Because of his liabilities on the defensive end, I have to give the nod to KG over Barkley.
I was arguing about this the other day. I would have to say Barkley. What do you guys think. I think barkley was the 4th best PF of all time. Behind Timmy D,Malone and Mchale
Because of his liabilities on the defensive end, I have to give the nod to KG over Barkley.
I will go with the fat comedian. He has that killer instinct and can take over games.
Barkley wasn't fat when he played for the sixers. In there prime though, I would take garnett. He did pretty good accepting he wasn't going to be the first option. I don't think Barkley would have been able to do that when he was still in his prime.
Killer instinct, huh? That's why Charles Barkley has all those rings.
Yeah because the amount of rings you get measures Killer Instinct...
as for the question, i'd take Barkley.
Oh ya, of course, I know how Antoine Walker has a killer instinct because he has a ring. Funny stuff there. You don't measure killer instinct with rings. I am sure Bill Russell has the most killer instinct, seeing how he has 10 rings for his hand one for his toe.
Barkley was awesome. One of my favorites growing up.
But I believe KG is the second best PF in the history of the game after Timmy.
Barkley by a hair. He was able to absolutely dominate the paint and he rebounded like a mad man. His biggest problem was defense, and dominating the ball though.
Garnett was fantastic, definitely one of the best of all time, but he's 2nd fiddle material, closer to McHale than to Barkley.
Duncan
Barkley
McHale
Garnett
Malone.
Defensively KG is vastly superior, but Barkley's will to rebound and win puts him over the top I believe. You NEVER see anyone ripping a rebound from him. Had barkley had the luxury of being added to a stacked team, he'd have a ring too (93 suns were close but lacked defensive players outside of KJ). Also KG never had to face MJ in the finals.
Yeah, Barkley shoud have beaten Jordan in 93![]()
While I think Charles is the better rebounder, I don't think he was that much better a rebounder than KG, especially if you consider he played in an era that was more uptempo that had more rebounding opportunities. No doubt he was a of a rebounder, but so is KG. Charles was definitely a more talented offensive player though.
What I do wonder is how a player so tenacious at rebounding didn't use all that will and determination at his overall defense. Same thing with a guy like David Lee. Guys who work that hard at rebounding should be better defenders than they are/were.
Rebounding just requires getting in position for a couple seconds, defense requires working til your team gets the ball back. I think it's easy to see how someone can be a good rebounder, but poor defender.
It's like playing 21 with 3 people. One person may be busting his ass off on D, while the other slacks and hangs around the hook and gets the ball all the time without playing a lick of D.
I agree,
The rare times Barkley wanted to play D, he was spectacular
I remember a play during the 93 playoffs: David Robinson was going for a dunk and Barkley rejected him; I was like![]()
I understand the dynamic differences between rebounding and overall defense. That distinction you just described still doesn't answer my question. A great rebounder should be able to be a great defender if he puts in the work and effort he does at rebounding towards his overall defense. When he doesn't, it shows a certain level of disinterest and/or laziness.
Maybe not having individual stats show up for playing D turns off some players. The closest to stats I've read about was the Jazz staticisians (I made up a word!) keeping track of deflections on a per player basis on D.
Charles of course.
KG is a mother en got. Worst human being alive.![]()
No, you just spelled it incorrectly.
Statisticians
Barkley for me. It is harder for a shorter player to play the game of basketball. Therefore KG has an easier time. Barkley will have to work every night.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)