Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Jul 27 2006, 12:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Kevin McHale always put good players around KG. GOOD, not great. Isiah has totally slaughtered the Knicks franchise. What he has done in past 2 years will take near a decade to fix. Oh yeah, it wasn't JJ's fault, just like it wasn't Chauncey's fault for not being amazing with KG, right Joe Johnson became better when Steph left because he had a bigger scoring load. Then of course next season everyone became better when nash came to town (along with healthy Amare). And Amare was a ROOKIE when he was with Steph! Of course he isn't gonna get the 26PPG that he got with Nash 2 years later! Amare was still far from a dominant PF/C.Eagles were good, but TO put them over the hump. And TO is a far worse teammate and cancer than Marbury, feuding with his team's leader. Marbury and KG enver did that. And the Heat, as I said, wer epushed over the hump by replacing less talented players with more talented players that were bad teammates. Before Williams arrived with the Heat he was being called a cancer and bad teammate. LEADERSHIP put him in place and made it a success. Same with Walker. KG dropped the ball with a player as good as Steph.T-Wolves of 2003-2004 were far better than that Suns team. Better leadership, some great role players (Sczerbiak played role player, Hudson, Hoiberg, Hassel, etc..). And once again, I'm definately not arguing Steph is better leade or better player than KG, but he is not a cancer.</div>Oh yeah, Troy Hudson, Rasho Nesterovic, Wally Szczerbiak, Terrell Brandon, GOOD players around KG , Stephon was on a TEAM WITH AMARE, JJ and Marion! Come on, seriously get over him, if KG should've got it done with sh*tty no names, Marbury AS THE PG should be able to achieve SOMETHING with 3 All Stars! It's not JJ's fault that he didn't get fed the ball as much, it's not JJ's fault for trying to function on the same squad as a third/fourth option with Stephon, get one thing right bro, JJ wasn't the leader and general on the offensive side, Chauncey, Stephon both were. Stephon has had the chance of a LIFETIME to work with what he's got, he's played with several amazing players, and if your going to a lower the expectation for a squad with Wally Szczerbiak and Troy Hudson to make a playoff successful, then at least do the same for the "Best PG in the World"..The Eagles were a potential championship squad already without TO, your right, Owens put them OVER the hump, but the team was impressive regardless of his presence. The Timberwolves team wasn't. And White Chocalate was a cancer? Are you serious? I guess the overnight success with the Kings just SLIPPED out of the window huh? I guess holding that team together, and BRINGING the Kings to a Semi which they hadn't seen in over 21 years just slipped right out ya mind right? And turning Pau Gasol into the player he is today, TURNING a true lottery team in the Grizz into a playoff legible squad with some of the least talent in the league just didn't matter right? Face it, JWill has HELD his own, nowhere NEAR a damn cancer..And Antoine? I guess you forgot the '02 and '03 Celtics right? I mean come on, these guys have done what they needed to, to be looked on as a legible teammate, I mean their tendecies and personalities are questionable (not as bad as Starbury) but they've done what they needed to with what they had..NOT cancer. And KG was playing with a frickin cancer! A player that can put up solid stats but couldn't get past the 1st with a sh*t load of talent! And he had him for 2 Full seasons, his sophmore and rookie season, "of course he's not going to be playing as good as he is today"! They were? Yeah, I guess an old, washed up Latrell is better than a young Marion, yeah I guess a one dimensional Wally Szczerbiak is better than a multi talented Stoudemire who made a name for himself already in his rookie season, I guess a no offensed-Trenton Hassell was JUST better than a versatile Joe Johnson...yep, better role players, better everything man..I have ABSOLUTELY no idea what I was thinking... <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I never ever said Malone was the leader. He was Co-leader on court, and emotionally/locker room Stockton never was one to really speak up. KG was best player on floor, while Cassel was floor general and locker room leader.</div>I never said that you did... :closedeyes: ..but hey, I never even knew there was a such thing as a co-leader, hell maybe next there will be a Co-Most Talented Player on the team right! Hey, that a way you can split things for other players too with bullsh** characteristics to make one seem almost as important as the other! Ok, I'm just being an ass...but on the real note, no MATTER whatever you say about Cassell with this floor general (practically mandatory for a PG) and "leadership" things (which I don't agree with at all), always know, SAM was the sidekick to KG, dont make it seem like the other way around.
Re: Battle of the 21's [quote name='His Greatness' post='125444' date='Jul 27 2006, 01:20 PM']Oh yeah, Troy Hudson, Rasho Nesterovic, Wally Szczerbiak, Terrell Brandon, GOOD players around KG , Stephon was on a TEAM WITH AMARE, JJ and Marion! Come on, seriously get over him, if KG should've got it done with sh*tty no names, Marbury AS THE PG should be able to achieve SOMETHING with 3 All Stars! It's not JJ's fault that he didn't get fed the ball as much, it's not JJ's fault for trying to function on the same squad as a third/fourth option with Stephon, get one thing right bro, JJ wasn't the leader and general on the offensive side, Chauncey, Stephon both were. Stephon has had the chance of a LIFETIME to work with what he's got, he's played with several amazing players, and if your going to a lower the expectation for a squad with Wally Szczerbiak and Troy Hudson to make a playoff successful, then at least do the same for the "Best PG in the World"..[/quote]Once again, saying sh*t just to prove your point. Amare was just out of HS and still developing. He played well, but it wasn't until Steve Nash came that Amare or JJ started to play well. He even made QRich look like a star. That is also credited to D'Antoni's offense. Only reason JJ is doing so well now is because he is on the f*cking Hawks and has to be the #1 option. On a standard offense, which is what the Suns used in the full season Steph and Amare played together, JJ would never get more than 10-12PPG with Marion/Steph/Amare doing the scoring. If Steph was able to do the run and gun type offense Nash and Barbosa are allowed to run with all those gunners, that team would have been more successful.I never said Steph was anywhere near best PG in the world. I'd take Chauncey, Nash and Kidd over him anyday. But numbers don't lie, he's an amazing talent. There have been tons of troublesome players in every sport that when they were put on a squad with good leadership you had a championship. KG couldn't do that. His teams were good, no one can lead a crap team to a 3rd and 4th seed more than once. They were obviously good enough inr egular season, and if KG is such an amazing player and leader, he should have stepped up his game, forced other plays to step it up (ala MJ), and won at leats once. The T-Wolves wasn't, your right, but it is still principle. When you got great leadership, players with troublesome personas can be tamed. Jason Williams never had that leadership with the Kings, and while they did reach semi's, what happenned when Bibby arrived? For awhile was one of most clutch players in NBA, reached a WCF (and should have won if it wasn't for Robert Horry magic and Peja's brick after brick in Game 7). He was also troublesome with the Griz, and they were bad for a few years with him before they started grabbing talent, a great coach, and it started to finally click. But he had Pau, Shane, Stro, etc... and they were still a 25 win team for 2 years. It was not until they got Mike Miller and James Posey that they started to play well. And what happenned this year when he left? They won more games than the year before!And it's KG's responsibility as leader to lead his team. When your PG is putting up those stats, and you're still getting the ball and getting great stats, you need to put it together and make it work. They also had Tom Gugliotta (leading scorer) and other solid role players. KG and Steph got along, and when your leader and 2nd best player are on same page (which they were) it msut work. KG>>>>Amare, Sam=Steph (Steph had better numbers, Sam was a better leader, it balances out), Marion>Latrell, and the rest of the Wolves team wa smuch better than the Suns team. Wally>Joe Johnson (that particular year, now JJ is obviously the better player), and after Anfernee they had no solid bench whatsoever. There's been co-MVP's, co-rookie of the years, etc... There are 2 leaders, floor leader and locker room leader. That is basically how it is cut. Floor leader isn't always PG, but in that year it was split between KG and Sam. But in locker room, no question Sam gave them a fresh breath of positive energy after S-E-V-E-N years in a row of being knocked out of the 1st round!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Battle of the 21's OK, let's make this short and get right to the point:If Kevin Garnett was good enough to "lead" and "carry" a team full of "crap" teammates to a few 50-win seasons, why couldn't he "lead" and "carry" those "crap" teammates to win three more games in the playoffs, especially when he had SEVEN chances to do it?
Re: Battle of the 21's Bingo. And let's leave it at that, despite all of His greatness' wiggling out of making a good excuse for it. His teammates were always pretty decent, and if you want to be a good leader, you have to actually do, well....leading!
Re: Battle of the 21's [quote name='Nitro1118' post='125512' date='Jul 27 2006, 02:16 PM'] Once again, saying sh*t just to prove your point. Amare was just out of HS and still developing. He played well, but it wasn't until Steve Nash came that Amare or JJ started to play well. He even made QRich look like a star. That is also credited to D'Antoni's offense. Only reason JJ is doing so well now is because he is on the f*cking Hawks and has to be the #1 option. On a standard offense, which is what the Suns used in the full season Steph and Amare played together, JJ would never get more than 10-12PPG with Marion/Steph/Amare doing the scoring. If Steph was able to do the run and gun type offense Nash and Barbosa are allowed to run with all those gunners, that team would have been more successful.I never said Steph was anywhere near best PG in the world. I'd take Chauncey, Nash and Kidd over him anyday. But numbers don't lie, he's an amazing talent. There have been tons of troublesome players in every sport that when they were put on a squad with good leadership you had a championship. KG couldn't do that. His teams were good, no one can lead a crap team to a 3rd and 4th seed more than once. They were obviously good enough inr egular season, and if KG is such an amazing player and leader, he should have stepped up his game, forced other plays to step it up (ala MJ), and won at leats once.[/quote]What the hell? Anways, that same rookie Amare was still better than goddamn Troy Hudson and other no names like Fred Hoiberg, who gives a sh*t that he was a rookie, he stepped it up more than these nobodies that KG had to subsequently lead. And just so you know, JJ sucky 10 PPG overwhelms any of Hoibergs, Hudson or Kandiman's scoring. And so, you say Joe Johnson was playing well in Phoenix with Nash's arrival but CREDIT the only reason he's doing WELL is because he's in Atlanta...AND so, JJ wouldn't be able to get more than 12 PPG with Starbury and co. doing the scoring but he can get 17 PPG with Amare, Shawn, Nash and EVEN Q-RICH steppiing up to chip in? I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense at all, I know D'Antoni's system is much more complex and high paced, but is it enough for a player HIMSELF to step up, let alone ANOTHER player from out of the dust to be contributing double digits at the same time, while the rest of the lineup is also scoring about 20 and +? Nah....and for the record, Johnson was a GOOD player coming off the bench, his versatility alone was acknowledged him as good enough, at least better than "Fred Hoiberg" I didn't say that you said he was, he's claims himself as one...don't you remember that :lol? And ok, Stephon is an amazing talent...so what? It doesn't hide the fact that he's a damn cancer and just about every team he's gone to turned into sh*t, and the fact that with all the "amazing talent" he has, he's done nothing with it. The Timberwolves team was never good neither aside from KG who basically carried the Wolves through everything. And just so you know, KG never really steps it up in the playoffs which is a huge negative towards him, but anyways, KG DID force players to step it up in the playoffs, if you followed (or go look at your reliable stats) the teams, look at the playoff performances as compared to the regular seasons, sure its not much of a significant boost but its better but mostly for the reason they played like 4 games in all the playoffs. What happened when Mike arrived? They reached a WCF, plain and simple, Jason wasn't on that team so I have no idea if your trying to bash him or not. Bibby is a better player than Jason too, and that's pretty evident, but I HOPE you aren't trying to bash Jason for the Grizzlies beginning years, the team was sh*t dude, he basically kept the team together for a few more years until help would come and they eventually went 50-32...BETTER than any season the Grizzlies ever had without him. Do you call this guy a "Bad teammate" with "no leadership"...hell f'n no.. Um..just so you know, this was all in KG's BEGINNING years, he had no role model, he had no David Robinson..I don't expect Timmy to accomplish at least a semi in his first three frickin years, in KG's shoes.. Just so you know, I was comparing the TEAMMATES, not the players themselves...Marion > CassellAmare > LatrellJoe > Hoiberg (Wally didn't even play enough games for him to be accomplished as a REAL 3rd man that season)Penny > Trenton Yea there was, but MVP's, Co-Rookies is over a course of the entire NBA, that's over 300 players, but Co-Leaders!!??? For 12 guys? Are you serious? Come on, there is one STANDOUT leader, period, no Co Leaders, it's NOT the military...in my eyes, KG was the leader, in yours Sam was the leader..Sam lead the team offensively, and in the "locker room", KG was the obvious best player, lead the team defensively and emotionally...and well yeah, Sam did, considering him and Latrell were the obvious missing piece to the entire puzzle and was pretty much the only legitimate squad KG worked with...[quote name='BigMo763' post='125582' date='Jul 27 2006, 03:44 PM'] OK, let's make this short and get right to the point:If Kevin Garnett was good enough to "lead" and "carry" a team full of "crap" teammates to a few 50-win seasons, why couldn't he "lead" and "carry" those "crap" teammates to win three more games in the playoffs, especially when he had SEVEN chances to do it? [/quote] KG never stepped up in big situations, he's not reliable then, kind of like a better version of Peja but he doesn't totally disappear, that's why they finally brought in Sammy to help out...
Re: Battle of the 21's Alright, so if Garnett does not step it up in the playoffs, and never stepped up in big situations, then he is not as good of a leader as you're making him out to be.So what if he "led" a team full of "crap" players to the playoffs for seven straight years? The fact of the matter remains that great players are made in the playoffs, and that is where you earn your badge as a superstar. If KG failed to "lead" his teammates out of the first round for seven straight seasons, then was he a good "leader" when it mattered most? Nope...That's why when Cassell and Sprewell came, they provided the leadership in the postseason (well, mainly Cassell), and that is why the T'Wolves were able to get as far as they did that season. The only difference between the '03-04 Minnesota team and every other T'Wolves team that Garnett played on was the veteran leadership injected by Cassell, not to mention the confidence and swagger that Cassell brings to every team he plays for...
Re: Battle of the 21's His Greatness- I'm not even gona do it anymore, we're starting to go in circles. Bottom line is when KG was leader, had teams good enough to win 50 games and have homecourt advantage, had SEVEN straight chances to lead his team past 1st round....he failed. Period. End of story.
Re: Battle of the 21's You know..I think the whole debate started over a severe dispute between differences of the definition of "leader", you think a leader is one thing, I think a leader is another, until there is really a set definition on how someone sees a player as a "leader" I think the debate would be able to go on forever. "Leading" obviously to me isn't entirely about being a winner in every situation, LEADING to you obviously means being able to win..big canyon of contrast...
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (His Greatness @ Jul 27 2006, 09:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You know..I think the whole debate started over a severe dispute between differences of the definition of "leader", you think a leader is one thing, I think a leader is another, until there is really a set definition on how someone sees a player as a "leader" I think the debate would be able to go on forever. "Leading" obviously to me isn't entirely about being a winner in every situation, LEADING to you obviously means being able to win..big canyon of contrast...</div>Your definition of leading (one I'm taking from your other post) is moreso loyalty than leadership. Yes, loyalty is a part of leadership, but being able to win is another part. Also, the biggest negative against your argument is that despite taking those "crap" teammates to 50-win seasons and seven straight playoff berths, KG couldn't get them three (or four) more victories and advance out of the first round ONCE in seven years. Sure... he may be a leader, but with that statistic he sure isn't a good one, atleast in my eyes. The blame falls on KG for those losses, whether he had "crap" teammates or not. Superstars ALWAYS take the fall (as do coaches).
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ Jul 28 2006, 01:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Your definition of leading (one I'm taking from your other post) is moreso loyalty than leadership. Yes, loyalty is a part of leadership, but being able to win is another part. Also, the biggest negative against your argument is that despite taking those "crap" teammates to 50-win seasons and seven straight playoff berths, KG couldn't get them three (or four) more victories and advance out of the first round ONCE in seven years. Sure... he may be a leader, but with that statistic he sure isn't a good one, atleast in my eyes. The blame falls on KG for those losses, whether he had "crap" teammates or not. Superstars ALWAYS take the fall (as do coaches).</div>I'm done with this thread after this but: Some players DONT step up in HUGE situations consistently and ONE of them is Garnett....
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (His Greatness @ Jul 28 2006, 04:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm done with this thread after this but: Some players DONT step up in HUGE situations consistently and ONE of them is Garnett....</div>I know... and that's why he isn't as good of a leader as you are making him out to be. A leader (and superstar) should be able to step up in huge situations.
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ Jul 28 2006, 05:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I know... and that's why he isn't as good of a leader as you are making him out to be. A leader (and superstar) should be able to step up in huge situations.</div>....Karl Malone never stepped up in huge situations, the dude was more of a liability than KG...this is my last post in here....really.
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (His Greatness @ Jul 28 2006, 05:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>....Karl Malone never stepped up in huge situations, the dude was more of a liability than KG...this is my last post in here....really.</div>But he got to the Finals twice, and went to the playoffs every year of his career. Malone was a better leader than Garnett was, but Garnett is EASILY more talented than Malone was.
Re: Battle of the 21's Tim Duncan by a smidge, Garnett does it all but the point has been made and it is right on the money. Garnett falters when the pressure builds. He can't put his team on his back when it matters. Duncan can - he has rings to prove it
Re: Battle of the 21's Tim DuncanKG needs to dominate the ball to perform. Kind of like Chris Webber does offensively. Tim Duncan has been key for Sacaremnto over the years because he allows the guards to get their game going and Duncan just reinforces them. He is a better defender than KG although both were amazing in their primes.3 Finals MVP2 Regular Season MVPThat's 5 total MVP's compared to KG's one. His was a regular season one too. I'd take a Finals MVP over a Regular Season MVP any day of the week.As for the whole "OO IF KG HAD DUNCANS TEAM HE WOULD HAVE 20 RINGS!" argument that is not a fact. You don't know that at all. Saying that is the same as we saying If Greg Ostertag was on the TimberWolves they'd have 6 rings. They are based on hypothetical situations. For christ sake KG only got out of the first round one time and that was all because of Sam Cassell. Sam Cassell did the same thing he's doing in Los Angeles right now that he did on Minnesota in their WCF year.I'd take Tim Duncan over any Power Forward to play the game although it is VERY close between him and Malone (Karl). The most important stat in basketball is the W. Tim Duncan has 3 rings and counting. Kevin Garnett has only gotten past the first round once. Period.
Re: Battle of the 21's There is really no question here. Tim has 3 chips, KG has none. What's there to debate?
Re: Battle of the 21's I'll say Duncan.Garnett completely revolutionized the game of basketball though. He was one of the first (remember Moses Malone) to come straight to the league out of high school. He introduced to the game of basketball that big men could do more than play in the post. This set up for many other players (mcgrady, lebron, carmello, maybe even notwitzki and many more). He also is part of the reason why so many athletic forwards are drafted by poteintal nowadays.Duncan has always made his teamates better and won. He is the stander textbook forward/center. Duncan gets the nod.
Re: Battle of the 21's Garnett.He's more athletic, he can be a legit triple double threat, he leads with passion and emotion, he's outspoken, he's a strong leader. I'd take him at the 4 any day
Re: Battle of the 21's In terms of KG's teammates, you guys don't seem to realize that Cassell was hurt badly in the WCF, and hardly played. The only thing Wally can do is float around the perimeter and hit the occasional 3, his defense is non-existant, and he has NO other abilities. Hudson is a cancer on a team, because all he can do is dribble around and chuck up a 3. I think it was KG that allowed Cassell to come in and have the career year that he had.I watch KG a lot more than I watch Duncan, so I'll be biased with this one and say Garnett.That being said, I have only the upmost respect for Timmy D.
Re: Battle of the 21's <span style="font-family:Book Antiqua">Well, KG is a better player overall. He can do basically anything, but Tim Duncan has proven his worth by winning three rings.</span>
