Kevin Garnett or Chris Webber?

[QUOTE=Celts34][URL="http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/11/sports/sp-dogsackings11"]http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/11/sports/sp-dogsackings11[/URL]

Yea cuz I jus make this stuff up.

[/quote]

That article is from when Peja was leading the Kings during Webber's injury, where as I already pointed out he was top 5 MVP candidate and battling for a scoring championship. At no point with a healthy C-Webb was Peja considered a top 5 player in the league. At no point before that was Peja considered a top player, and at no point after that was Peja considered a top 5 player. In fact, even during that season, he may have been in the running for the MVP award, but he wasn't on anybody's list of top 5 players.

[quote][URL="http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1031108/index.htm"]http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1031108/index.htm[/URL]

Yea Peja being compared to Bird never happened though right.[/quote]

Can you even read? "best pure marksman since Larry Bird" This article is about his status AS A SHOOTER. There's a difference between comparing them as players and comparing them in ONE skill area.

[quote][URL="http://fantasybbcoach.blogspot.com/2006/01/pacers-must-adjust-with-peja.html"]http://fantasybbcoach.blogspot.com/2006/01/pacers-must-adjust-with-peja.html[/URL]
Yea this was a comparison noone ever tried to make stick[/QUOTE]

OOOOOh a blog entry. Blogs = reality. At NO TIME WHATSOEVER was there a wide spread discussion around the league or consensus opinion that Peja compared to Bird as a player, in careers, accomplishments, or status. It was purely about shooting ability.

peja was an mvp candiate that season. man did he set the bar high for himself after that but that was the season webber went down in right? so that dosent count towards webber having a superstar wingman. webber played with a bunch of borderline all stars, not superstars like garnett but the amount of borderline ones and the depth of that roster probably would equal out or be better

[QUOTE=Showtime]That article is from when Peja was leading the Kings during Webber's injury, where as I already pointed out he was top 5 MVP candidate and battling for a scoring championship. At no point with a healthy C-Webb was Peja considered a top 5 player in the league. At no point before that was Peja considered a top player, and at no point after that was Peja considered a top 5 player. In fact, even during that season, he may have been in the running for the MVP award, but he wasn't on anybody's list of top 5 players.



Can you even read? "best pure marksman since Larry Bird" This article is about his status AS A SHOOTER. There's a difference between comparing them as players and comparing them in ONE skill area.



OOOOOh a blog entry. Blogs = reality. At NO TIME WHATSOEVER was there a wide spread discussion around the league or consensus opinion that Peja compared to Bird as a player, in careers, accomplishments, or status. It was purely about shooting ability.[/QUOTE]

If thats your opinion. Fine. No problem. We just gotta agree to disagree. Thats cool with me.

rationally i choose KG, but in terms of likeability and the "fun to watch" factor, i'd go with cwebb. they are very different kinds of players of course, but cwebb's awesome passing ability was more fun for me to watch than KG's antics and defensive prowess.

also, cwebb and the kings were robbed one year in the playoffs against the lakers otherwise they probably win the championship that year. i don't normally complain about the refs but it was the worst officiated game i've ever seen and is still infamous in the memories of many sports fans.

[QUOTE=Celts34]If thats your opinion. Fine. No problem. We just gotta agree to disagree. Thats cool with me.[/QUOTE]
It's not opinion. AT NO POINT WAS THERE A COMPARISON OF LARRY BIRD AND PEJA BEYOND SHOOTING. THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED WAS ABOUT SHOOTING ABILITY. There's no disagreeing.

And as I said, Peja being in the discussion of MVP voting in 2004 does NOT make him a top 5 player in the league. At no point prior to that was he even considered in the top 10, and at no point after that season was he even near top 10. PEJA WAS NOT CONSIDERED A TOP 5 PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE EVER. Even more proof is the FACT that he made the all-NBA second team that year, and that was his best season. A top 5 player should make first team, wouldn't you agree? At his very best, he was a top MVP candidate and second team player, and that was for most of one single season.

He was a top MVP candidate until Webber returned. He was the first option on a top team for the majority of ONE season. That was his best, but that doesn't make him a top 5 player in the game. You are incorrect. Period.

[QUOTE=Showtime]It's not opinion. AT NO POINT WAS THERE A COMPARISON OF LARRY BIRD AND PEJA BEYOND SHOOTING. THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED WAS ABOUT SHOOTING ABILITY. There's no disagreeing.

And as I said, Peja being in the discussion of MVP voting in 2004 does NOT make him a top 5 player in the league. At no point prior to that was he even considered in the top 10, and at no point after that season was he even near top 10. PEJA WAS NOT CONSIDERED A TOP 5 PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE EVER. Even more proof is the FACT that he made the all-NBA second team that year, and that was his best season. A top 5 player should make first team, wouldn't you agree? At his very best, he was a top MVP candidate and second team player, and that was for most of one single season.

He was a top MVP candidate until Webber returned. He was the first option on a top team for the majority of ONE season. That was his best, but that doesn't make him a top 5 player in the game. You are incorrect. Period.[/QUOTE]

I guess I have to dumb myself down so you'll understand me better.

I don't agree with you.
You don't agree with me.
So there isn't anything left to say.

[QUOTE=Kevin_Garnett_5]I'll take KG without thinking twice.[/QUOTE]
wow, what a shocker.
i thought by your user name and avatar that you were a chris webber fan for sure.

[QUOTE=Stacey King][quote=Celts34]
I would argue the 00-01, and 01-02 Kings were probably very close.[/quote]Very good teams, but they don't compare to last years Celtics. Not even close. A team that topped out at 61 wins and never made the championship doesn't compare to a team with three stars winning 66 games and the championship[/QUOTE]

You're mixing up results and caliber. The question could be rephrased as: was Webber ever on a team with teammates as good as KG's teammates on the Celtics last season. And the answer is pretty clearly yes, IMO.

Those early 2000s Kings were stupidly talented. It's revisionist history to make it seem like Peja was considered basically a role player shooter, when he made 3 straight All Star teams starting in the '01 season and received MVP votes in 2 of those seasons. Bibby was a clutch-shooting former #2 overall pick who was a 16/8 PG as a young player before getting to Sac, then only saw his assist numbers drop because the Princeton offense ran so much through the big men. Speaking of that, Vlade Divac and later Brad Miller were two of the better passing/shooting centers in the NBA next to Webber. Dough Christie was one of the best defensive swingmen in the NBA (4 straight All Defense teams starting in 00-01) while BoJax was another big-shot maker and a 6th man of the year. Turkoglu and Wallace were nowhere near what they became, but they were still promising youngsters with upside that contributed in the rotation.

Last year's Celtics didn't have nearly that much top-to-bottom quality. Pierce and Allen have better resumes than Peja/Bibby, but on that particular team their impact as 2nd/3rd options wasn't noticably larger than Peja/Bibby's. And after that, the rest of the Kings' rotation was some combination of more talented, more experienced, more accomplished, or all 3 when compared to their Celtics counterparts.

The fact that those Kings teams topped out at 61 wins while the Celtics won 66 and a title doesn't prove that the Celtics had the better supporting cast. It could also be argued that perhaps the Celtics' greater success with a similar or possibly inferior supporting cast is further evidence that Garnett was better than Webber.

[QUOTE=Celts34]I guess I have to dumb myself down so you'll understand me better.

I don't agree with you.
You don't agree with me.
So there isn't anything left to say.[/QUOTE]
Here's what you aren't grasping: THE ISSUE ISN'T ONE OF SUBJECTIVITY. IT'S NOT ABOUT OPINION. Ok, do I have your attention?

Why this isn't an issue up for debate, subject to each person's opinion:

You made a claim about what the general consensus of the league at the time was, not about your own personal opinion of Peja. [quote]Peja who people during this time(here I might add) was trumpeted as a top 10, and even by some a top 5 player.[/quote] I'M NOT ARGUING ABOUT WHAT YOU THOUGHT OF PEJA, I'M ARGUING WHAT YOU SAID WAS THE PERCEPTION OF PEJA AT THE TIME.

You made a claim that he was considered a top 5 player. That was false.

You made a claim he was compared to Bird as a player. That was false. They were only compared in relation to shooting, nothing more.

You made a claim Peja was considered a superstar. This is false. If you want to believe he was that good, then fine, that's your opinion. But you can't make false claims about what the consensus around the league at that time was when you are clearly WRONG in that regard. He wasn't even considered the best at his position, let alone top 5 in the game. VC, T-Mac, Pierce, all were players that Peja wasn't considered superior to, let alone guys like Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, KG, etc.

Once again, so there's no misunderstanding:

You made comments about what OTHERS thought about Peja, which were false. Period. If you want to believe Peja was a top 5 player, that is your prerogative. But you can't say it's a matter of opinion ABOUT WHAT OTHERS THOUGHT AS A GENERAL CONSENSUS AROUND THE LEAGUE. That's not up for debate. That's not a matter of opinion.

You can't disagree the Earth revolves around the sun. You can't disagree that the Earth is a sphere. It's not a matter of opinion. Neither is this issue. You can't go back and rewrite history and tell others what the majority of people around the league thought, when that was never true.

Now, if you were strictly speaking about this very messageboard (which I suspect you weren't based upon your posted articles), then it's a different story.

[QUOTE=drza44]

[B]Dough Christie was one of the best defensive swingmen in the NBA [/B]

Same exact thing could be said for James Posey, a member of last years Celtics.

[B]Turkoglu and Wallace were nowhere near what they became, but they were still promising youngsters with upside that contributed in the rotation.[/B]

Wallace really didn't contribute much at all. He hardly even played- wasn't more than the 9th man on the roster.

[B]Pierce and Allen have better resumes than Peja/Bibby, but on that particular team their impact as 2nd/3rd options wasn't noticably larger than Peja/Bibby's.[/B]

Disagree here. While Peja and Bibby were solid players who had some very good years together, I'd take Pierce and Allen's contributions last year in a heartbeat. Pierce was the Finals MVP and locked down Kobe a number of times during the series. And even though Pierce won the MVP, I think Allen had the best series. He bounced back tremendously from a poor start in the Playoffs. His ability to play long stretches (such as all 48 in Game 4) and contribute both offensively and defensively during the Finals cannot be overlooked.

And while Bibby flourished in that series vs. the Lakers in '02, Peja struggled, particularly when the series was on the line in Game 7. Pierce and Allen both had great clutch moments during the C's title run. As it is, I'll take three probable hall of famers hungry for a championship over a team with lots of young talent any day of the week.

Garnett has an MVP, a DPoY, and a Championship. 2 of those 3 are individual awards, and even the Championship has much to do with Garnett's superiority. Som e people (that haven't been paying attention) think that Garnett isn't any good in the clutch. He's not a great clutch player, but he's hit a number of big shots and really doesn't play any worse. Pierce is normally the guy down the stretch and Ray Allen hits the most game winners but Garnett gets baskets in the fourth quarter. He might not have taken Webbers' Kings past LA, but when I think about that Game 7...that was bad. Every King but Mike Bibby got "Choke Artist" tattooed on his forehead, and in the fourth quarter they were playing hot potato with the basketball. The worst chokes were by Stojakovic and Christie but Webber not even trying to take over when he's seeing single coverage while LA throws the entire team at Bibby, that was pathetic. If a team does try to double Pierce (doesn't happen often these days) Garnett will make a play. He was, in fact, the Cs top scorer last postseason. That is an edge that may be subjective, Webber might be able to lead the Cs to the Championship too (although the key was Garnett's DPoY season, which Webber was never close to), but what edge, subjective or otherwise, does Webber have? He wasn't a better scorer or rebounder, and was a vastly inferior defender. So how can he be better?

KG cause of durabilty and longetivity of dominance.. but when Chris was healthy and on, no one could stop him and I liked him more. His defense was always suspect--sometimes good, most of the time average, but he made it up by being just a complete player with a knack of playing big. I'm sure someone is going to bring up "the time out" but to his credit, even UM's assistant coach thuoght they had a TO and told Webber to take it.

[QUOTE=Stacey King]

[B]Dough Christie was one of the best defensive swingmen in the NBA [/B]

Same exact thing could be said for James Posey, a member of last years Celtics. [/quote]

Not the same. Christie was a 4-time member of the NBA All Defensive team next to Webber (including one 1st team nod) that started and played about 35 minutes/game. Posey has never made the All Defense team and was playing fewer minutes off the bench. Posey was a solid defender, but not on Christie's level.

[quote][ [B]Turkoglu and Wallace were nowhere near what they became, but they were still promising youngsters with upside that contributed in the rotation.[/B]

Wallace really didn't contribute much at all. He hardly even played- wasn't more than the 9th man on the roster.[/quote]

He was also about the 8th or 9th person that I listed, which makes sense.[quote]

[quote][B]Pierce and Allen have better resumes than Peja/Bibby, but on that particular team their impact as 2nd/3rd options wasn't noticably larger than Peja/Bibby's.[/B]

Disagree here. While Peja and Bibby were solid players who had some very good years together, I'd take Pierce and Allen's contributions last year in a heartbeat. Pierce was the Finals MVP and locked down Kobe a number of times during the series. And even though Pierce won the MVP, I think Allen had the best series. He bounced back tremendously from a poor start in the Playoffs. His ability to play long stretches (such as all 48 in Game 4) and contribute both offensively and defensively during the Finals cannot be overlooked.

And while Bibby flourished in that series vs. the Lakers in '02, Peja struggled, particularly when the series was on the line in Game 7. Pierce and Allen both had great clutch moments during the C's title run. As it is, I'll take three probable hall of famers hungry for a championship over a team with lots of young talent any day of the week.[/QUOTE]

The initial post that I was disputing said that those Kings were not as talented as the Celtics because the Kings topped out at 61 regular season wins while the Celtics won 66 games. In the regular season, Peja/Bibby's roles and production were very similar to Pierce/Allen (I can pull out the numbers if you like). On the other hand, Vlade/Christie were more accomplished veterans whereas Rondo and Perk were entirely untested. BoJax was a more accomplished 6th man than Posey, Turk/Wallace were better young talent than Powe/Baby, etc.

As for the playoffs, I submit that Peja (for all of his struggles) was better up through the WCF than Ray was in the early rounds last year (he was terrible). Likewise, Bibby compared very favorably with Pierce (who had moments, but was woefully inconsistent, especially up through the Conference Finals). And it's dubius to bring crunch time of the Lakers game 7 into it, as that's when Webber's crunch time prowess was most brough tinto doubt.

[QUOTE=plowking]Haha.

Webber only doesn't make the top 50 due to rings. Greatness is different to who the better ball player is.

Webber was/is the better player, though KG is simply rated higher due to longevity and his ring. Webber was the better player in terms of basketball.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, KG is overrated because he won a ring with a strong team. Whatever...

There

[QUOTE=dhenk]Yeah, KG is overrated because he won a ring with a strong team. Whatever...

There

[QUOTE=gigantes]rationally i choose KG, but in terms of likeability and the "fun to watch" factor, i'd go with cwebb. they are very different kinds of players of course, but cwebb's awesome passing ability was more fun for me to watch than KG's antics and defensive prowess.

also, cwebb and the kings were robbed one year in the playoffs against the lakers otherwise they probably win the championship that year. i don't normally complain about the refs but it was the worst officiated game i've ever seen and is still infamous in the memories of many sports fans.[/QUOTE]
I agree and I disagree. You are right that they are two very different players with different types of games. It's unfortunate that C-Webb's microfracture surgery robbed him of a chance to play out his career the way he really wanted to, but the C-Webb of his prime was a phenomenal player. A flashy passer for a big, a terrific ball handler, a dynamic offensive player, a solid rebounder/shot blocker. And I mean, he had some really high IQ basketball players on his team (Divac, Christie, Bobby Jackson, Turkoglu, etc) but he never played with a Paul Pierce or a Ray Allen.. That's not to take away from KG but I think that prime C-Webb was honestly the better player. However, I'd give the nod to KG based on the longevity of his career.

[QUOTE=bokes15]I don't think anyone who actually watched a prime C-Webb would make that statement. Prime C-Webb led his Kings to a 61-21 record while averaging 27/11 and being a strong MVP candidate... It took the powerhouse Lakers (and perhaps some questionable calls) to take him out that year in 7 games. Replace KG with prime C-Webb on that C's team and not only would they have still won the title, but the first two series might not have even gone 7.[/QUOTE]

Highly questionable. Last year's Celtics won first and foremost with their defense. It was their dominant unit all season, and was their main weapon in the playoffs as well. Garnett was the centerpiece of their defense and was DPoY, which Webber really couldn't replicate. That's a more-than-minor point here.

Meanwhile, on offense, the things that the Celtics needed from KG were timely shot-making, some post offense, and lots of playing off the ball/ball movement so that Pierce and Rondo could have the ball in their hands while Ray still got his shots. Webber, I believe, could have filled most of KG's role on offense since in their primes their offensive skill sets were similar. But that role didn't allow for 27 ppg scoring...there's a reason why all of the Big 3's scoring numbers went through the floor, as they all had to sacrifice on offense for the team to work. If Webber tried to score anywhere near like he did in Sac it would have disrupted the offensive flow. I don't believe that he would have, I believe that he'd have been smart enough to see the benefit of sacrificing his numbers so that Pierce, Allen and the rest of the offense ran smoothly.

So that said, if Webber looked like KG on offense but couldn't replicate the defense...I doubt that the Celtics are a championship team last year with Webber in there instead of Garnett.

[QUOTE=drza44]Highly questionable. Last year's Celtics won first and foremost with their defense. It was their dominant unit all season, and was their main weapon in the playoffs as well. Garnett was the centerpiece of their defense and was DPoY, which Webber really couldn't replicate. That's a more-than-minor point here.

Meanwhile, on offense, the things that the Celtics needed from KG were timely shot-making, some post offense, and lots of playing off the ball/ball movement so that Pierce and Rondo could have the ball in their hands while Ray still got his shots. Webber, I believe, could have filled most of KG's role on offense since in their primes their offensive skill sets were similar. But that role didn't allow for 27 ppg scoring...there's a reason why all of the Big 3's scoring numbers went through the floor, as they all had to sacrifice on offense for the team to work. If Webber tried to score anywhere near like he did in Sac it would have disrupted the offensive flow. I don't believe that he would have, I believe that he'd have been smart enough to see the benefit of sacrificing his numbers so that Pierce, Allen and the rest of the offense ran smoothly.

So that said, if Webber looked like KG on offense but couldn't replicate the defense...I doubt that the Celtics are a championship team last year with Webber in there instead of Garnett.[/QUOTE]
If you're just looking at the guy on paper, his scoring numbers are misleading. Webber was a very unselfish player and would have no problem adjusting to a smaller scoring role, I strongly believe that.

C-Webb was a better offensive player than Kevin Garnett, and while his defense was not exactly on par with KG's, it wasn't bad either. I agree that there would be a dropoff but he's not exactly a guy who got exposed on the defensive end of the floor. I think he would fit seemlessly into the offensive schemes and defensively he wouldn't be a liability. I guess I can't make a definitive argument that they would still have won, but I think there would be a strong possibility. And who says they'd have to implement the exact same system? CW is a completely different player from KG.

[QUOTE=bokes15]Twice the player with half the results.[/QUOTE]
This is true, until he moved to Celts of course.

[QUOTE=bokes15]C-Webb was a better offensive player than Kevin Garnett,[/QUOTE]There are no stats to prove that.

[quote]and while his defense was not exactly on par with KG's, it wasn't bad either. I agree that there would be a dropoff but he's not exactly a guy who got exposed on the defensive end of the floor. I think he would fit seemlessly into the offensive schemes and defensively he wouldn't be a liability. I guess I can't make a definitive argument that they would still have won, but I think there would be a strong possibility. And who says they'd have to implement the exact same system? CW is a completely different player from KG.[/QUOTE]"not exactly on par?" Try "Not even close." Was Webber ever All-D? Webber was not an individual liability but he wasn't a shutdown man defender/great help defender like Garnett is. And why would the Cs change the offense? Skillwise Garnett and webber actually were alike, both being Pfs with 20-foot range (although Garnett's jumper is better, which is part of why he has a higher FG %age), some dribble skill, good court vision, and some post-up game. Webber was stronger but liked to hang out on the perimeter and high post anyway.

[QUOTE=bokes15]If you're just looking at the guy on paper, his scoring numbers are misleading. Webber was a very unselfish player and would have no problem adjusting to a smaller scoring role, I strongly believe that.

C-Webb was a better offensive player than Kevin Garnett, and while his defense was not exactly on par with KG's, it wasn't bad either. I agree that there would be a dropoff but he's not exactly a guy who got exposed on the defensive end of the floor. I think he would fit seemlessly into the offensive schemes and defensively he wouldn't be a liability. I guess I can't make a definitive argument that they would still have won, but I think there would be a strong possibility. And who says they'd have to implement the exact same system? CW is a completely different player from KG.[/QUOTE]

I think you misundersood me. Like you, I think that Webber would have fit into Boston's offensive schemes in a similar way to Garnett (I believe I said as much in my last post). But in order to fit that offensive scheme, Webber could not have produced anywhere near the 27 ppg that you reference from that one season in his prime, as in order to do so he would have required way too many possessions that would have weakened the offense.

And actually, the stance that Webber was a "better offensive player" than KG is extremely questionable. KG has a higher true shooting percentage, a higher EFG%, a higher assist percentage, a lower turnover percentage, and a higher offensive rating than Webber both peak and over career. Webber has a higher usage. The upshot of all of these stats is that Garnett has been the more efficient offensive player than Webber (both peak and career), but Webber tended to take more shots and use more possessions. Now, all of these numbers were relatively close one way or the other, but the trend is clear.

So all of that said, it goes back to my original point: on offense, Webber would likely have fit into the Celtics' scheme similarly to KG with similar offensive results. But in this situation, KG's better efficiency and shooting was probably a more valuable skill than Webber's ability to volume score (which, if anything, would have been a negative to the Big Three scheme).

Then, we get to defense, which was really the more important side of the ball anyway for the Celtics' championship. Webber was an underrated defensive player IMO, but KG is a defensive game-changer, one of the best defenders in this generation. The Celtics needed more than just "not a defensive liability" from their power forward...they needed a defensive lynchpin, one that could anchor the most important unit on the team. They needed a gamechanger, one that they could use as the foundation of the #1 defense in the NBA. Webber just wasn't that.

Thus my conclusion is that if Webber was similar to (or even slightly less efficient/higher volume than) KG on offense but lesser on defense, and even WITH KG the Celtics went 7 games and down to the wire against the Cavs...it is not likely IMO that they make it through with Webber in there instead. It would have been just another chapter in Webber's legacy of leading extremely talented teams right to the brink, but not quite making it over.

KG for me took full advantage of his opportunities. Chris Webbber had his chance with that great Sacramento team. Which consisted of prime Bibby, Peja in his prime, Divac, Bobby Jackson, Hedo, and he still didn't manage to win a tittle.

So I would choose KG.

[QUOTE=browntown]KG for me took full advantage of his opportunities. Chris Webbber had his chance with that great Sacramento team. Which consisted of prime Bibby, Peja in his prime, Divac, Bobby Jackson, Hedo, and he still didn't manage to win a tittle.

So I would choose KG.[/QUOTE]
The fact that people are legitimately comparing Peja Stojakovic (at any point in his career) to Paul Pierce is laughable.
Pierce>>>>>> Peja
Perkins >>>>> out of prime Divac that C-Webb played with
Rondo >>>Bobby Jackson
Ray Allen >>>> Hedo Turkoglu
And lastly, the Kings ran into prime Shaq and Kobe repeatedly during these great chances of which everyone speaks about.

[QUOTE=FinishHim!]
Rondo >>>Bobby Jackson[/QUOTE]

Don't want to stray out of topic too much but no, no, no. In his day, there was nothing Rondo was better than BJax in. Outside of rebounding or some other inconsequential stat when comparing the two. Not as a play maker, not as a scorer, and not even as a defender. Bobby checked Kobe at times and did a decent job when they played each other. In fact, I think Bobby did a better job d'ing up Kobe than Doug did. Rondo is nothing more to me than a slightly better Anthony Carter. I can name you 15 PGs I'd take over him.

[quote]Perkins >>>>> out of prime Divac that C-Webb played with[/quote]

No. Get out of here.

[QUOTE=wang4three]Don't want to stray out of topic too much but no, no, no. In his day, there was nothing Rondo was better than BJax in. Outside of rebounding or some other inconsequential stat when comparing the two. Not as a play maker, not as a scorer, and not even as a defender. Bobby checked Kobe at times and did a decent job when they played each other. In fact, I think Bobby did a better job d'ing up Kobe than Doug did. Rondo is nothing more to me than a slightly better Anthony Carter. I can name you 15 PGs I'd take over him. [/QUOTE]
Rondo's getting underrated here. He's a better passer and closer to being a "pure" pg than Jackson. Jackson was a lot better scorer but Rondo beats him as a passer and penetrator. Jackson was still a better overall player, but he doesn't blow Rondo away.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]Rondo's getting underrated here. He's a better passer and closer to being a "pure" pg than Jackson. Jackson was a lot better scorer but Rondo beats him as a passer and penetrator. Jackson was still a better overall player, but he doesn't blow Rondo away.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how Rondo's underrated still. I never understood that claim. He's a solid point guard. No better than Chris Duhon or TJ Ford. I also think that Bobby was a lot better penetrator than Bobby. When he was the 6th man of the year he was blowing by anyone and everyone put in front of him. People were saying he was better than a prime Bibby. Passer? Probably, but as far as making plays are concerned, I think Bobby has him beat.

[QUOTE=wang4three][quote=Real Men Wear Green]

Rondo's getting underrated here. He's a better passer and closer to being a "pure" pg than Jackson. Jackson was a lot better scorer but Rondo beats him as a passer and penetrator. Jackson was still a better overall player, but he doesn't blow Rondo away.[/quote]

I don't see how Rondo's underrated still. I never understood that claim. He's a solid point guard. No better than Chris Duhon or TJ Ford. I also think that Bobby was a lot better penetrator than Bobby. When he was the 6th man of the year he was blowing by anyone and everyone put in front of him. People were saying he was better than a prime Bibby. Passer? Probably, but as far as making plays are concerned, I think Bobby has him beat.[/QUOTE]

Not to step too far into the disagreement, but I think you're both ignoring a major point here in responding to FinishHim's in depth analysis:

You're comparing the starter on the Celtics to the back-up on the Kings. FinishHim did the same thing at swingman, where he compares the starter on the Celtics (Allen) with the back-up on the Kings (Hedo). He somehow managed to get all of those >>>>>>>>>>s in there without mentioning at all the starting backcourt for those Kings in Bibby and Christie, who were only the best defensive player on the team (Christie) and best clutch scorer (and possibly 2nd best player) in Bibby. :shrugs: Just seems like they might be pertinent to this discussion too.

[QUOTE=drza44]Not to step too far into the disagreement, but I think you're both ignoring a major point here in responding to FinishHim's in depth analysis:

You're comparing the starter on the Celtics to the back-up on the Kings. FinishHim did the same thing at swingman, where he compares the starter on the Celtics (Allen) with the back-up on the Kings (Hedo). He somehow managed to get all of those >>>>>>>>>>s in there without mentioning at all the starting backcourt for those Kings in Bibby and Christie, who were only the best defensive player on the team (Christie) and best clutch scorer (and possibly 2nd best player) in Bibby. :shrugs: Just seems like they might be pertinent to this discussion too.[/QUOTE]

I was aware, but I found Rondo over Bobby and Perkins over Vlade just egregious.

Actually, I wasn't in the mood to argue with a bunch of ">."
[QUOTE=wang4three]I don't see how Rondo's underrated still. I never understood that claim. He's a solid point guard. No better than Chris Duhon or TJ Ford. I also think that Bobby was a lot better penetrator than Bobby. When he was the 6th man of the year he was blowing by anyone and everyone put in front of him. People were saying he was better than a prime Bibby. Passer? Probably, but as far as making plays are concerned, I think Bobby has him beat.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how anyone that has watched Rondo could doubt him as a penetrator. There isn't a player in the game that can stay in front of him. And it's funny that you bring up Bibby...Bibby started over Jackson and yet Rondo has destroyed Bibby, who is the same player now that he was in Sac (he's still only 30 and the stats are on par with career averages).

[QUOTE]There isn't a player in the game that can stay in front of him.[/QUOTE]
An even greater testament to his slashing ability is the fact that almost every defender he goes up against sags off him, trying to bait him into taking an uncomfortable jumper. And he still gets by them.

[QUOTE=Kobe=MVP07`]The argument can be made that KG has a ring to Cwebs 0

that can be defended that if cwebb had kgs cast of pierce ray ect.. he too would of won it
and would of won it with his old cast if the refs didnt **** him

Kg or cwebb prime who do u take to start a team?[/QUOTE]

Garnett

end thread!

[QUOTE=browntown]KG for me took full advantage of his opportunities.[/quote]

Apparently not that often in the first round, and not when he made the WCF.

[quote]Chris Webbber had his chance with that great Sacramento team. Which consisted of prime Bibby, Peja in his prime, Divac, Bobby Jackson, Hedo, and he still didn't manage to win a tittle. [/quote]

He lost in what many view as the worst officiated playoff series ever. Kings played poorly, no doubt, and I'm not hanging the loss entirely on the stripes, but that has to count for something. Again, he was injured the VERY NEXT YEAR in the PLAYOFFS. How unlucky is that? KG has a TIME advantage that Webber didn't get. I don't see how KG not having a career killing injury means he's better.

If KG wasn't dealt and won in Boston, is this even a point that is brought up?

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]Actually, I wasn't in the mood to argue with a bunch of ">."

I don't see how anyone that has watched Rondo could doubt him as a penetrator. There isn't a player in the game that can stay in front of him. And it's funny that you bring up Bibby...Bibby started over Jackson and yet Rondo has destroyed Bibby, who is the same player now that he was in Sac (he's still only 30 and the stats are on par with career averages).[/QUOTE]

He can penetrate, but his finishing ability is very iffy to me. I've seen him blow the simplest of layups. Bibby didn't start over Bobby for defensive reasons. You know that. Mike is a horrible defensive player so telling me that someone "destroyed" him is not really saying much. It's like telling me Rondo destroyed Nash. Well, yeah of course. Mike's upside came from his ability to play off Webber and Vlade so well.

[QUOTE=wang4three]He can penetrate, but his finishing ability is very iffy to me. I've seen him blow the simplest of layups. Bibby didn't start over Bobby for defensive reasons. You know that. Mike is a horrible defensive player so telling me that someone "destroyed" him is not really saying much. It's like telling me Rondo destroyed Nash. Well, yeah of course. Mike's upside came from his ability to play off Webber and Vlade so well.[/QUOTE]
Rondo not only lit Bibby up, he also defended him well on the other end. In fact, Rondo has outplayed a lot of good pgs head-to-head. As for the lay-ups, Rondo has improved in that area greatly and it's certainly not an issue to make a big deal over, because if he can't finish, how is a 6'1 pg with a weak jumper shooting 50%?

[QUOTE=wang4three]Don't want to stray out of topic too much but no, no, no. In his day, there was nothing Rondo was better than BJax in. Outside of rebounding or some other inconsequential stat when comparing the two. Not as a play maker, not as a scorer, and not even as a defender. Bobby checked Kobe at times and did a decent job when they played each other. In fact, I think Bobby did a better job d'ing up Kobe than Doug did. Rondo is nothing more to me than a slightly better Anthony Carter.[B] I can name you 15 PGs I'd take over him. [/B]



No. Get out of here.[/QUOTE]

I don't ant this thread going off line but i doubt you can name 15 pg's ahead of Rondo. Rondo is probably a 2nd tier/3rd tier PG but to name 15 you would have to be picky and name 5-7 PG's within those same tier ahead of them. Many of those PG's you can make a solid argument that Rondo has the advantage however slight it is.

[QUOTE=Showtime]Apparently not that often in the first round, and not when he made the WCF.[/quote]

Garnett's teams were always seriously outgunned in personnel by the teams he lost to. So he did maximize his opportunities in carrying very undertalented teams that far, and he proved that by leading his first truly talented supporting cast to a championship.

[quote]He lost in what many view as the worst officiated playoff series ever. Kings played poorly, no doubt, and I'm not hanging the loss entirely on the stripes, but that has to count for something. Again, he was injured the VERY NEXT YEAR in the PLAYOFFS. How unlucky is that? KG has a TIME advantage that Webber didn't get. I don't see how KG not having a career killing injury means he's better.

If KG wasn't dealt and won in Boston, is this even a point that is brought up?[/QUOTE]

Actually, you touch on a good point. Before Garnett was dealt to Boston, championships themselves obviously never would have come into the conversation because neither KG nor Webber had ever won one at that point. But both Garnett and Webber shared some sentiment among some fans that they just couldn't win the big one. Last season KG proved definitively that such criticism didn't fit him. Webber was never able to do that. And despite the injury that cut Webber's career short, he had a full 10-year run before it (including several extremely talented squads) with which to go for it.

Webber's had at least a 4-year stretch with teams more talented than any KG was on before Boston, and at least a couple of those years the Sac supporting cast was IMO same level or better than the Celtics crew. So another way to look at it is that Webber was the one with the time advantage, as he got to play on very talented teams for several years in his physical prime whereas KG never got to such a team until he was 32 years old...and he still was able to deliver and bring home a title in year 1, while Webber couldn't in several such opportunities...

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]Rondo not only lit Bibby up, he also defended him well on the other end. In fact, Rondo has outplayed a lot of good pgs head-to-head. As for the lay-ups, Rondo has improved in that area greatly and it's certainly not an issue to make a big deal over, because if he can't finish, how is a 6'1 pg with a weak jumper shooting 50%?[/QUOTE]

This says to me one of two things:

1. Bibby is clearly not the same player he once was (most probable)
2. Bobby was brought off the bench for reasons like scoring and defensive shifts rather than because he wasn't as good, if not better than Bibby.

It wasn't uncommon for people to think that Bobby was better than Mike back in the Kings era. During his 6th man campaign, many though he should've started over Mike because he had been so efficient.

As far as Rondo shooting 50%, sure he makes more than he misses, but nothing really indicated to me that he's better at finishing than Bobby was.

[QUOTE=MMM]I don't ant this thread going off line but i doubt you can name 15 pg's ahead of Rondo. Rondo is probably a 2nd tier/3rd tier PG but to name 15 you would have to be picky and name 5-7 PG's within those same tier ahead of them. Many of those PG's you can make a solid argument that Rondo has the advantage however slight it is.[/QUOTE]

In no order and as far as this season goes:

Deron
Paul
Nash
Kidd
Devin
Parker
Rose
Chauncey
Kirk Hinrich
Mo Williams
Andre Miller
Chris Duhon
Jameer Nelson
TJ Ford
Jose Calderon

And like I said, I can name 15 ahead of him as in I would take over him without looking at what the rest of the team make up is like. This doesn't include injured players like Baron and Gilbert. Felton I might consider taking over him. Then there's a bunch of guys where I like better, but know Rondo is better currently like DJ Augustin, Jarret Jack, Rafer, and Stuckey.

[QUOTE=drza44]Garnett's teams were always seriously outgunned in personnel by the teams he lost to. So he did maximize his opportunities in carrying very undertalented teams that far, and he proved that by leading his first truly talented supporting cast to a championship.[/quote]

If they were good enough to win 50 games, they should have been good enough to win best of 5.

[QUOTE=Showtime]If they were good enough to win 50 games, they should have been good enough to win best of 5.[/QUOTE]

Oversimplification. They were good enough to win 50 games expressly because Garnett borderlined on superhuman those years. 50 wins doesn't make a cast of Troy Hudson and Wally next to KG all of a sudden a legitimate matchup against Kobe and Shaq.