What is your general opinion of Blake Griffin career wise?

[Clippersfan86]

Blake is definitely a better post scorer than people realize.

But not much better post player overall. You couldn't run thru him in the post and he's never developed that part of his game.

His offense was more bully ball like Brand and Zbo somewhat. He wasn't a guy who had beautiful post moves. He used his strength and athleticism for leverage though and did have an underrated drop step, power hook shot etc. My personal opinion is I don't care how skilled a player seems or looks. I care about the results. I watched years of Brand score this way too. He was no Hakeem, but he played bully ball in the paint and got buckets at a great clip.

As for running the offense through him in the post, that's literally what the team did the first 3 years of his career, and the Clippers were an elite offense basically the entire Blake era. Much of that was CP3's brilliance, but sadly Blake's impact gets lost. Especially his playmaking. I'd put him up against Chris Webber any day as a Point Forward, yet Webber gets 3x the hype.

[King Baron]

His dunking ability most reminds me of Shawn Kemp (along with Amare).

Generally, injuries always stole his post-season opportunties. Great player to watch, crisp passing from the post.

[Carbine]

chris paul was pretty easily the best players on the clippers so you cant really say he turned them into a formidable foe.

they would've still been an easy playoff team with just CP3, Deandre Jordan, and role players.

There you go again twisting words to fit whatever argument you're trying to create.

There is a major difference between "Helped" and "all by himself"

Cut that shit out.

[fv2.0]

A supreme athletic talent who consistently developed his skill over time, but who unfortunately had injuries derail what should have been a Hall of Fame career. There's still hope but, at this point I think its safe to say that he didn't live up to his full potential.

[NBAGOAT]

Could sneak into the hall. Was legitimately top 5 in 2014. Injuries kind of made his career a bit disappointing. He had to switch to a more perimeter oriented also because league was changing and hadn’t expanded to the 3pt line so wasn’t as good for a few years even when healthy(15-17).

Had a great year last year with a completely different game from his earlier years with huge improvement in 3pt shooting but I think it might be his last. Just too many injuries for him

Edit: as others have said. He’s always had elite playmaking which is very valuable. Unfortunately bit overshadowed by draymond’s

[1987_Lakers]

As for the OP's question... Blake is another Kemp type career sadly. A superstar big with crazy gifts, that never got to live up to his potential. Kemp was derailed by weight, drugs, party life. Blake was derailed by injuries mostly and somewhat by immaturity. Blake's trajectory was legitimately top 5-7 ish all time PF, lock for first ballot HOF. His peak was around 2013-2015, then he just started getting hurt constantly and having drama with CP3 that screwed him up. He will be one of the NBA's saddest what could have been stories.

I was a bigger Blake fan than anyone as you all may know. His career breaks my heart. Just a couple changes here and there and he could of been a Clipper his entire career, and our first retired jersey. Now he's not even on good terms with the Clippers. He got in his own way too often.

Came into this thread to say Kemp, in terms of on court impact both are similar. Both consistent all-stars that had massive potential, but at the end of the day not good enough to be a top 10 player.

[Reggie43]

Kemp as the secondary guy or co best player on the team has had deeper playoff runs and had multiple wins against alltime greats like Malone and Olajuwon and matching up with them pretty good at times.

Kemp just seemed like a more physically imposing player compared to Blake and was a much better defender. Kemp never shied away from contact and always played the right way.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

chris paul was pretty easily the best players on the clippers so you cant really say he turned them into a formidable foe.

they would've still been an easy playoff team with just CP3, Deandre Jordan, and role players.

Yes Paul was the best player on 2015 Clippers by far, his shot over Duncan stopped a back to back title run I think. But then Paul got hurt

2018 Paul was arguably the best player on rockets in west finals up 3-2 on Durant warriors but then he got hurt.

Just unlucky timing from Paul but he took Kawhi/Duncan down by a shot and he was up 3-2 on Durant/Curry

[NBAGOAT]

Kemp as the secondary guy or co best player on the team has had deeper playoff runs and had multiple wins against alltime greats like Malone and Olajuwon and matching up with them pretty good at times.

Kemp just seemed like a more physically imposing player compared to Blake and was a much better defender. Kemp never shied away from contact and always played the right way.

seattle was deeper than the clippers imo. Clippers always had a big weakness at sf while the sonics were solid with perkins. the clippers also beat the sours in 15, they're an all time great team though they didnt have a star like Malone/Olajuwon.

Kemp was more physical, a better defender(though you overrate him a little he's very foul prown) and better rebounder. he's a black hole on offense at times while blake is an elite passer for his position. I think that's enough to make up for kemp's strengths over him

[Lebron23]

Definitely a hall of famer someday. I hope he bounce back next season. He had a great season last year very unfortunate he got hurt this year. Last year he changed his game, and improved his perimeter shooting.

[Clippersfan86]

Kemp as the secondary guy or co best player on the team has had deeper playoff runs and had multiple wins against alltime greats like Malone and Olajuwon and matching up with them pretty good at times.

Kemp just seemed like a more physically imposing player compared to Blake and was a much better defender. Kemp never shied away from contact and always played the right way.

Peak Griffin (3rd in MVP and 2015 playoff Griffin) was better. Kemp was a better defender, but the gap as playmakers was ever greater in favor of Blake. Rebounding for career is similar, although I'd give Kemp the edge. Kemp never once averaged 20 ppg despite taking more shots. In other words, Kemp was more inefficient as a scorer.

So basically Blake was the more consistent scorer, way better playmaker. Kemp a better defender and slightly better rebounder. His legendary playoff run adds to his resume, but it doesn't discredit all of the regular seasons Blake was a much better player. Not to mention Blake's 2015 playoff run tops Kemp's 95+96 runs anyway.

Blake Griffin 2015 playoffs: 25.5 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 6.1 apg, 1 bpg.

Shawn Kemp 1995 Playoffs: 24.8 ppg, 12 rpg, 2.8 apg. 1996 playoffs 20.9 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 1.5 apg, 2 bpg.

Both played great opponents. Clippers played the Spurs+Rockets for example. The Spurs team had a near 7 SRS. Let's be honest too, Clippers losing up 3-1 to Rockets was a fluke that if you ran it 1000 times in a scenario, it probably happens 10 times. Blake put up numbers not seen since Big O that run.

[Reggie43]

seattle was deeper than the clippers imo. Clippers always had a big weakness at sf while the sonics were solid with perkins. the clippers also beat the sours in 15, they're an all time great team though they didnt have a star like Malone/Olajuwon.

Kemp was more physical, a better defender(though you overrate him a little he's very foul prown) and better rebounder. he's a black hole on offense at times while blake is an elite passer for his position. I think that's enough to make up for kemp's strengths over him

They had great depth earlier in his career but his Finals team was no deeper than Blake's best teams. Nate, Askew and Ervin Johnson is not a playoff rotation that you brag about.

Not saying that Kemp was much better than Blake as players but he did have a better playoff resume which is a big thing in these comparisons because stats wont show their intangibles which is equally important in terms of winning.

[Reggie43]

Kemp never once averaged 20 ppg despite taking more shots. In other words, Kemp was more inefficient as a scorer.
.

Took more shots and was inefficient? In their Finals run he was barely hoisting up 13 shots a game at 57% shooting while Blake was at close to 20 shots on 51% at his best run.

Probably the most underrated aspect of Kemp's game was how he never shot the ball at volume to allow teammates to make plays for themselves for better team chemistry. He never needed the ball that much to make a huge impact. Somebody similar is Rasheed who never shot in volume despite the obvious talent.

[Clippersfan86]

Took more shots and was inefficient? In their Finals run he was barely hoisting up 13 shots a game at 57% shooting while Blake was at close to 20 shots on 51% at his best run.

Probably the most underrated aspect of Kemp's game was how he never shot the ball at volume to allow teammates to make plays for themselves for better team chemistry. He never needed the ball that much to make a huge impact. Somebody similar is Rasheed who never shot in volume despite the obvious talent.

Are you only comparing the players in the playoffs? Because I'm talking about the regular season when I'm referring to the efficiency in this particular instance. Kemp generally stepped up for the playoffs, but that's not all that matters in a legacy discussion. As for shot attempts, you're actually right, I didn't remember Blake being at 2 shots more than Kemp per game on average. He still had slightly better TS% and way higher ORTG (112 ORTG vs 106 ORTG for career). He was just more efficient.

[Clippersfan86]

They had great depth earlier in his career but his Finals team was no deeper than Blake's best teams. Nate, Askew and Ervin Johnson is not a playoff rotation that you brag about.

Not saying that Kemp was much better than Blake as players but he did have a better playoff resume which is a big thing in these comparisons because stats wont show their intangibles which is equally important in terms of winning.

Easy to have a better playoff resume when Blake got injured LITERALLY every single playoff run outside of two years. One thing about Kemp is he wasn't injury prone. He played 75+ games all but two years. He was MUCH more durable. I do agree that the Clippers were every bit as deep as the Sonics, if not more. It's not a depth injury. It was untimely injuries every year+mental fortitude issues for the team as a whole.