Reply With Quote
You call it unselfishness, I call it limitations. It's a point of view thing. Just like the old/veteran thing.
Even as the 'guy' in Portland Sheed was never a dominant player, which speaks more to his limitations.
Typo, you should know better ^
You call it unselfishness, I call it limitations. It's a point of view thing. Just like the old/veteran thing.
Even as the 'guy' in Portland Sheed was never a dominant player, which speaks more to his limitations.
Production was pretty equal, and Dirk shot 40.2% from the field, Webber 54.6% from the field.
And, while Dirk played better than KG, KG still put up great numbers, yet it's fine for Mavs fans to claim Dirk "dominated" KG? To me it's similar because Dirk put up great numbers against the Kings but Chris Webber put up similar or better numbers and his team won those two series.I was saying all of this because of your response to my argument that Dirk is better than KG because he outplayed him in their series. Your response was that Webber than should be considered better than Dirk, while I was trying to tell you that thier playoff history does not show that. That's all.
You're starting to not make sense. They dropped and that's the last time you heard of them them that season? Except for when they beat the Mavs in the first round, right?As of what the Kings would have done that season, that's pure speculation on both parts, and I couldn't care less really. I know they were the 1 seed before Webber came back. They dropped, and that was the last time we ever heard of them after that season.
Couldn't be a typo when you followed it up with...
...basically acknowledging you forgot Webber played in the 04 series.So you are basing your views on the 02 series.
You should admit you forgot.
In the 04 series Dirk outplayed a hobbled Webber. Yet the Kings won, because of Bibby v. Nash. I have said that many times.
The only time when you can say that Webber outplayed Dirk was 02. Which is true to a certain extent, but as I said you were talking about a still very young Dirk with a in his prime Webber.
With KG, they were both the same age, KG being a little older. The teams were mostly comparable. And if you saw those series it was KG v. Dirk that decided it, whereas in Kings v. Mavs it was mostly Bibby v. Nash. Webber barely played in 03, was hobbled in 04.
So except 02, you don't really have a case that Webber was outplaying Dirk.
Even in those series, they were still comparable. Don't forget that most people keep track of true shooting percentage, that is where Dirk excels as his 3s sometime take his percentages down, but they contribute more points.
After Webber came back, and to my opinion screwed up the Kings season, they beat an also struggling Mavs team during the Antoine and Antwan experiment, but then were kicked out from the TWolves and that was it for their window. They went into a freefall after the season. That's what I was saying, don't try to put words into my mouth. You can easily understand what I am trying to say. Webber's return that season killed all of their chemistry for that season and more, which is why I believe Webber's return was a bad thing. But this is not the point I am interested.
Nope. It's pretty much unselfishness. In high school, Rasheed sat out the second half of most games because they were blowouts and he didn't feel like showing up the other team. At UNC, he pretty much let Stackhouse be the star because all he cared about was winning even though Rasheed was the better player. He has always unselfish. Every team he's been on. He never takes that many shots because that's not how he plays. He doesn't care about scoring 40 or 50 points. The first season he was in Detroit, he had a huge game one night and was the "hero" of the game and he refused to talk to reporters (not rudely) until they talked to Elden Campbell first because EC had reached some milestone of number of games or something. He's stated in interviews that since he's been in the NBA, he has not once looked at a game's boxscore/stat sheet. After winning the le in 2004, on the championship DVD, Rasheed stated that he couldn't care less about the Hall of Fame or all star games or any of that. He cared about moments like winning the championship.
He doesn't care about dominating. He cares about winning. He cares about his teammates. He cares about the game. He doesn't care about stats. He doesn't care about how fans think he should be better than he is, or that he should have developed his skills more. He doesn't care about any of those things.
That's unselfishness, not limitations.
A player that cares about winning, wants to take over a game if he thinks that he is the best player on the court. If you don't than than there already is something wrong in your head. Even more, if you don't have the skills to do so, it means that you better find other ways to contribute which is what Sheed does.
I don't deny he loves his teammates and that he is a classy guy, but that's not an argument to use as for why he never developed his game. Duncan is a classy guy, so is Dirk, so is Nash. I am pretty sure they also could care less about MVPs, AllStar selections, if they could have more rings. Yet they worked their ass off to be where they are, and develop their games. Sheed clearly didn't and that is why he is a lesser player than those guys. And that is a shame for a guy that was given as much natural talent as anyone in the league. Because I don't think you can argue that Sheed has developed the skill level that those guys have. And it's exactly those skills that allow them to take over the game.
There are plenty players in the league that have been "the guy" for many seasons. From Vince to T-Mac to Iverson to Dirk. Very few of "those guys" that ultimately win championships like Shaq and Duncan as "the guy."
Rasheed's best team success came when he was a key player on a great team but not "the guy." I think he'll take his championship ring and the success he's had with the Pistons over not being "the guy" like Dirk or Iverson are.
It takes something very special for a player to sacrifice his game for the good of the team. Players who are incapable of compromise and unselfishness in their own way have their own types of limitations.
But didn't you just say that the Pistons rely more on Billups and Hamilton? Does that mean that they are better than Sheed? Probably. But should a player of Sheed's abilities be a lesser player than those two? No, No.
Rasheed is better of not being the guy, because he CAN'T. Iverson clearely has been a selfish player, but you can't say that about Dirk.
You can be unselfish, nice to teammates, and still be the guy. Those things are not mutually exclusive as you make it sound.
Amare's an excellent scorer but he wouldn't be as good without Nash.
And certainly not MVP material this year when you have guys like CP3, Kobe, Lebron, KG in the same sentence.
That might make sense if Billups and Hamilton were ineffective as the main "go to" guys for the Pistons. They are not ineffective. In fact, they have probably been the most effective "go to" guys in the league after Kobe, LeBron, and Duncan over the last five years.
When the Pistons acquired Rasheed, it was already Billups' and Hamilton's team. He found where he could fit in and the team won a le. Billups and Hamilton are not aging vets older than Sheed. They're both younger than Sheed. It's their team. Rasheed is playing his part and content in it. Not all athletes have the ultimate ego that necessitates them being the "go to" guy. Rasheed has no ego when it comes to putting up big numbers or having to have the ball in crunch time, especially not when Chauncey had built a reputation as a clutch performer.
Unselfishness and being "the guy" don't have to be mutually exclusive. Tim Duncan proves that. But, you can't question that of Rasheed since his unselfishness has led to an NBA le and pretty much the second most team success in the NBA over the last five seasons.
The Pistons have been good with Sheed, no denying that. However a well developed Sheed could have made them a real dynasty. Hamilton and Billups are great man, but no one has close to the talent that Sheed has. Yet because he never really worked on his game, we'll never know how much better they could have been.
I don't question the fact that Sheed found his niche with the Pistons. That's great after he was about to fall off the map in Portland. But don't tell me that the reason he doesn't dominate is because he is unselfish.
I'll make it easier on you. If he somehow decided to become the man tomorrow, do you think he has the skills to do that? Can he really carry the team night in, night out? I am pretty convinced he can't, and that he could have if he had really wanted to work on his game.
I absolutely think he can, he is that ing talented. I don't think Sheed wants all of the stuff that comes with being The Man, having to be the team spokesman when reporters come around, having to get the blame when things go bad, because when a team fails, the star player and coach get the lion's share of it fair or not, etc.
He had the talent, but I don't think his game is quite at that level. As I said before, his midrange shot is very weak, he can't put the ball on the floor. And his footwork is not good at all. I have seen him over the years, and I am convinced of that. It's just that he rearely tries these things and therefore you think he can do them. Similiar to Garnett really, who even when he tries to take over you easily see his limitations in range, power, and creativity.
p.s JR Smith can be a of a player. Unlimited range, crazy athleticism, good ballhandler, crazy instincts about the game. Yet if he tried to be a man, you would see that he has holes in his game. Now Sheed is obviously much developed than JR, but it's the same concept. Just because he has the skills to do so, it doesn't mean someone can become a great player overnight. You have to fill those holes in your game, and Sheed hasn't.
Thing is people "assume" that Rasheed doesn't work on his game. Maybe it's because he doesn't have Ben Wallace's physique or because he's not as versatile as Kevin Garnett. I'd be willing to bet that Rasheed does work on his game a lot. He may not work on dribbling or one-on-one moves, but I'm sure he works on the skills that he actually uses in games.
To answer your question, if the offense was built around Rasheed, I see no reason why he couldn't average around 20-23 ppg, night in and night out. What I do question is that it would be best for this Pistons team with the particular core of players and whether it would lead to the success this team has seen the last five seasons. Rip needs around 18-20 shots a game to be effective. Making Rasheed the focal point of the offense takes away touches from Rip. Similarly, if you set Rasheed down in the post, you take a lot of play making decisions away from Billups. Billups needs the ball in his hands on offense to establish his rhythm. So while Rasheed is capable of carrying the offense, I don't think it would optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of the team.
Don't know where to find the stat, but I would be willing to bet Rasheed shoots midrange jumpers (that aren't turn around post fade-aways) well over 50%.
His footwork is not weak at all. It's not perfect, but it very good, and at the very least completely adequate for a low post player.
Rasheed doesn't need to put the ball on the floor or shoot midrange jumpers to carry an offense. That's where you're misapplying your logic. If the offense ran through Rasheed, it should and would be through Rasheed in the low post with his back to the basket, not on the wing or a on the midpost as a face-up. There are very few players in the league that can stop Rasheed's fall-away jumpers in the low post. He can shoot over either shoulder, going baseline or in towards the paint. He is very effective backing down defenders by using his rear. And, his high release point makes it virtually impossible to block unless you're Yao Ming.
He doesn't need to hit midrange jumpers or have the ability to put the ball on the floor to carry an offense.
Well have you seen Sheed add anything to his game since his early Portland days? I haven't. Therefore while he probably works at things he is already good at, I am pretty sure he cared very little to expand his game like other greats do.
Did Sheed ever average 23 ppg as a Blazer, where he was the main guy? I don't think he did. Sheed as a main focus on offense clearely won't help this current team, but also because Sheed as a main focus could be controlled by opposing defenses. Force him off the 3 pt line, force him to put the ball on the floor, be phycial on the post and there you have it.
OK, I am done. This was an Amare thread. I believe that Sheed has limitations to his game, which don't show up very often because he rarely tries to do things he can't. I will admit he is good at that. Yet these limitations prevent him from being a top 10 player in the league, and it's a shame because he had the talent to eleminate these holes in his game. I think he shares some of these traits with KG, who really doesn't have a vast offensive repertoire and that is why he is easily checked in the 4 quarters and therefore never trully takes over games.
You don't believe that and I don't think anyone is convicing each other.
You can point out similar things about all great players. Why hasn't Dirk learned how to play with his back to the basket? How come he still hasn't improved defensively though he tries more now? How come he hasn't worked on becoming a shot blocker at his size and agility?
How come Shaq never improved how to defend the pick-and-roll? How come he never became an adequate free throw shooter?
You point out putting the ball on the court and shooting midrange jumpers with Rasheed. Those are two areas in the game.
All players have areas of improvement they could work on.
Rasheed averaged 19 ppg a couple seasons in Portland. Thing is he was unselfish back then too. Those two Portland teams had 6 players each average double digits in scoring. Name the last player to average over 20 ppg and have five teammates averaging double digit scoring. This Pistons team has four players averaging double digits, including Rasheed. It's a lot more reasonable to foresee Rasheed averaging over 20 ppg if he were the focal point of the offense.
Amare has improved his jumpshot, FT shooting so offensively no not overrated but he is not better than Tim/KG/Rasheed because he cant play D but out of the offensive guys Boozer,Dirk he is probably the the first or 2nd best of that bunch ...
^ and then along comes a guy like this. Dirk out of the league of TD/KG/Sheed ?????? Dumb. But that is what ESPN is telling people.
I disagree. I think the one that drinks the ESPN Kool-Aid is you. I had to read only 3 posts from you to notice you only see one half of the court.
Sheed is one of the very few players that not only can guard Duncan 1 on 1, but can also match him shot for shot.
The only knock I have on Sheed, is that sometimes he doesn't show up for games.
As super talented as Sheed is, he's never been able to consistently carry a team as The Man the way Dirk has. You probably would choose him over Dirk for a pickup game, but not when building a franchise.
My problem with Sheed is that he's inconsistent. When Larry Brown was the coach, his offensive zone was limited to the low post. He obviously was very successful at it, with 2 consecutive NBA Finals appearances.
Now it seems Flippy gave him the green light to do as he pleases and all those treys he's firing take away from his game, IMHO. If he hits one or two he falls in love with it, and starts chucking shoots for the rest of the game.
As far as carrying a franchise as The Man, that term is normally used for mostly the guy that provides offense, perhaps the few exceptions being TD, Kobe and KG. If I had a guy or two (like Billups and Rip) that can score, and needed to add a defensive anchor, I would definitely pick Sheed over Dirk.
Common misperception. This year and last year, Rasheed has averaged about 4 three point attempts per game. In 2004 when the Pistons won the le, Rasheed averaged 3 three point attempts per game, in both the regular season as a Piston and in the playoffs. That's only one more three point attempt per game.
Larry Brown had no problem with Rasheed stepping out shooting three pointers if they were in the flow of the offense.
The first year under Flip, Sheed was three happy. These last two seasons, he's been much more selective when to shoot three pointeres. And, when he hits one or two, he does start to shoot more. That's allowed him to have big games from three point land, 5-10, 5-8, 4-7, 5-10, 5-7. When he misses a couple, he generally stops shooting them unless he's completely wide open.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
