Kawhi's Legacy...

[ElNono]

EL-N is using satire. Judging by the non-capitalized first letter, looks like crappypasta

not copypaste

[DMC]

Ok I'll bite:

I've said all along that Leonard isn't ready to lead the team. Being a scoring leader isn't the same as being a team leader. Kobe was a scoring leader, but Fisher was a team leader. Even when Tony led the Spurs in scoring, Tim led the team. Kawhi cannot be that kind of leader right now because he's still finding his niche. He might eventually be a leader, it's hard to say because we don't know enough about his philosophy on people and the game.

It doesn't matter if the Spurs get out of the 1st round or not, as far as Kawhi's legacy is concerned. There are plenty players in the HOF who couldn't get a team to the 1st round much of the time, and who couldn't get them out of it much of the time as well. So it's not his ability to carry a team through the playoffs that determines his legacy. It's how he handles the success he's already had. He's got more success right now than most players have in an entire career. How's he going to deal with missing the playoffs?

How will he deal with the doldrums of early January basketball when the rest of his team is fresh out of college or the D-league? That part of his career will help to define who he is. Also, if the team goes into a multi-year hibernation period, will he stick around to collect the check and appease the fans or will he want to be in the thick of things? There are only a small handful of players who's careers could survive sticking around during several years of ty basketball while they stat pad in meaningless games. We know who some of those are, but then some of them went elsewhere finally.

It's not even fair to compare Kevin Garnett to Tim, much less comparing Kawhi. Tim is in the top 5 or 6 players to ever suit up. Kawhi probably isn't even in the top 100 right now, though some might argue that accolades like the FMVP changes that (I disagree, based on the team balance during the Finals).

[wildchild]

Not trolling, tbh...

Obviously, not. To satirize a situation it's necessary some similarities between the original and the comparison.

In this case, we can't assume similarities where simply they don't exist, talking about a player who he's 23 year old and is not even the offensive centerpiece of his team.

there's been talk about Kawhi being great and our next franchise guy. He's been to two NBA Finals, 3 three WCF and earned a Finals MVP in his young career

When people talk about legacy, they are talking about a player who is in his last years in the league, his final season, like a review of his career.
Or when a player has been in a franchise for a long time, then signs with another team, and people analize his legacy in his former team.

Kawhi's too young and supposedly he'll play for the Spurs at least one season more.

Everything could certainly sputter out sooner or later, and he can certainly do worse with a tier roster (which is always in the cards), but if he does turn out to be great, it's inevitable to have this kind of conversations... what he's done with this or that roster, etc

Not sure, but it would be nice to bump this thread when he play for another team in next years, and talk about how he helped to rebuild his new team and get winning records or -not really nice- how he helped to destroy the Spurs playing for another West team.

[Mikeanaro]

No I don't feel like the Spurs are a ty team with no chance at a ring.

Who is teaching you to read properly boysnake? you reading comprehension skills are lame, the subject here is leadership and you got it wrong... Im not talking about you eating a ring made of .

[ElNono]

When people talk about legacy, they are talking about a player who is in his last years in the league, his final season, like a review of his career.

That legacy is made up of moments throughout the player's career. This could be one such moment.

When Kobe missed the playoffs in his prime, nobody was really talking about Kobe's legacy back then, but now that you review the events, it's undeniable that event was a dark spot on his resume.

So, we're not talking about Kawhi's legacy. We're talking about an event that might shape the discussion (or not, thus the question in the OP) when we get to that point.

It's also entirely possible that Kawhi doesn't turn out to be great, and thus any kind of discussion about legacy is pointless. That's certainly a valid opinion too.

[ElNono]

Ok I'll bite:

I've said all along that Leonard isn't ready to lead the team. Being a scoring leader isn't the same as being a team leader. Kobe was a scoring leader, but Fisher was a team leader. Even when Tony led the Spurs in scoring, Tim led the team. Kawhi cannot be that kind of leader right now because he's still finding his niche. He might eventually be a leader, it's hard to say because we don't know enough about his philosophy on people and the game.

It doesn't matter if the Spurs get out of the 1st round or not, as far as Kawhi's legacy is concerned. There are plenty players in the HOF who couldn't get a team to the 1st round much of the time, and who couldn't get them out of it much of the time as well. So it's not his ability to carry a team through the playoffs that determines his legacy. It's how he handles the success he's already had. He's got more success right now than most players have in an entire career. How's he going to deal with missing the playoffs?

How will he deal with the doldrums of early January basketball when the rest of his team is fresh out of college or the D-league? That part of his career will help to define who he is. Also, if the team goes into a multi-year hibernation period, will he stick around to collect the check and appease the fans or will he want to be in the thick of things? There are only a small handful of players who's careers could survive sticking around during several years of ty basketball while they stat pad in meaningless games. We know who some of those are, but then some of them went elsewhere finally.

It's not even fair to compare Kevin Garnett to Tim, much less comparing Kawhi. Tim is in the top 5 or 6 players to ever suit up. Kawhi probably isn't even in the top 100 right now, though some might argue that accolades like the FMVP changes that (I disagree, based on the team balance during the Finals).

[DMC]

When the rest of the team falters, you'd hope a star rises, win or lose. Kawhi might rise but even then it might not be enough. He might have great numbers but it might not be enough to overcome ty play by guys who either have their legacy vacuum sealed already or who are side notes in NBA history in 6 years.

[TheGreatYacht]

I've said all along that Leonard isn't ready to lead the team. Being a scoring leader isn't the same as being a team leader. Kobe was a scoring leader, but Fisher was a team leader. Even when Tony led the Spurs in scoring, Tim led the team. Kawhi cannot be that kind of leader right now because he's still finding his niche. He might eventually be a leader, it's hard to say because we don't know enough about his philosophy on people and the game.

Pretty much this

[PublicOption]

they were double teaming kahwi........that's funny. Spurs destroy them the rest of the way.

[RD2191]

Double teamed yet had more points and assist than the starting PG.

[wildchild]

When Kobe missed the playoffs in his prime, nobody was really talking about Kobe's legacy back then, but now that you review the events, it's undeniable that event was a dark spot on his resume.

So, we're not talking about Kawhi's legacy.

Or the thread's le is misleading...

We're talking about an event that might shape the discussion (or not, thus the question in the OP) when we get to that point.

It's also entirely possible that Kawhi doesn't turn out to be great, and thus any kind of discussion about legacy is pointless. That's certainly a valid opinion too.

Or we're doing unreal/mad futurology.

[DarrinS]

Double teamed yet had more points and assist than the starting PG.

According to TheGreatYacht, he was only double teamed because Barnes is so horrible.

[RD2191]

According to TheGreatYacht, he was only double teamed because Barnes is so horrible.

salty lbj fan, tbh.

[Mikeanaro]

According to TheGreatYacht, he was only double teamed because Barnes is so horrible.

[TheGreatYacht]

According to TheGreatYacht, he was only double teamed because Barnes is so horrible.

Doc saw how much of a passer that role player was

[RD2191]

passer yet racked up more assist than the starting PG.

[TheGreatYacht]

Hard to get assists when Barnes is making Van Horn his , and Green is in a slump

[RD2191]

passer yet racked up more assist than the starting PG.

[TheGreatYacht]

Hard to get assists when Barnes is making Van Horn his , and Green is in a slump

[RD2191]

Hard to get assists when Barnes is making Van Horn his , and Green is in a slump

Yet Kawhi had 3, Tim had 4, Diaw had 5 and Manu had 6. Crofl. Worst PG in the playoffs couldn't get past austin rivers.

[TheGreatYacht]

Yet Kawhi had 3, Tim had 4, Diaw had 5 and Manu had 6. Crofl. Worst PG in the playoffs couldn't get past austin rivers.

4 turnovers Mill$ had to hit miracle shots thanks to that almost throwing the ball into the crowd

[RD2191]

Yet Kawhi had 3, Tim had 4, Diaw had 5 and Manu had 6. Crofl. Worst PG in the playoffs couldn't get past austin rivers.

[TheGreatYacht]

4 turnovers Mill$ had to hit miracle shots thanks to that almost throwing the ball into the crowd

Almost tore his rotator cuff again trying to catch Stevie Wonder's passes

[ElNono]

Or the thread's le is misleading...

I thought the OP was pretty clear.

Or we're doing unreal/mad futurology.

Not much to talk about till tomorrow night...

[RD2191]

Yet Kawhi had 3, Tim had 4, Diaw had 5 and Manu had 6. Crofl. Worst PG in the playoffs couldn't get past austin rivers.