Kevin Garnett or Chris Webber?

[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.

[QUOTE=drza44]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.[/QUOTE]

This is laughable :lol

[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]

It was a response to this:

[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]

which I don't see how you could've missed since it was one post above mine... But whatever, it's clear people on this website don't read, they just respond.

Hinrich is having a better season than Rondo? wow.

[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]


Bull****.
That Sacramento team was stacked, and Webber wasn

and oh by the way, Bibby, Jackson, C-Webb, Divac, and Peja happened to be their 5 best players... I forgot to include Bibby in my post. Sue me.

[QUOTE=dhenk]Bull****.
That Sacramento team was stacked, and Webber wasn

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]Hinrich is having a better season than Rondo? wow.[/QUOTE]
You're right. That was a bad pick. My fault on that. I didn't use my better judgement there. Ok, Rondo makes the top 15. I amend that to 14 I'd take over him.

[QUOTE=wang4three]You're right. That was a bad pick. My fault on that. I didn't use my better judgement there. Ok, Rondo makes the top 15. I amend that to 14 I'd take over him.[/QUOTE]
Chris Duhon? TJ Ford? Kirk Hinrich?

[IMG]http://www.chillyoislamyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/hater1.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=wang4three]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]
What has Bibby's game lost? This makes no sense. He's at his career scoring average, shooting better than his norm, 1 assist per game under, big deal. With better stats than in his first season as a King, by the way. Some people thought Jackson was better but who started the game and had the ball in the clutch? And how is Rondo not a good finisher when he's shooting 50% overall? Where are the makes coming from? Threes? This is ridiculous.

[QUOTE=wang4three] [B]but know Rondo is better currently like DJ Augustin[/B], Jarret Jack, Rafer, and Stuckey.[/QUOTE]
:roll: DJ Augustin is equal to Rondo?