Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? You have a point, but Wade didn't get his ring this year with this supporting cast. The supporting cast he had last year was better than the busted up one he has this year. If you bring playoffs into it, you can't bring Gilberts supporting cast of THIS year into it, thats two different years.If Wade had the busted squad he's got now, they wouldn't have that ring.
Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? Just because Arenas doesn't have the supporting cast doesn't mean you can say, 'well if you plug in Arenas for Wade he would have the title in Miami too'...thats just completely ridiculous. I think Arenas is a great player, as is Wade...but what Wade did in the finals and in the playoffs...that guy is so mentally tough...I have a hard time putting Arenas over him.
Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? I think for Gil to get on Wade's level, he needs to become a much more consistent and efficient offensive player. He has too many bad shooting nights to be considered with Wade. Once he fixes that I believe he can be on Dwyane's level.
Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? Yes, I realize that, but way too often you see Arenas going like... 7-30, that's unacceptable. I don't care who you are if you shoot 7-30 one night than 15-30 the next you still cant be on Wade's level because of that inconsistency. Guys I consider on the top level are Wade, Dirk, Pierce, Duncan, KG, James, Bryant, etc. With all those guys you know what you're going to get every single night. Arenas is on the cusp of breaking into that group, give him some consistency and he'll be there.
Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? I love how the 4th highest scorer from last year and the 3rd highest as of now this year is getting no love from you. Gotta be consistant to do that.
Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? Well, Gilbert is IMO, easily the better scorer out of the two. His 3 ball is way better which allows his scoring numbers to be much higher. Wade is better at getting to the basket, but Gilbert isnt bad either. But besides scoring, I dont see a whole lot that Arenas has the advantage at. Wade is a better passer, defender, and he has led his team to a ring. Once Arenas can take his team through the playoffs like Wade did, then they would be on the same level. I know that the Wizards dont have a player like Shaq on their squad, but they have a solid 3 and alot of talent.
Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? Arenas handing it to Wade in Miami is enough for me to put him over Wade. He can score against anyone and should have been on Team USA. Team USA is a bunch of chuckers, but when Arenas chucks it the ball goes in. He promised to own the suns and blazers because they decided to not let him on the team. He is doing that. Team USA had Lebron who had a bad attitude only because he was hyped up. Arenas gets overlooked because he wasn't a part of that draft class yet he is the same age as Wade. I guess overlooking him has been a good thing since he now has a chip on his shoulder. Arenas and Melo are the most dangerous offensive players in the league.
Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (LBJ @ Dec 23 2006, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Arenas handing it to Wade in Miami is enough for me to put him over Wade. He can score against anyone and should have been on Team USA. Team USA is a bunch of chuckers, but when Arenas chucks it the ball goes in. He promised to own the suns and blazers because they decided to not let him on the team. He is doing that. Team USA had Lebron who had a bad attitude only because he was hyped up. Arenas gets overlooked because he wasn't a part of that draft class yet he is the same age as Wade. I guess overlooking him has been a good thing since he now has a chip on his shoulder. Arenas and Melo are the most dangerous offensive players in the league.</div>You put Arenas over Wade, huh? Give me valid reasons, I STRONGLY disagree. Wade is a top 5 player in the entire league right now, Arenas is closing in on the top 10, but not easily. Arenas is a top 12 player, Wade is top 5 no doubt.You are starting a franchise right now. Who do you go with? Wade, easily, IMO.Who's more of a leader? WadeWho is the better playmaker, and who has better court vision? WadeWho is the better defensive player? WadeWho is more consistant? WadeWho has willed his team past the best team in the Western Conference? WadeWho's more versatile? WadeWho is the better rebounder, and who gets his body banged up in the paint more? WadeWho is the guy getting "MVP" chanted throughout the arena? WadeHe's younger too, and more athletic. Dwyane Wade is no doubt the better player than Gilbert Arenas.
Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? I would still give Wade the advantage though Arenas has been hot lately. Wade always stays at a high level while Arenas is up and down.
Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? It's more like is Wade on Gil's level in terms of individual success?
Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? Guys, when talking about Gilbert Arenas vs. Dwayne Wade, we have to remember something:Basketball is about opportunity.As much as I hate to admit it, and as dumb as it sounds when one thinks about it, NBA players are judged by how good their teams are. They could do everything for their team, play flawlessly from an individual standpoint, but in the end it is about your team and how far that team will go.Look at Kobe Bryant last year. He averaged 35 PPG on a respectable 45% shooting, and chipped in with 5 RPG and 4 APG. Yeah, Kobe took tons of dumb shots and Kobe displayed horrible leadership ability at times, but hey, the Lakers made the playoffs. Without Kobe Bryant, the Lakers don't win 23 games. Bryant was the reason his team even got the playoffs, and aside from the Cleveland Cavaliers, you'd have a hard time arguing what 2006 Playoff squad would drop off more in wins if their MVP candidate were to go.Bryant finished 4th in the voting I believe, and many balloters didn't even vote for him that high. Why? Because Kobe didn't win enough games on the Lakers. It didn't matter that Kobe was the sore reason LA made the playoffs, or that he scored more than anyone in the league, he just happened to be on a mediocre team, and because of that he didn't get rightfully considered for an award he should've been in the running for (Atleast moreso than he actually was)This was because Kobe didn't have the opportunity to play of a good team.Another prime example is that of Steve Nash. A common argument against him is:"He is only doing well in Phoenix because of the system"Well, even if I admit to this, agree with this, it is still flawed logic as to why one should bash Steve Nash. When Jason Kidd went to New Jersey in 2001-2002, he came to a squad that ran, ran, and ran. Believe it or not, back then people were calling the Nets a revolutionary fastbreak team; because quite simply, they broke it out in fair rivalry with today's Phoenix Suns. So what happened? Kidd had his best season, and had some of his best seasons for the following two or three years I believe.Magic Johnson, one the NBA's All-Time assist leaders played in a fastbreak game. Actually, as we all know, the Lakers played in such a fast-flashy sense their style of game was known as "showtime." Mark Jackon, 2nd on the All-Time assist list, played on some quick teams. Oscar Robertson played in the run-and-gun era of the 70s. Isiah Thomas, while commonly unknown, did play on Detroit teams that could fastbreak when needed. Remember Gary Payton and his Seattle days with Shawn Kemp? Maurice Cheeks and Dr. J?The above names I've listed are all Top 11 guys in Assists in NBA history, and each an every one of them has played on fastbreaking teams at some point in their legendary careers. When one starts making the argument that Steve Nash is only good because of "the system," you immediately imply negative means to some of these older Godly point guards.Those guys, and Steve, may have indeed flourished because of faster systems. But that's how it goes when players get opportunity.So here we are, DWade and Gilbert, and some people are saying Gilbert is not as good as DWade because of team success (or lackthereof) and some people are saying otherwise - "it's unfair, Wade had the better supporting cast."No, Wade had the better... HAS the better... opportunity, and because of that he has flourished in a way Gilbert hasn't been able to. That's how it goes in the NBA, those who get opportunity are the ones who get the glory. Those who play get recognized.Those who play alot become citywide names.Those who are good and play alot become All Stars.Those who are special and play become Superstars.Those who have good teams around them and win become Great.Those who don't get left out.It's not fair, but it's how it has always been. And that will never change.
Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KMart? @ Dec 24 2006, 11:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Guys, when talking about Gilbert Arenas vs. Dwayne Wade, we have to remember something:Basketball is about opportunity.As much as I hate to admit it, and as dumb as it sounds when one thinks about it, NBA players are judged by how good their teams are. They could do everything for their team, play flawlessly from an individual standpoint, but in the end it is about your team and how far that team will go.Look at Kobe Bryant last year. He averaged 35 PPG on a respectable 45% shooting, and chipped in with 5 RPG and 4 APG. Yeah, Kobe took tons of dumb shots and Kobe displayed horrible leadership ability at times, but hey, the Lakers made the playoffs. Without Kobe Bryant, the Lakers don't win 23 games. Bryant was the reason his team even got the playoffs, and aside from the Cleveland Cavaliers, you'd have a hard time arguing what 2006 Playoff squad would drop off more in wins if their MVP candidate were to go.Bryant finished 4th in the voting I believe, and many balloters didn't even vote for him that high. Why? Because Kobe didn't win enough games on the Lakers. It didn't matter that Kobe was the sore reason LA made the playoffs, or that he scored more than anyone in the league, he just happened to be on a mediocre team, and because of that he didn't get rightfully considered for an award he should've been in the running for (Atleast moreso than he actually was)This was because Kobe didn't have the opportunity to play of a good team.Another prime example is that of Steve Nash. A common argument against him is:"He is only doing well in Phoenix because of the system"Well, even if I admit to this, agree with this, it is still flawed logic as to why one should bash Steve Nash. When Jason Kidd went to New Jersey in 2001-2002, he came to a squad that ran, ran, and ran. Believe it or not, back then people were calling the Nets a revolutionary fastbreak team; because quite simply, they broke it out in fair rivalry with today's Phoenix Suns. So what happened? Kidd had his best season, and had some of his best seasons for the following two or three years I believe.Magic Johnson, one the NBA's All-Time assist leaders played in a fastbreak game. Actually, as we all know, the Lakers played in such a fast-flashy sense their style of game was known as "showtime." Mark Jackon, 2nd on the All-Time assist list, played on some quick teams. Oscar Robertson played in the run-and-gun era of the 70s. Isiah Thomas, while commonly unknown, did play on Detroit teams that could fastbreak when needed. Remember Gary Payton and his Seattle days with Shawn Kemp? Maurice Cheeks and Dr. J?The above names I've listed are all Top 11 guys in Assists in NBA history, and each an every one of them has played on fastbreaking teams at some point in their legendary careers. When one starts making the argument that Steve Nash is only good because of "the system," you immediately imply negative means to some of these older Godly point guards.Those guys, and Steve, may have indeed flourished because of faster systems. But that's how it goes when players get opportunity.So here we are, DWade and Gilbert, and some people are saying Gilbert is not as good as DWade because of team success (or lackthereof) and some people are saying otherwise - "it's unfair, Wade had the better supporting cast."No, Wade had the better... HAS the better... opportunity, and because of that he has flourished in a way Gilbert hasn't been able to. That's how it goes in the NBA, those who get opportunity are the ones who get the glory. Those who play get recognized.Those who play alot become citywide names.Those who are good and play alot become All Stars.Those who are special and play become Superstars.Those who have good teams around them and win become Great.Those who don't get left out.It's not fair, but it's how it has always been. And that will never change.</div>Right, and Wade has won. He has gone to the Finals, he has willed his team to win 4 straight in that Finals series after being down 0-2, and he got gotten that Finals MVP. And you are right, a lot of the time, people base players' success on nothing but a championship ring. If they have it, people think of them as a legend. If they don't have it, even if it's a Karl Malone or Charles Barkley, people downplay them. I can't stand it.But this is also an INDIVIDUAL argument on Dwyane Wade vs. Gilbert Arenas. All championships aside, all Finals MVP trophies aside, and all hype aside: I still take Dwyane Wade. He's just the better all-around player, no question, IMO.
Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KMart? @ Dec 24 2006, 08:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Guys, when talking about Gilbert Arenas vs. Dwayne Wade, we have to remember something:Basketball is about opportunity.As much as I hate to admit it, and as dumb as it sounds when one thinks about it, NBA players are judged by how good their teams are. They could do everything for their team, play flawlessly from an individual standpoint, but in the end it is about your team and how far that team will go.Look at Kobe Bryant last year. He averaged 35 PPG on a respectable 45% shooting, and chipped in with 5 RPG and 4 APG. Yeah, Kobe took tons of dumb shots and Kobe displayed horrible leadership ability at times, but hey, the Lakers made the playoffs. Without Kobe Bryant, the Lakers don't win 23 games. Bryant was the reason his team even got the playoffs, and aside from the Cleveland Cavaliers, you'd have a hard time arguing what 2006 Playoff squad would drop off more in wins if their MVP candidate were to go.Bryant finished 4th in the voting I believe, and many balloters didn't even vote for him that high. Why? Because Kobe didn't win enough games on the Lakers. It didn't matter that Kobe was the sore reason LA made the playoffs, or that he scored more than anyone in the league, he just happened to be on a mediocre team, and because of that he didn't get rightfully considered for an award he should've been in the running for (Atleast moreso than he actually was)This was because Kobe didn't have the opportunity to play of a good team.Another prime example is that of Steve Nash. A common argument against him is:"He is only doing well in Phoenix because of the system"Well, even if I admit to this, agree with this, it is still flawed logic as to why one should bash Steve Nash. When Jason Kidd went to New Jersey in 2001-2002, he came to a squad that ran, ran, and ran. Believe it or not, back then people were calling the Nets a revolutionary fastbreak team; because quite simply, they broke it out in fair rivalry with today's Phoenix Suns. So what happened? Kidd had his best season, and had some of his best seasons for the following two or three years I believe.Magic Johnson, one the NBA's All-Time assist leaders played in a fastbreak game. Actually, as we all know, the Lakers played in such a fast-flashy sense their style of game was known as "showtime." Mark Jackon, 2nd on the All-Time assist list, played on some quick teams. Oscar Robertson played in the run-and-gun era of the 70s. Isiah Thomas, while commonly unknown, did play on Detroit teams that could fastbreak when needed. Remember Gary Payton and his Seattle days with Shawn Kemp? Maurice Cheeks and Dr. J?The above names I've listed are all Top 11 guys in Assists in NBA history, and each an every one of them has played on fastbreaking teams at some point in their legendary careers. When one starts making the argument that Steve Nash is only good because of "the system," you immediately imply negative means to some of these older Godly point guards.Those guys, and Steve, may have indeed flourished because of faster systems. But that's how it goes when players get opportunity.So here we are, DWade and Gilbert, and some people are saying Gilbert is not as good as DWade because of team success (or lackthereof) and some people are saying otherwise - "it's unfair, Wade had the better supporting cast."No, Wade had the better... HAS the better... opportunity, and because of that he has flourished in a way Gilbert hasn't been able to. That's how it goes in the NBA, those who get opportunity are the ones who get the glory. Those who play get recognized.Those who play alot become citywide names.Those who are good and play alot become All Stars.Those who are special and play become Superstars.Those who have good teams around them and win become Great.Those who don't get left out.It's not fair, but it's how it has always been. And that will never change.</div>And it is wrong. Any man more right than his neighbors is a majority of one.
Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Dec 23 2006, 08:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Who has willed his team past the best team in the Western Conference? Wade</div>Actually, they never played Phoenix in the playoffs...
Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (STAT @ Dec 24 2006, 03:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Actually, they never played Phoenix in the playoffs... </div>Hyuk hyuk!
Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? Gilbert Arenas is on fire right now, but the better player overall is D Wade. Offensively they both have a huge arsenal of moves and things they can do to score, but if you asked me who I wanted to man up on someone at the end of the game with a two point lead, I would take Dwyane. Gilbert isn't a terrible defender, but Wade has the advantage defensively.
Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? If you watched todays game agaisnt the Lakers, you would have had a clear picture as to why Gilbert isnt on Wade's level. Wade was VERY unselfish and he still put up 40 points. He forced about 3 shots all night and he made like 2 of them. His defense was incredible. He didnt guard Kobe for much of the game, but when he did, Kobe didnt do anything agaisnt him. He racked up 4 steals AND 4 blocks, which is magnificent for a guard. And his passing was some of the best that I have seen out of any player all year. He had two behind the back passes, that were right on the money, and he got his teammate wide open. Gilbert has been playing great as of late, but he isnt near Wades level.
Re: Is Arenas on Wade's level now? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Melo061 @ Dec 25 2006, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wade is superior in every facet of the game.....besides scoring.</div>....and being cockyhttp://www.dimemag.com/feature.asp?id=2691<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ( Arenas)</div><div class='quotemain'>?I?m just a different breed for some reason,? Arenas self-assesses. ?I personally feel like, pound-for-pound, as far as the best offensive player all-around, who can you say is better than me? People say that once I get past half court I have no conscience. And you know what? They?re right. I feel comfortable taking any shot past half court</div>
