One of the excuses for Taylor's poor rebounding was that the Clipper situation dulled Taylor's fire & desire for getting rebounds and playing hard defense. The new situation with the Rockets would rekindle that fire was the common refrain. Mo is still a poor rebounder even after: 1. Escaping the Clippers 2. Being in a contract year 3. Having the benefit of coaching from L Smith, Rudy and CD. For the sake of this discusssion, Dream is 6'11, Taylor is 6'9" and KT is 6'7". It is generally acknowledged that Dream has lost some of his vertical and stamina, yet he still was able to average more rebounds than Mo despite being in the latter stage of his career. Dream lost considerable time to IR and also had bouts of frustration with the new direction that the Rockets were going in. Dream still averaged more rebounds that unhappy Clipper Mo and happy Rocket Mo. Do Dream's extra 2 inches make that much difference in rebounding? If the answer is yes, then Mo's 2 extra inches should have enabled him to average more rebounds than KT. In fact, they were virtually even despite KT playing 4 minutes a game less. KT spent plenty of time lurking on the 3 point line, so the Mo out on a wing argument doesn't hold. The Rockets draft Eddie Griffin and many rave about how his game of strong rebounding and shot blocking complements Mo so well. I haven't found the quote yet, but seems that even Mo mentioned how well they complement. So Mo has basically admitted that improving his board work and defense probably won't happen and the need to bring in Eddie. How much is a PF that is a below average rebounder and average at best on "D" worth? Cat If Mo wants a contract that starts at 7.5 million, do you sign him? Anybody If we define Modern NBA Basketball as the timeframe of Bird and Magic to the present, name the starting PF from this era that Mo's game most resembles. If the name you advance doesn't have a Championship Ring, then a clue is there. Mango ------------------ Get it right or just don't do it! Resistance is futile....you will be assimilated. Start more Webber threads!
The jist of the keep Mo Taylor contingency's argument is give him time to delvelop, sure he did not have a great year but he is young and is well liked by his teammates(arguable). Also you saw promise in his game. However I do not see anyone extending that same courtesy to Cato. I see them as essentially being the same type of player in that: 1. Are extremely umotivated(rebounding is all about effort - For the life of me I can't understand how MO, as pointed out several times earlier, could not grab 3 more rebounds a game in his contract year, when he knew that everyone would be watching him -Cato is one up on Mo here, he had that dominating preseason) 2. Have all the tools neccessary to at least be good role players on a playoff team 3. To date, are both underachievers 4. Both are young and could grow with the team -First of all, I am not a Cato supporter. I am just using him to prove a point. -Second of all, If you guys are mad at Cato for being an underachiever, why in the world would you want Mo Taylor back (see similarities above)? Basically if you believe Mo Taylor will have a breakout year, then you should believe that Cato will lead the league in rebounds next year. -Third, Insert Collier, ar any of the dime a dozen players at the five to hit the open jumpshot (Does not even neccessarily have to be a true center b/c of the new zone rules) -Fourth, I laugh at anyone who thinks that Mo Taylor is even a good defender at this stage in his career. -Fifth, You want your role players to fill roles that you need...scoring and playmaking are the least of our concerns...defense, rebounding and interior toughness are. -Sixth, your role players need to be overachievers if you want to contend. Examples in this years playoffs include: 1) Tyrone Lue- shadowing Iverson and limiting him 2) Rick Fox- shutting down Peja 3) Robert Horry- playing good defense on Duncan (which by the way Kenny Thomas did in the regular season, Duncan even complemented him on it) 4) The entire Philly team with the exception of Iverson(superstar)- they played hurt and were obviously outclassed in everyway, yet earned the respect of fans and the Lakers by playing hard every game -Seventh, we only had a good record because we feasted on the poor eastern conference, which is also getting better... however look at our record against the good western conference teams...we won't be a legitimate playoff team next year in the West with Mo Taylor...i don't buy the fact that Eddie and TMo will instantly make us a playoff team. Eddie is only 19 years old...Kobe and Garnett both sucked their first years in the league and they were only 18 or 19. In summary, I see many similarities between Cato and Mo Taylor. Taylor is an underachiever - he is built like an allstar power forward and has the athleticism to be one, yet plays like a loser. I don't buy his statements that he will have a breakout year next year..why not last season...his contract year of all years. -To the Rockets, Don't make the same mistake in signing Mo Taylor to a long term deal, that you did with Cato. If he thinks that he can have a breakout year, than sign him to a one year deal again, because he proved nothing last year. -Lastly, are you kidding me...we have enough cap room to sign CWEB, nuff said. ------------------
Good post aelliot, A reason I'm sceptical about Webber coming to Houston is the whole Pippen thing. I wanted Pippen really bad and I didn't care about Antonio McDyess. When we got Pippen, everyone saw this team competing for a championship, it never happened b/c Pippen never really got into the offense and all he did was b**** about it. What did we get in the Pippen trade that was any good? We didn't get much talent for Pippen. I'm afraid that Webber might do the same things Pippen did. I mean look at the circus Webber caused this season for the Kings. Instead of just saying "I'll talk about free agency after the season" he says "Well I like [insert city], and it would be a lot of fun to play with [insert players]". I'm just afraid that one day Mr. Webber would be playing for the Rockets and not liking the fact that Cuttino takes so many shots or that Stevie didn't pass him the ball enough and then start whining about it. CWebb's had a history of wearing out his welcome for a team, the only exception being Sacramento and he's acting like he doesn't even like living there. I'd love for the Rockets to turn into the Celtics with 4 players near their primes, but I just see Webber as a loser that could never win the big game. He seems like the kind of guy that bails on his team when things get rough, if he leaves the Kings for an eastern conference team, he's doing just that. At least with Taylor, there's the unknown, we have no clue what he could become or what he could do in crunch time. With Webber, we see what he offers and it doesn't impress me. The cost for Webber is too high in my opinion, if we could do a sign and trade, then I'd be more than happy to take him, but I don't see that happening. I prefer Dream, Taylor, Moochie, and maybe even Anderson over just Chris Webber. ------------------ This post contains no smilies, you must judge my seriousness on your own...
Taylor sucks! Let him go. He did nothing and will do nothing. He will be a cancer if re-signed. ------------------
As others have strongly said or inferred, it is a no brainer to offer the max (6 & 90 mil) for Webber. Him not being interested in the FA route is the only reason he would not come here. Anything else our front office says is smoke and mirrors. Webber, Garnett and Duncan, by any statistical breakdown over the last two years, are very comparable. All three in my opinion are among the 7 best players in the league. Duncan does have a couple years of youth on him, KG has a lot of youth on both of them, but even so Webber would produce very formidible numbers over the course of the longest contract we would be allowed to offer. We are so lucky to be in a position to have any of them, and Webber happens to be the guy, of course we must pursue it. For those who say Webber is a choker because he can't lead his team to playoff victories, I guess you realy would not want to pursue KG as a free agent either because he has never even won even a single playoff series. He must be the ultimate choker by this logic. Of course I prefer to see it as Webber and Garnett have been pretty much the sole horse on some pretty good teams who ran into more loaded teams in the buzzsaw west, but that is just me I guess.
BGM, The Pippen situation was completely different. Pippen was what, 33 or 34 when we traded for him? Webber is 28. Pippen also had alot of extra wear and tear on his body from playing extended minutes and a whole lot of playoff games. Pippen's game depended on his quickness and athleticism and those are the things that he's lost. Webber is just now reaching his peak. ------------------
If that were the case, then why haven't their individual stats increased in the playoffs? If they both (particularly Webber) had at least increased their individual production in the playoffs, I would buy your argument, and at least leave open the possibility that they were on inferior teams. But in Webber's case, his playoff numbers are worse than his regular season numbers, and he's never won a 2nd round playoff game, in 8 years. How can you not put that on him?
Talk about beating a dead horse! Webber was not and is still not coming to Houston so I don't think we have an option at PF. Mo is the man weather we like it ......... The only thing we can all agree on is that he needs some real help! ------------------
But in Webber's case, his playoff numbers are worse than his regular season numbers, and he's never won a 2nd round playoff game, in 8 years. Is it necessarily a better solution to sign a PF that, after 4 seasons, has never played in a playoff game? ------------------
For a guy who was quoted by Doc Rocket... Mo is 24. He was 24 all season, and will be 25 by the time next season starts. Further, back when Webber was 23 he averaged 20 points, 10 rebounds. He did the same thing when he was 21. If you want to keep Mo Taylor, then choose to keep him for what he is right now: a great shooter to 20 feet who can create his own shot (even though the shot he creates is almost always a long jumper), a solid defender, and a very poor rebounder for a guy who's within a few inches of 7 feet tall. That's his game - unorthodox for a PF, but reasonably effective last year in the Rockets system. If you are hoping that he is going to magically become a great rebounder or low post scorer, then you probably also believe in the tooth fairy and Kelvin Cato's claim that he will lead the NBA in rebounding. ------------------ I'm so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I am so hip that I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis.
A couple of points I want to make. Which PF is better? Webber. There is no doubt about that. Does Mo suck? No way. Did he contribute to the team? Yes, definitely! Does he want to be here and will he be willing to work? Sure. Is the only job of a PF to rebound? I don't think so, or we wouldn't have gotten Mo in the first place. I don't think there was any surprise that he was lacking in the rebounding department. I thought all along the past couple of years The Rockets have said that they were a young team, rebuilding toward the future. So it might be prudent to let the team stay together for consistancy and growth. Mo is young and has helped the team win some games. Webber is a great player. However, I don't like the idea that in a couple of years when Webber decides he wants to move on, like he always does with every team he plays for, that the Rockets will be left with nothing to show, and Webber will be gone. If we had a PF version of Cato in that position then we should go after Webber no matter what. But we have a decent guy at the spot, and a good reserve in Kenny Thomas too. We aren't totally lost without Webber. I would be content letting the team grow together and establish consistency. Consistency like all the great teams have had. The Lakers the past couple of years, the Celtics in the past, etc. They have kept the same core nucleus of players, and the players learn each others games, and how to work and win together. In '94 I think the Rockets had a lot of the same players back and I think that consistency helped them. ------------------
maurice taylor is a good player who fits in in the rockets' system. if we can sign him for a reasonable amount, then lets do it. chris webber is a great player who leaves teams in shambles when it's time for him to move on. let's not do that to ourselves. ------------------
Again, Garnett has not even won a single playoff series in his life. The Kings not only advanced this year, but have at least pushed a lot of other very good teams to the max the preceeding 2 years strait. KG has unquestionably been his teams' "guy" and he hasn't gotten it done, Webber has had more playoff success, even if it is limited. Also, Webber's points, rbs, SG%, FG% against the Lakers were comparable to Duncan's, and despite being on an inferior team than TD's they played the Laker's much, much tougher. In short, the mere fact you have to debate between Webber and by far the 2 best other PFs in the league (KG, TD), to me tells you all you need to know. I personally would prefer Duncan or KG as a Rocket (these playoff losers of last year), but Webber is the next best thing and the only realistic possibility. Further, we would sign Webber for a 6/90 contract. He can't leave us high and dry. The worst case scenario is he is a cancer and we trade him for good young players. It is not like the Pippen or Barkley situation, Webber will be good/have value for the life of his contract, and would not cost us our own players. For fans of a team who have only a single all-star--who is nearing 40, and only one more sure-fire future all-star, we sure talk about chemistry. Let's make the WCF, or at least make the playoff, before we really considering messing up "chemistry". [This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited July 05, 2001).]
