<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Jurassic:</div><div class="quote_post">Man, with a player this young you cannot look at a single year. He started 23 games total in the two years before that. You have to look at his career. Last year he started most games, but has he proven that he can do that consistantly?</div>In fact, it's just the opposite. With a player this young, you can't look at anything to show what he will do - it could be anything. According to your logic, Zach Randolph shouldn't have been given a chance this last year. In two years he had started a total of 11 games, averaging 13 mpg. He hadn't proven he could do anything consistently. But he committed to his game, they gave him the opportunity to step up into a much larger role, and BAM! 20 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 80 games started. Not saying the same will happen with Kwame, but Kwame's the same age Randolph was before last year (22), and he's put up better stats - the only difference is people had expectations of Kwame, not nearly as much of Randolph. Those expectations are pretty much gone now - if he can buckle down and get to work, I wouldn't be surprised to see 14-8 a game from him this season.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Jurassic:</div><div class="quote_post">Man, with a player this young you cannot look at a single year. He started 23 games total in the two years before that. You have to look at his career. Last year he started most games, but has he proven that he can do that consistantly? Besides, he started 57 games, and only averaged 30 minutes!! What does that tell you about his stamia? You can't rely on a player who sits out 1.5 quarters of the game. That means that there are 18 minutes of a bench player trying to play pf/c. Has he proven anything? Sure you can argue all day that they wont make it without Kwame. But the fact that you are depending on him scares me.</div> Are you sure about that? Jermaine O'neal started 18 games in his first 4 years, if the coaches were thinking like this then he would've never done anything. Zach Randolph started 0 games his first year, and 11 games his second year, and then in the playoffs his 2nd year and last season he now averaged 20 and 10. Also about the stamina are you joking? I'm not saying Kwame has amazing stamina, but if you come off the bench you don't get as many minutes as if you're starting. He didn't play 30 minutes as a starter, he played 30 minutes all together. As a starter he averaged 11.3 points, and 7.9 rebounds in 32.3 minutes, and off the bench he averaged 9.6 points, and 5.7 rebounds in 23.3 minutes. Jermaine O'neal only played 35.7 minutes a game, that means their's a whole quarter of a bench player trying to play PF/C. On Detroit Rasheed Wallace was only playing 30.6 MPG, that means their was a whole 18 minutes of a bench played trying to play PF. Oh geez.
Well damn, Kobe started out slow and blossomed into one of the game's best players. Why dont we compare Kwame to him as well . With Jermaine O'neal there were people better than him starting already. In Detroit, they had a lot of big men eating up minutes. Also if you watched him in Detroit (particularly the playoffs) he was constantly in foul trouble. The pistons had Okur and Williamson to come in, who do the Wizards have? If you want to think that way, that's cool. Call me when Kwame breaks out like Randolph (as you said, they are about the same age ), or e-mail me when Kwame is an MVP candidate like JO . Those guys put out a lot more stats in the same number of minutes, playing with better players. I still feel bad for people who are depending on Kwame .
