The most disappointing superstar in the past decade

Sheed and all those players had the Odom Syndrome, having talent and all and deferring too much

 

amare is disappointing. each year there is all this potential and a few months into the season he is injured.

 

Not sure why AI haters have to be either kids or LBJ nuthuggers. The guy was just inefficient. If he was really that passionate about bball why can't he put in the practice work to become better at it?

I think that except for height Iverson was one of the most talented guys in bball history, he had amazing speed, acceleration, and as a barely 6' midget was able to become dominant in an era where handchecks was allowed and guys like Tony Parker, Irving and CP3 would have been eaten alive. However, as good as he was his style of play isn't conducive to winning b-ball, you had guys who put win rings and guys who put butts in the seat, Iverson was pretty much the latter.

 

More needs to be said about Carmelo Anthony.

While not the most disappointing superstar, he has definitely underachieved in the league. After leading Syracuse to a national title, many were expecting him to be next elite superstar out of college. From a talent perspective, I believed some experts were putting Anthony on par with LeBron James. Melo has been floundering ever since his Nuggest/Knicks debacle and cheap shot scuffles. His image has also taken a hit.

A dissapointment so far. Do we really expect him to excel in New York?

 

Like I said earlier, he is similar to players like Iverson. his style is best used as a one man show. Against inferior opponent, he can win with his talent. But against really good teams, you need more than solo threat. And the style doesn't mesh well with another great offensive talent.

 

Not even close.

 

Except he went to the Finals with a bunch of scrubs... (Okay they weren't scrubs, but it was basically a team of Iverson and Dikembe surrounded by marginal role players at best.) Oh and let me also remind you that his 76ers handed the Lakers their only postseason loss that year. A.I. was the centerpiece, scoring 48 points in route to clowning Tyronn Lue with less than a minute to go in OT.

People forget... Iverson wasn't just a scorer. He was a tenacious defender, especially for his size. He was criticized for being too selfish, so he upped his assists from 4.5 to almost 8 in a couple of seasons. He was definitely one of the most talented players in the history of basketball. He had his flaws, but he was amazing to watch, and he definitely could have won a championship playing with another star. Just for fun, swap out A.I. and Kobe. Is A.I. such an inefficient chucker that he prevents LAL from winning those rings? Highly doubtful. Does Kobe win a ring in Philly? That's just laughable...

 

I have not read thru this entire thread, but A.I. mentions are ridiculous. He did more than Tracy McGrady or Vince Carter. Both superstars that did almost nothing when it mattered. A.I. should be in the same breath with Charles Barkley, who hardly disappointed other than a title. Yao Ming could be up there. Nique should be well up there. Maybe David Robinson, but certainly not A.I.

Well said, ----------->thugg.

 

19 and 8 was his best year at PF. He's no superstar. He was never good enough to be one. He was the best player on the Portland team that should have beat the Lakers and he still wasn't a 20/10 guy. He's an above average player in NBA history, but was never good enough to be a carrier of a winning franchise. Tmac/Carter/Arenas/Yao all were.

 

For me, sadly Yao and Mcgrady would be tops on the list. Mcgrady is an easy choice - he should have been what Kobe is now, but he isn't. He had a great career but his ceiling was so damn high that it still makes you think of what could have been. Yao also makes the list - he had the potential i think to revolutionize the game. His ceiling was also very very high given his physical gifts (though you could argue his gifts were ultimately served as his own undoing as his feet couldn't sustain the beating of his massive 7'6 frame) and skill level.

If we are talking about players who didn't "fully" tap into their potential, then I agree with those posters who mention Rasheed Wallace. You can say he never had a stand-out statistical year, but if you watched him play, you just knew that he was capable of so much more. He was literally unstoppable in the post and had 3 point range and great athletecism. He had it all to be a consistent 25-10 player. But I would agree that he was never a "superstar" in the traditional sense of the word.

I don't agree with Carmelo Anthony comments - he was never athletic enough to have truly dominant superstar potential. He was always going to be a 2nd tier type of all-star in the mold of a Jason Richardson or Richard Jefferson (ok maybe better than Jefferson). By and large he's fulfilled that.

 

Jason Richardson and Richard Jefferson are nowhere near as talented as Carmelo Anthony.

 

Anthony has been a Top 5 offensive weapon for years. He is just not a complete player. Questionable D, and he does not make this teammates better thus not a facilitator.
What he does best is volume scoring and rebounding (usually around 7rbg). He is an above average shooter from deep range but I see him get better at shooting 3s the older he gets.
He shot 42.4 % percent from beyond the arc his first season as a Knick

 

Fine, he's a high level Tier 2 All-star who is chubby and has a fat face.

 

Agent 0 never grew up even after becoming the face of the franchise

 

The same board that venerated Calvin Murphy sees Iverson as an irredeemable chucker.

Iverson is a much better version of Murphy. Full stop.

 

I don't know why you bring Murphy to this.

First, outside of the Rockets circle, nobody really "venerate" Murphy. Iverson was widely lauded as one of the best guards of all time. (It's a fact whether you believe Iverson is overrated or not.) Murphy never has that status. So saying that Iverson is a better version of Murphy is like saying Barkley is a better version of Brand. it doesn't really say much.

Second, it depends on what you mean by "better" when comparing Murphy to Iverson. Murphy was much more efficient than Iverson as a "chucker." Iverson took almost 22 FGA at .425 for his career. Murphy took about 18 FGA at .482. A huge difference. I am not saying Murphy was a better player. Iverson had to shoulder the entire offense for most of his career and faced stiffer defense. Murphy didn't have that burden.