Reply With Quote
Rice is the better player but it was for the better. If the Spurs drafted Rice, they might not have been able to draft Duncan.
Elliott was a far better defender than Rice
Heck, Rice couldn't even guard a 5 year old
Rice is the better player but it was for the better. If the Spurs drafted Rice, they might not have been able to draft Duncan.
Rice possibly could have put up better numbers as a Spur, and helped 5-0's development, but Rice very easily wouldn't have stayed in San Antonio as long as Ninja did. Considering how many seasons we got out of Ninja, I think it worked out fine.
Having him stick around as a commentator isn't bad either.
It's like people never watched the guy play. He could fill up a stat sheet as a #1 option, but he was awful when not having plays run for him all the time. His two years in LA this supposed great shooter shot at a 43% clip. As a #2 option he was terrible in 1999, and then as the #3 option even worse in 2000. That's the same role he would have played in SA with Robinson and mings as the clear #1 and #2, and Strickland maybe even the #3. Rice would be a spot-up shooter in that offense; I mean, no way you run your offense through Rice when you have Robinson who can just put the ball on the floor and get either get a layup or two free throws.
So many what-ifs. What if Willie Anderson puts up that layup at the buzzer on Wingate's pass instead of stupidly taking an extra dribble?
The Spurs in the 90s just were good enough to the win it all. Looking back, there were way too many holes in the team.
90-91, team too young. It's the most talented team Robinson had in his prime, but lack of experience doomed the team, and the owner breaking up the team killed it.
92, the team started to fall apart because the owner doesn't want to pay. It's a shame, really. That 90 team, if kept together, could have been a real contender.
93, one of the worst years of Robinson's prime. The team was just horrible. There were no point guards to speak of (yes, Avery Johnson was on the roster then, and he wasn't that good, really), Lloyd Daniels played 20mpg. Basically, outside of Robinson, there wasn't another top 50 player on that team. The whole team was Robinson + role players.
94-95, Rodman was great when not needed, and horrible when needed. Drama queen killed Robinson's legacy, and any chance the Spurs have. If Rodman was sane, the Spurs would still need a couple of guards who could actually put the ball in the basket. That team was flawed, if an easy to figure out offense, and slightly above average defense.
96, how this team won 59 games is a wonder. Robinson and Elliott were both great, but then Vinny Del Negro, Avery Johnson, aging Person, and then Charles Smith, Will Perdue, and Doc Rivers off the bench. Just look at that lineup. Without Robinson, that's a 30 win team, max.
Anyways, Elliott fits in the team very well, because he played his role, is a good shooter, can handle the ball, defends the perimeter perfectly (best defensive SF outside of Pippen during the mid-90s), just an amazing player.
BTW, kept reading the book, and Simmons ranked Pippen above Robinson. WTH?
It's the 't'. If you spell it with one it does it. When you tested it you had one 't' but only one 'l'. Try two 'l's' and one 't'.
its not working
This will always be a problem with me and why I have always liked Holt as an owner. He hires people with the knowlegde of the sport to make the BB decisions that are neccessary. The problem: owner's viewing the team as their personal toy and making BB related decisions without much knowledge of the sport. McCombs, despite his business savvy, had this view and wanted to impose his standard of conduct on the players. The world he grew up in didn't exist anymore and he was going to have to adapt to the changing tide. Letting go of Strickland for nothing was a very dumb move and doomed the team for years to come. Yeah, I understand that Rod was a hot head but a very talented BB player who could have been mentored or at least controled by a vet like Terry mings and then DRob later on. Maybe it wouldn't have worked out but to let him go due to that fight was just bad business. Letting go of an asset and getting nothing in return? I doubt that Red would have done that with his car business but he sure did with his BB team. He reminds me of Jerry Jones to an extent in the way they both get involved with something that they aren't very knowledgeable about. And the fans suffer because of that.
As for the money side of the sport the rising salaries may not have set well with Red but that was a fact of life and he had to accept it in order to keep and/or acquire talented players. The explosion of incoming revenue to the NBA help fuel this and there was nothing he could have done to stop it. Why would he want ot stop the NBA expansion and the revenue it was producing? It was to the benefit of all - players and owners. Anyway the value of the franchise and his share was rising, too. Exponentially if I'm not mistaken. I don't know what the exact price his portion of the team was or what he sold it for but I'm willing to bet he walked away with a tad bit of money.
And yeah that '90 team could have made a serious run if kept together. Damn that was a wasted effort since the owner never let it mature.
How many championships did this Bill Simmons guy win anyway?
Simmons book is really good, and funny.
Wasn't that against Houston? The same game where Rodman attempted more threes in the first half than he did all season long?
Nah, Strickland was long gone by the Houston series.
Sean Elliott was universally acknowledge as the best all-around player coming out of college that year. Glen Rice was a acious shooter and that's about it, and that's about what he was as a pro. Simmons is just writing original-sounding to sell books.
What held Elliott back in the pros was his unaggressive nature and a certain lack of clutchness. But in terms of his offensive toolset (outside jumper, range, slashing, postgame), the only guy in the league who had more was Jordan.
I agree about the funny part, I am not sure about being good.
He always came off as being more a fan than a writer, and that's the good part, but I am surprised about his general lack of knowledge of anything not Celtics related.
I am not sure if he ever admitted it, but he most definitely jumped on the Bulls bandwagon in the 90s when his Celtics sucked, and that really is just sad.
His obvious homerism towards the Celtics and the 90s Bulls was really disturbing though. Ray Allen > Chris Mullin? Garnett and Pippen over Robinson?
His criteria also was inconsistent. Randomly pulling in the weak supporting casts for some players (such as Bill Walton), and totally dismissing it for others (namely Robinson)?
He raved on and on about "the secret" which is playing team ball vs. being an individualistic moron. Then why would Jordan ever be ranked over Magic? Why would Kobe Bryant ever be ranked high at all? These are players who had a history of throwing their teams under the bus, and only won with the right supporting cast bending over to adjust to their games.
[QUOTE=Phila_Chamberlain;4151197]He was supposed to play in the ABA that 73-74 as a player/coach, but due to leagal issues with his contract an the Lakers he could only be a coach.
NBA contracts were weird back then, if players wanted to jump leagues they would have to wait a season. Also the players were all under team options if I am not mistaken. It's really weird how it worked.[/QUOTE
CNNSI posted an archived Sports Illustrated article written by Wilt that talks about these issues in particular, his retirement and his time with the Qs. It's a great article because Wilt is all over the place, talking over just about everything on his mind.
Wouldn't Rice have turned out a different player had he grown up Spurs?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
