Reply With Quote
It depends on whether it's a low double-double or a high double double. If it's 10 and 10, that's a role player. If it's 20-10, that's a star.
Okay fair enough. I see him at his best as a 22/10 guy.
It depends on whether it's a low double-double or a high double double. If it's 10 and 10, that's a role player. If it's 20-10, that's a star.
Wow. Heck, if he makes 17/10 or close to it, I'll admit I'm wrong and you can add that to "75 win ecstasy".
He has an odd relationship with rookies. He had these problems with Dirk, Josh, Devin, etc.....but inexplicably he gives free reign to guys like Marquis, Morrow, & Najera.
I think it's tied to his expectations for a player. If he has high expecations and they disappoint him, he gives them a very short leash in their rookie year. Meanwhile, if he has low expectations and they exceed them, he gives them the keys to the mint.
Biedrins' ceiling is a defensive big man who rebounds a lot and gets easy buckets.
Anthony Randolph is gonna have problems developing individual offensive ability with Nelson as coach.
Well, Biedrins put up 12/11 last year, but I wouldn't consider him a role player. Rodman on the Pistons was a role player, but on the Bulls he was a pivotal part of the core...even though his stats on the Bulls scream role player. Stats are not everything in my book. Zach Randolph is the only 20/10 guy I can think of who I think makes his teams much, much worse than if they benched him for a mediocre role player.
Actually, I disagree quite a bit with this. If there's one thing Nellie is great at, it's bringing out somebody's inner scorer. Marquis Daniels looked like freaking Derrick Rose as a rookie under Nellie, but he's been the definition of journeyman role player ever since.
Randolph is a good midrange shooter and a great ball handler, I think offensively Nellie will get the best out of him. Defensively, I can see him turning into Birdman or Tyrus Thomas, which kinda sucks.
Biedrins is an interesting player. I don't know what to make of him...is he good or just another role player? Maybe I'll know next year. He's solid no doubt but nothing spectacular.
Zach Randolph, Amare Stoudemire, Boozer, David West are all guys that make their teams worse even though they have great stats.
Really? IMO he's a role player.
IMO Biedrins is more than a role player for Golden State, but outside of Nellie's system he would suck like nothing you've ever seen before. I seriously think if he was on just about any other team, he'd be a 5/6 guy.
I said that cause Randolph is a big man. He's not gonna develop any back to the basket game with Nellie as coach.
Up until before last year I would've said he was a role player. He's only 23. I don't know that he'll ever make an All-Star team, but I think his ceiling is to be one of those guys on the cusp of being an All Star. Not that PER is everything, but his was 21 last year. He's a two-way center. Those guys are rare.
He's only 23 and he's steadily improved. A double-double and good defender.
I think Randolph is the only one of those guys that make their teams actively worse. In the case of Amare, Boozer and West, I think their teams give them too large a role. For instance, at this stage of his career, I think Nash would make a bad-ass 6th man, or somebody to only start and run the point for 28-30 minutes a night. But to rely on him to be a 34 minutes per game starter is not ideal.Zach Randolph, Amare Stoudemire, Boozer, David West are all guys that make their teams worse even though they have great stats.
My personal view, and I guess this isn't a traditional view, is that all players who can't create their own shot are "role players".
That's a good rule of thumb, but Dennis Rodman with the Bulls was not a role player.
My view is he was, he had a certain limit to the role he played, and he shouldn't step outside of it.
So, IMO, Amare Stoudemire is a role player that's a product of a system that made role players (Marion and Amare) look like stars by inflating their stats.
Charlie Rosen's favorite sport is Laker fellatio. You'll never see any Laker treated harshly in his column.
I think he was so dominant at what he did (defense, rebounding), that it overwhelmed what he didn't do (score).
Amare is an All Star being thrust into the role of franchise player, which he isn't. Amare's #s were inflated playing with Nash in SSOL, but he's hardly helpless without those two things.So, IMO, Amare Stoudemire is a role player that's a product of a system that made role players (Marion and Amare) look like stars by inflating their stats.
I have always considered Rodman to be the ultimate role player.
I just think his contributions to that second Bulls run of les cons ute more than that of a role player.
I don't think Amare is an all star w/o SSOL and Nash. Only reason he made it last year was fan voting. Like I said, he and Marion played roles where pretty much any big man will have inflated stats.
This topic bothers me cause Amare's 2nd season his individual game was making major strides, then between D'antoni's system where everyone played off Nash and his knee injury, Amare lost any individual game he developed and became a one dimensional pick and roll scorer.
That's why I think Nelson is gonna hurt Randolph since he's just like D'antoni but arguably more stubborn.
I love how there's not ONE mention of a Spurs player on this list!! Charlie knows his basketball!!
I have to agree with you on this. Rodman was the best rebounder in basketball, so in a sense that was his main role. But he was also an all around defender, and IMO one of the best outlet passers too, a skill that I think is generally underappreciated. Lots of younger players like to grab a rebound and cradle it like a trophy, which gives the other team time to get back on D, but Rodman was better than anyone at unloading his rebounds with a quick upcourt pass.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions