how was reggie not the number 1 man on his team during his prime? rik smits? dale davis? jackson? c'mon now.
There were several years in which Schrempf was probably the best player on the Pacers. When the Pacers went to the Finals in 2000, Jalen Rose was probably the best player on the team.
Tom Gugliotta- got a big contract-then after a seizure from an over the counter herb supplement for energy he never seeemed the same. He was never an elite player and the Rockets always seemed able to guard him. Big money - little return. I am not a C Webber fan. He got a max contract and had 2 really mediocre years. He is now playing and contributing well for Phil. Disappointing for 2 years anyway- he is now paid 18 to 20 mil per year. Lot of money..
Yao Ming! Every year i am expecting him to put up numbers like 30ppg 12rpg 2.5bpg... i m satisfied with 20ppg 9rpg though!
I think it's way to early in his career to make that kind of assement. I'll put my vote in for Chris, I don't want the last shot, Weber.
call me crazy but i think KG has been a disappointment. when i look around the league he is the only guy i see who could have been like dream, but he is just never able to put it all together and be the leader of a top notch championship contender. he has the stats and athleticism, but he has never developed the dominating offensive game that i thought he could.
That's goofy. The Pacers became a good team after they traded away no-defense Detlef for Derrick McKey. Jalen Rose was the king of garbage minutes. He'd get 30 in every blowout. Miller got his in crunch time, usually 4th quarter. The Pacers had no problem giving up Jalen Rose in the Brad Miller/Ron Artest/ Ron Mercer trade. No defensive intensity, no leadership, always breaking plays, always trying to show he can be a PG. Reggie was the best Pacer player for about 15 years. He shared it with Chuck person for a year or two in the late 80's and kept that honor until Jermaine O'Neal matured and father time caught up with him.
Drug killed some great talents: Tarpley, Lucas, Lloyd, Wiggins, Baker, and most of all, Len Bias. Mental weakness killed some other talents: Webber, Kemp, Coleman, Odom Emotional instability ruined others: Rasheed Wallace, Vernon Maxwell, and Artest Some players could do better if they had the brain to use their talents: Swift, Miles, Jason Williams, Francis Just my 2 cents on top of my head.
how about stromile swift? incredible athletic talent, runs the floor like a gazelle, jumps like a kangaroo, and has the brains of a donkey. its like buying a car that looks like a benz, but drives like a pinto.
sheed was the very first guy to pop into my head. too much talent, size and skill not to put up 20 & 10 every single night. he did win a championship but he could have been a guy you mention alongside duncan and garnett as far as individual skill. other guys: derrick coleman steve francis shawn kemp eddie griffin carmelo anthony (still early but this guy could be a star but just doesn't work hard at both ends of the floor)
okay, I hate to get sucked into another francis debate, but calling a guy with a career avg. of 19, 6, 6 an underachiever is a bit much. two of those seasons he was one of only two guys to avg 20,6,6. How again is that underachievement? Because he couldn't get kato, and Mo taylor to a championship?
Underachieving is a relative concept. What is underachievement for one person could be overachievement for another.
that's great, what did you expect from francis. I'll put it this way, if Francis is an underachiever, so is Brand and in some sense so is Garnett. edit: the point I'm making is guys have flaws in their games, in what they have done in their careers but that doesn't make them underachievers. maybe they have made mistakes. Derrick Coleman is an underachiever, Chris Webber isn't. Chris Webber put up great numbers till he was injured. Yeah, he may have failed in some clutch moments, but he's been a solid all-star for most of his career. If Chris Webber is an underachiever then in some sense karl malone and charles barkley are underachievers. I'm not fans of either one, they had their flaws that held them back from being champions but they aren't underachievers.
People will think Im CRAZY but I feel that Shaq relied on his size to much rather than really developing his game. I think he could have been an even better player if he really worked on his skills around the basket and kept his fitness up. As for teams....I remember the Portland side about 6 or 7 years ago now that was young, feirce....but full of head cases. They looked GREAT in the playoffs and I thought that if they kept that side together they would have been a championship winning side. But managment broke them up and its not really a surprise. Like I said...at that times every player in their lineup had some baggage of some sort.
I don't think SF or Starbury are underachievers on an individual level. I can see the argument that they have both underachieved as far as team players are concerned (so one might argue in the case of most NBA players, including KG and T-Mac and almost everyone else). But the team thing is much more difficult to assess, since most of those names haven't really played on championship-caliber teams in their careers. That's why, IMO, it's more fair to attempt and assess their individual performances.
Francis has more natural talents than Brand. Garnett is another story. I guess one may actually argue that KG is an underachiever. Anyway, it's not just about number. You have to look at how these players play. Francis' biggest problem is his on court decision making. That's why I listed him under the "lack of brain" catagory. He doesn't lack talents. He certainly doesn't lack heart. And unlike some people, I don't think he is selfish. His mind just doesn't function as fast as his body. He has the tools and the opportunity (with a good disciplined coach and a maturing Yao) to be a real franchise player, but as such, can only be a second tier star.
Actually, I thought about listing Shaq as underachiever. I think you are right that he hasn't really worked on his skills and kept fit. In other words, if he had a better work ethic, he would have been the greatest of all time with no argument.
I can't believe no one has mentioned the words "Eddie" and "Griffin" yet. Talk about a waste of talent...
