, and Pippen. Just like Shandon Anderson's rebounding numbers since he's joined the rebounding starved Rockets. He's averaged 4.7 and 4.2 rpg since he's joined the Rockets. At Utah, he only mustered 2.6 rpg his last season there playing 9 minutes less than now. Starks managed to grab 3.1 rpg with the Knicks in 93-94. Doesn't sound all that great. But he had freaking Oakley and Ewing both grabbing 11.2 and 11.8 boards a game that year. Not to mention Mason and Smith's prowess on the boards. Of course Starks isn't going to have to stick around on to help the defensive boards like Stevie and Mobes(which is a big reason our transition offense is often SUBPAR!) In 92-93 Starks only played 31 mpg and grabbed 2.6 boards, which is slightly better than Mobley's total when he played with decent rebounders his first year. Look Starks(age 28) in 93-94 on a GREAT TEAM, averaged 19 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 5.9 apg, and played very good defense. Mobley (age 26) in 00-01 is averaging 19.4 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 2.2 apg, and plays average defense at best. I'm thinking Starks had a much better year than Mobley. And if you do the NHL/hockey standard in scoring points(which counts assists and goals in the point total), Starks averaged 11.8 points off assists and 19 points off scoring for a total of 30.8 points in Total offense. Mobley is averaging 4.4 points off assists, and 19.4 points off scoring for a combine total of 23.8 points in Total offense. Starks = 30.8, Mobley = 23.8 points in total offense. I think we have a winner. Don't get me wrong, I love Mobley to death. But we need to keep some proper perspective and give other players from other teams the respect they deserve. Mobley when it is all said and done will probably be considered a better player than Starks. But not by that much. Give Starks credit for being one of the top NBA guards in his prime. A guy who almost carried his team (especially in the NBA finals) to a championship if it weren't for a spectacular, game-saving Olajuwon block.
Tod's not comin' back ------------------ The season's halfway over...and I still need that keg of Pepto-Bismol.
First of all Freak, Mobely is rarely double covered. And Mobely would never have been double covered back when Hakeem was a force. The only reason why Mobely ever gets double coverage at all is because the Rockets don't have any big men that warrant double coverage. And that is the problem with pretty much everything that you say in in your post. When Starks was in his heyday with the Knicks, the Knicks had a dominating center. Moreover, they have a great rebounder in Charles Oakley. Consequently, they didn't need Starks to go out and get rebounds. The current Rockets, however, are not a very good rebounding team and the team requires its guards to rebound. So it is not surprising that Mobley has more rebounds than Starks. Second, if you don't remember the Knicks offense going through Starks, its because you didn't watch enough Knicks basketball. Starks got a touch on nearly every possession when he was in the game. Third, you are going to have to explain to me the statistical significance of 19.4 vs. 19 pts/game. Over the course of an entire season you are talking about 33 points. FOR THE ENTIRE SEASON. Mobely gets to the line more often than Starks did, but Starks had a very good move to the basket. The dunk over the entire Bulls team, referred to above, is but one example of Starks ability to get to the basket. Starks was a much defender than Mobely. Mobely gets to the line a little more often. The two are similar players. But the key to this comparison is that both shoot a lot, they don't take smart shots, and they both believe that they can shoot their way out of slumps. And nothing that you have said in your post suggests that this isn't true. Sam you have it right when you say that the two both have a lot of heart, and that is what is wrong with what RocketBooster says. Starks was the heart of the Knicks, not Ewing. Ewing was the jerk that no one liked. Starks was the team leader.
Geez, my mommy let me up to watch, and I know that Starks wasn't NEARLY as fast to the basket as Mobley is. And Starks wasn't nearly as good at creating his own shot and scoring as Mobley is. Starks is very similar to Vernon Maxwell as someone mentioned, and Dan Marjerle. Guys who could shoot and get hot, but scored mostly off of team offense and post up games then creating their own scoring options. Starks' quick first step was an occasional move he used, since practically all good guards have it, but Mobley's is a consistent weapon that he uses, a lot like Iverson and Francis does. ------------------ Dream a deadly Dream. . . [This message has been edited by RocksMillenium (edited February 22, 2001).]
you Da man! I agree with you totally... back to the topic at hand...These guys have some similarities as you pointed out Tod, and I can see them, but they are more different than they are alike. Starks is more like a Maxwell-type player...they both can't create thier own shots as well as Mobley...and this is the reason why they always double team Cat... ------------------
Starks's Defense at his prime is superior to Mobe's now btw...he was a stud defensively verse... [This message has been edited by ChenZhen (edited February 23, 2001).]
Da Man, If we were playing hockey, Mobley would be averaging about five assists because he always swings it and the ball goes to Bull or Wiz and they hit a three. Mobley doesn't get credit for it but if we were playing hockey, he would. All the Rockets assistants say they don't worry about is assists numbers b/c they know he should get credit for more. Wait two years and then compare Mobley to Starks, and if you a legit case, then OK. ------------------ "GiddyUP!!!" Krammer from Seinfeld
ok, i'll give starks the credit of being a good defender back in the day. and i don't mean to make starks out to be a horrible player (in fact, i liked starks) however, i still do not believe his and mobley's games are the same or even close. if you want to debate about whose game is better, i'd say mobley's will be. but let's discuss this in another 2 years, when we have a good rebounder to reduce cat's boards and increase his scoring. then we'll see how much better he is than starks ever was.
Cat is already a better and more gifted player than Starks ever was. He is quicker, better at handling the ball, equally as good a shooter, and a better one on one player. Cat just needs the brains to go with the game. Starks has the playoff experience, however. I hope to see Mobley gain that soon. Starks did have that super highlight reel dunk on the Bulls, MJ and Grant in the playoffs though. Man, that was nice. ------------------ There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." [This message has been edited by HOOP-T (edited February 23, 2001).]
Nobody said that Starks was a bad player, we said that Starks and Mobley are two DIFFERENT type of players. ------------------ Dream a deadly Dream. . .
OK, I will keep proper perspective if you do. We can play shoulda, woulda, coulda all day. The fact is, I CAN tell you Starks would never average 20 ppg because he never has. Now he is past his prime, and never will. But, I will give you your due, and say that maybe he could have, given the criteria you stated above. But so could half the NBA if given the "offensive focus" you speak of. There are a lot of players who can score, and given the shots, 20 ppg is not unrealistic. Even still, Starks was on a good team. He had his moments, but he never came close to "carrying" his team to the championship. Actually, if you remember it correctly, he damn near single handedly ruined it for the Knicks in a pivotal game. Remember the airball three pointers, the rushed shots, the missed free throws, the turnovers? The Olajuwon block merely capped off a terrible game for Starks that he probably would love to forget, but can't. After all is said and done, Starks will be remembered for that moreso than the player he was, unfortunately. I won't say Starks was ever a bad player. He was good, and still has some flashes with the Jazz, but if we are going to give respect where it deserves, let's give the proper amount of it. ------------------ There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
Ah, how the memory fades in old age! Starks had a great game 6 and a spectacular 4th quarter to that game (was it 15 or 18 points in the quarter?). He was shooting for the win and, given his hot streak, would have won the game and the series for the Knicks right there on the Summit floor. Olajuwon blocked the shot and the rest was history. Game 7 was his terrible game. 2 for 18 I think. Given that the Knicks stayed close until late in the 4th quarter, its safe to say that his poor shooting lost that one. As it was pointed out before, John Starks really was the emotional leader for that Knicks squad. As he went, the team followed. ------------------ In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
