OT: Rasheed Wallace To Retire

I don't think you'll get any argument against that. We all wished he could've led us to a title, but he just did not have that killer mentality to be a No. 1 guy. It's a shame we didn't get to see what he could have become, but that, however, doesn't make me hate the guy.
But I could see how he turned off a lot of fans.

 

Man, there is so much vitriol for him here. I always liked him and rooted for him in Detroit.

[video=youtube;o0zqeQxaCnQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0zqeQxaCnQ[/video]

 

I liked Sheed and defended him. I guess you can't ask a guy to be something he is not. He never had the scorer's mentality. He had a great career and a championship to show for it. I'm sure he'll enjoy his retirement.

 

One of my favorite NBA players. He cracks me up. It was hilarious when he got in the 76ers huddle in the playoffs last year.

I hope he goes into boadcasting

 

My only problem with Sheed was how much money he made versus how he produced. If Portland was paying him "The Man" money, then I kind of expected him to actually try and be The Man. Unfortunately that wasn't in his nature much to my frustration. Otherwise he was fine.

Hopefully he is able to find something in life he cares about more then he did his NBA career.

 

I wonder how many people who have complained about Sheed not living up to his potential have themselves lived up to their own personal potential.

I know I could be a far better artist, writer, designer and database developer if I just gave a damn. Like Sheed, I'm better than 80% of the professionals out there at some of the things I do, but in my heart I know I could probably be in the top 5% if I just tried.

There's a lot of "pretty good, but not earth-shattering" out there in the world. Me and Sheed are just doing our little parts to contribute to it. It's not about potential, but about what makes us happy.

Sheed just figured out how to make a lot more money doing it (while also winning an NBA championship).

 

Shame. Wallace was a really good player and an interesting character. I really liked him as both a Blazer and Piston, and I'm glad he was a key part of a championship team.

I don't buy the "He could have been a Tim Duncan/Kevin Garnett if he wanted to, but he didn't try." Those are two of the greatest big men in the history of the game, Wallace simply wasn't as talented as they were. It's like saying Roy could be Michael Jordan if he really wanted to, he just doesn't try hard enough. We have two variables that none of us know: a player's "true talent level" and a player's desire. Depending on how you want to portray a player, you can set those variables appropriately to make them seem like an overachiever, underachiever or just right.

Wallace was truly gifted defensively and showed it. His offensive talent level was not amazing. It was good...he had shooting ability, but not like Nowitzki. He had some inside game, but not like Duncan. He didn't do everything at a high level like Garnett. He had several good tools on offense, no great ones, and it added up to a dangerous but not all-time great offensive player. Combined with his defensive greatness, I'd say he's just under Hall of Fame caliber, and that's not a disappointment for his talent level.

I hope Wallace ends up as a sports media personality or coach at some point.

 

I continue to be amazed by people who claim to be both Blazers and Rasheed Wallace fans. That man more than anyone symbolizes the underachievement of the 2000 and 2001 squads, and had a large hand in the downfall of our franchise and the alienation of the fan base.

Screw you Rasheed - both teams might have played hard, but you rarely did - nice disappearing act in the playoffs AGAIN this year. At least Uncle Cliffy tried.

 

Well said. Props to you.

 

The exact reason why I was praying that the C's wouldn't sign him this summer.

 

I think you're selling Sheed's offensive skills short. You could go the other way and say in his prime, he had a better inside game than Dirk, had a lot better range than Duncan and was just as good overall as KG.

He had all the talent in the world and for a 6-11 guy to be a top-notch defender against the best players in the game, and the ability to score 20-25 points per game, shoot the 3 ball, and post up on anyone? That says a lot about what kind of player he could've been.
He just wasn't willing to put in the extra work in the weight room to keep his body in shape for a long career. He seems content with what he accomplished which is fine with me but I still don't think he realized his full potential.

 

Just watching that mix it's pretty amazing how much Lamarcus's style looks like Sheed. I hope Lamarcus gets just a little more of that nasty "I'm gonna take it in and get a dunk over or trough you right now whether you like it or not," attitude. We could really use some of that in this series.

 

I don't agree that he had an overall game on par with KG. Wallace was a solid passer and ball-handler and a decent inside scorer and outside shooter. Garnett was a great passer and ball-handler (for his size), a great mid-range and inside scorer. Wallace's edge as a perimeter shooter doesn't make up for all of that.

And being better than the worst tool of great players isn't a big selling point. To be a dominant offensive player, you generally have to have at least one great tool. For Shaq, it was his crushing post game. For Duncan, his perfectly skilled post game. For Nowitzki, his great outside shot. A player needs to have one thing that is nearly unstoppable. None of Wallace's offensive skills rose to that level, so he couldn't impose his will offensively. He was a force when his solid weapons were working, but they could be stopped.

Wallace would have been much better off not having an outside shot, but being an amazing inside player. Or not having much inside game but being an amazing shooter. Since he didn't have that one amazing weapon, he did the right thing...use everything he had and hope something was working that night.

But he didn't have that ability, to score 20-25 points per game and to post up anyone. He was a great athlete, but he wasn't supremely talented on offense. He was a top notch defender and he had a good, not great, all-around game. That made him very valuable, but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that he was actually an all-time great talent.

 

I'm down with what you're saying, but are you then telling us you don't put everything you've got into the work you do and are ok with that?

I just don't understand that mentality. There are areas of my life where this may be true, but work wouldn't be one of those. Each project I do I give my best effort as this is how I feel I'll be judged when I'm gone someday. I want to be judged as someone who you could rely on day in and day out to do the best work possible. I feel it's my obligation to a company who continues to CTC to me.

This is what I'd hope a proffesional athlete would feel to a franchise paying him hundreds of thousands of times more than what my work does. He should feel an obligation to give his very best anytime he stepped on the court, in the interview room, or the weight room during the offseason.

Sheed, like you, only felt that obligation 80% of the time, and I'll always judge him negatively for it.

 

Man, do I disagree with your post. Rasheed was a brilliant passer. His high release made his shot unblockable. He not only had three ball range, but had mastered the midrange game. His low post footwork--when he bothered to use it--was elite. Sabonis even mentioned how good it was. When he wanted to crash the boards, he used his lower body to box out as well as anyone in the league. As for defense, his long arms, footwork, vision and understanding of the game made him a lockdown guy. He would routinely shut down TD and KG, yet Cherokee Parks would light him up.

He had all the ability in the world to put up Chris Webber numbers, but that wasn't his thing. Mentally, he just was built differently. This city wanted to embrace him, but he could never get that chip off of his shoulder. We paid him based on his ability, but he never wanted to earn what he was paid.

I used to be angry at him for shortchanging the Blazers, but distance and time has softened that anger to just sadness for a should-have-been NBA career.

 

Your description of his good points strikes me as a good description of Wallace at his best. In his best games, he was exactly like that. But "talent" isn't defined as one's best, IMO. That's one's ceiling. One's talent comes out in what one can do on a regular basis. Wallace was capable of dominating when everything was working, but he wasn't talented enough that his abilities were on every night. I guess you chalk that up to not trying some nights, I chalk it up to his talent not being good enough to be consistent.

Much like Outlaw...on his best nights, he looks a bit like Kobe Bryant on offense, with the crazy shots he swishes. Many nights, though, he can't do that...not because he isn't trying, but because his talent level isn't high enough to play at that high level all the time. Aldridge is also a bit like that...on his best nights, he looks as dominant as a prime David Robinson offensively. But there are plenty of 15/6 nights to go with the 32/15 nights.

 

I think it's the fact that he could post up on anyone, shoot the 3 ball, run the floor and be a great athlete as a 6-11 big guy is what made him a great talent. He had the talent to do anything he wanted on the floor, he had the all-around game, which is what's rare to find in guys his size.

That's what made him a great talent. Talent is the ability to do all different things on the floor, and Sheed showed he could but not on a regular basis, which was the most frustrating thing with him.

You heard it all the time from NBA analysts such Doug Collins back in the 2000 WCF, and even Hubie Brown today, about the "what if?" with Sheed and if he had that focus and desire, he'd be one of the best.

 

He disrespected his talent, he disrespected his teammates, he disrespected the fans, he disrespected the media, he disrespected refs, he disrespected his organization, he disrespected this city. Did I miss anything?

Good riddance.

 

Well, anyone can. Even I could. I assumed you meant, post up on anyone to successfully create points. I don't think Wallace had that ability. When he was on, he could post up pretty effectively (even then, though, not all that effectively against top-tier defenders).

Talent is the ability to increase your team's chances of winning through your impact on the floor. Shaq could do fewer things on the court than Steve Nash or many other players, but I'd say Shaq was much more talented. The goal is not to be versatile, it's to be effective. Sometimes versatility is what makes one effective, but ultimately it boils down to how effective one is. Wallace was pretty effective, not not dominating. When he was on fire, he was dominating, but that can be said for most players. On average, his offensive weapons were solid but not great.

You hear it all the time about many players. The idea that lots of players "coulda been the best" had they just tried harder or wanted it more or played differently is a bit silly, IMO. People just enjoy myth-making, because a story about how a player "could have been the greatest but blew it" is more interesting than accepting a player who was simply a good player and nothing more.