If SAR was the first Option.....
- Thread starter DETON8ER
- Start date
- Status
Fresno King
Starter
Pretty random question.
Simple answer.
No.
Simple answer.
No.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
I am not so sure almost anyone at the NBA level, if given enough shot attempts, couldn't get 50. I'd say if we got reef 61 shot attempts, or looks in a game or two, 50 would be very likely.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/games/boxscore.cgi?date=2001-11-23&tm1=ATL&tm2=DET
Shareef Was given 30 shots.... he connected for 21?, it just shocks me because he was on the urge to being one of the greatest scorers in the NBA, but now finds himself in this slump.
Shareef Was given 30 shots.... he connected for 21?, it just shocks me because he was on the urge to being one of the greatest scorers in the NBA, but now finds himself in this slump.
It's probably the fact that his prime was wasted on a bad Grizzlies team and now he's getting to the point where he's washed up because he had to do so much. I remember reading about his creeky knees in the Bee the other day.
Oh, well the 03-05 trailblazers, late 90s grizzlies, and the hawks are basically the same thing right?
Oh, well the 03-05 trailblazers, late 90s grizzlies, and the hawks are basically the same thing right?
Hmm i guess
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
By "slump" I assume you mean "entire back half of his career"?
Good lord, another Reef will save us thread, and always started by the same 3 or 4 people. Reef couldn't save anybody when he was IN his prime, and he's not that player anymore, mentally or physically.
GoGoGadget
All-Star
Holy who cares, Batman!
BigWaxer
Starter
He hasn't averaged over 23ppg in his entire career, hardly someone I would consider the "greatest scorer". It / he was a product of being the only person that could score on horrible teams.
Roman
Bench
Doubt it.
Shareef has never been a volume shooter, really. He's a guy that posts 18-25 every night and will occasionally spark higher and slump lower - but for the most part you know what he'll give.
As for other posters putting up nonsense like 17PPG, their just delusional. Shareef put up 16.7 before his jaw got broken last year - on 10 shots. I'm sure he won't somehow put up fewer points on more shots. The posters of this board quickly forget that Shareef was our best player (and only player producing consistantly) before his jaw was broken.
People here either have not seen him play (2 years ago he was scoring 20) or just refuse to put any value in him because it's easier to rip him than it is to give him a chance.
Roman
Bench
His production per shot is what made him a great scorer. Putting up volume shots and scoring at lower percentages (and points per shot) is not "great scoring".
This is the most absurd comment that people tout around.
Scorers that produce on "bad" teams are perimeter players and guys that can dribble/control the basketball. The post is always a tough place to score from, especially if you see doubles/triples which is what happens when you are on a bad team and play from the post.
The other thing that "scorers that produce on bad teams" typically fall into is volume shooting. Another product of dominating the basketball and being able to dribble around until you find a shot.
This really holds little merit.
Padrino
All-Star
why's that? its in the numbers. reef was the only legitimate scoring threat on a number of pee poor teams...and that was in his prime. now he's past his prime, is playing for yet another pee poor team, and is showing considerable decline in the one area he was supposed to excel at: scoring in the post.
tyrant
Starter
well he has bad knees but he's still our most effective inside scorer. how pathetic is that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!i think he would be a starter on this team if we had a better center
to pick up the slack on rebounding and some shot blocking.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!i think he would be a starter on this team if we had a better center
to pick up the slack on rebounding and some shot blocking.
Padrino
All-Star
there is certainly some truth to this. at this point in his career, he would be much more effective as a starter if he had a big man along side him up front who can cover for his interior defense and rebounding weaknesses. that's not saying much, though. SAR has lost a step, and at the professional level, it only takes losing a half a step to ruin the remainder of your career. he can't back his man down from the high post anymore. he can't beat the double. he also doesn't have any kind of finesse game. a guy like vlade divac understood what he had to do in order to adapt to his age. vlade, of course, aged in a hurry, but he was a great finesse player, and was able to succesfully accomplish things on both ends of the court when he otherwise really had no business banging in the post with some of the younger talent in the nba at the time. reef's trying the same stuff he was doing when he was drafted, and its clearly not working.
tyrant
Starter
i would have to disagree with 1 thing padrino. i think SAR is one of the smoothest post players in the game today. obviously doesnt make him one of the best. but he's very fundamental around the rim. if he gets the ball in the paint he's gonna throw it down or do some type of move that'll free him up for a basket!! i think he hurts us when he tries to take too many jump shots. his passing needs to be a little better too.
D-Mass
Starter
Shareef has never been our best player. Bonzi averaged more points and more rebounds(!) than him at the beginning of last season. Saying Shareef was better than Bonzi is just silly. Shareef, at his best, is a neutral player. He won't lose games for you, but he is certainly not the type of player that is going to win any games for you. Which is the reason he has had a career of playing for terrible teams. No team has ever won if Shareef is the first or second option. And if he is a third or fourth option then his defense and rebounding become a liability because he needs to be able to do those things.
I think he does a fine job and that the team needs that utility player who can come off the bench or do some starting, shift positions maybe, as needed. SAR still scores it pretty efficiently but on this side of his career he's probably best as part of the bench core. I don't expect him to have another 20/10 year but he gives us a steady veteran who can do his thing without much help other than the ball. Fairly priced too if he can keep it up for most of the contract and he shows no signs of stopping.
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/shareef_abdur-rahim/index.html
But yeah, I could see him scoring 50 if the strategy was to feed him (oh yeah not on a fasting day) and play him big minutes, he's shooting 48% so why not. He'd have 40 before the opposing front line decided to shut him down instead of just dunking on the other end.
Hey we inflated Webber's numbers long after he lost a step, right? He might give up 50 and we lose but it'd be fun to watch, do it Muss!
I'm not delusional that he's a star but at this point I appreciate all the bright spots a little extra I guess. He's efficient enough in his role and doesn't seem to cause any problems. Go Reef go!
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/shareef_abdur-rahim/index.html
But yeah, I could see him scoring 50 if the strategy was to feed him (oh yeah not on a fasting day) and play him big minutes, he's shooting 48% so why not. He'd have 40 before the opposing front line decided to shut him down instead of just dunking on the other end.
Hey we inflated Webber's numbers long after he lost a step, right? He might give up 50 and we lose but it'd be fun to watch, do it Muss! I'm not delusional that he's a star but at this point I appreciate all the bright spots a little extra I guess. He's efficient enough in his role and doesn't seem to cause any problems. Go Reef go!
BigWaxer
Starter
Did you actually look at his stats before posting this non-sense? Do us a favor and at least know what your talking about.
.472% career average, hell Dampier is #1 this year, at 67%, nobody is considering him a great scorer.
A decent player, which SAR is, on a bad team, gives him a chance to be better. Its been proven time and time again but I guess blinders are on... The guy is no star, never has been, never will be. Look at the stats before posting this junk.
This is the end of even reading any SAR threads, you people are absolutely dillusional. Lets fill our team up with undersized players at their position and call them superstars!
I cannot wait until the day Reef is gone, no more SAR threads will be a good thing here. Enjoy touting junk without any fact. Good times.
First it was the Hedo folk. Then came the Pedja fanatics. Now it's SAR's turn...
In the midst of that were the Williams vs. Bibby debates, the never-ending Webber dramatics (including the Webber-Pedja blood feud) and, of course, the "Fire Adelman!" threads that popped up every time the team lost a couple of games.
At least we're still talking about something, even if it is get rather repetitive and inconclusive.
And, unfortunately, until/unless something is done to solve some of the team's problems, it's going to get worse before it gets better. If you notice, a lot of our old regulars aren't posting right now. They're here at times - I see their names on the listings - but they don't even want to get involved in some of the tired arguments.
Now, having put my soap box away, I'll get back to addressing this thread...
Shareef Abdur-Rahim is not capable of being a first option on this team. If we get to that point, then we are officially in "Extreme Makeover: Kings edition."
Big Waxer - What Roman is saying is that Reef was a "great scorer" on Vancouver and Atlanta because of his efficiency. Most average players on poor teams put up big-time offensive statistics because they become volume shooters. Shareef. however, simply does not fall under that category. I do not care what team you play for, whether the Jordan-led Bulls or the expansion Grizzlies, scoring 20+ points on 15 shots or less is very, very impressive. IN stark contrast to the above statistic, there are many, many NBA players who can chuck 20 shots per game on a poor team and as a result score 23 per night. Reef has never, nor will ever be this type of player. Certain posters on this board would label Reef a loser who only scored because his team sucked. Sorry to burst your bubble, but unless Reef was a volume shooter that theory does not apply. He was double and triple teamed every single night, yet still he managed to score 20 on 15 shots. That is the sign of a great offensive player. He just happened to play for very, very poor teams. People often forget that Reef was the second youngest player in the history of the NBA to score 5,000 points.
Back to the present, seeing as how the above pertains to the past. Is Reef as explosive as he was from 1995 2002? NO. Is he a better scorer than the 95-2002 Reef? YES. I played against Reef in high-school and have followed him since his days at Cal. Some may ignore my knowledge of Reef's game, but I understand basketball. And I can say with 100% certainty that he is a better overall player, including offense, than at any other point in his career. Some of his passion may have died with all of the losing he was exposed to in Vancouver and Atlanta, but his skill set is very solid. If the Kings gave him a paultry 14-16 shots per game he would undoubtedly deliver 19-22 points per game. This team needs a post presence on offense and Reef is the answer. Those who grandly proclaim Reef is washed-up at the age of 29 (a whole 2-years older than Maggette - who Bricklayer loves) probably never watched Reef more that the 4-times per year which the Kings played Vancouver -- thus their opinion is based on the only Reef they have really watched, which is the underused bench-player wearing number 3 who logs a whopping 22 minutes per game. If you watched Reef during his 9-year stretch of seasons during which he averaged 20.9 points on 15.4 shots, then you know that Reef is not washed-up. He is just dying to be utilized. We can have three players average 15 shots per game on this Kings roster. If Reef is one of those three, I promise you that he will put-up 20 points and the Kings will be a much better team. It will slow the game down, thus resulting in fewer transition opportunitites for our opponents. Furthermore, the Kings will shoot a higher % from the floor because everyone will be getting shots within the offense which pretty much guarantees that shot selection will improve. Just my two cents. GOOOOOO KIIINNNNNGGGGSSSS.....
Back to the present, seeing as how the above pertains to the past. Is Reef as explosive as he was from 1995 2002? NO. Is he a better scorer than the 95-2002 Reef? YES. I played against Reef in high-school and have followed him since his days at Cal. Some may ignore my knowledge of Reef's game, but I understand basketball. And I can say with 100% certainty that he is a better overall player, including offense, than at any other point in his career. Some of his passion may have died with all of the losing he was exposed to in Vancouver and Atlanta, but his skill set is very solid. If the Kings gave him a paultry 14-16 shots per game he would undoubtedly deliver 19-22 points per game. This team needs a post presence on offense and Reef is the answer. Those who grandly proclaim Reef is washed-up at the age of 29 (a whole 2-years older than Maggette - who Bricklayer loves) probably never watched Reef more that the 4-times per year which the Kings played Vancouver -- thus their opinion is based on the only Reef they have really watched, which is the underused bench-player wearing number 3 who logs a whopping 22 minutes per game. If you watched Reef during his 9-year stretch of seasons during which he averaged 20.9 points on 15.4 shots, then you know that Reef is not washed-up. He is just dying to be utilized. We can have three players average 15 shots per game on this Kings roster. If Reef is one of those three, I promise you that he will put-up 20 points and the Kings will be a much better team. It will slow the game down, thus resulting in fewer transition opportunitites for our opponents. Furthermore, the Kings will shoot a higher % from the floor because everyone will be getting shots within the offense which pretty much guarantees that shot selection will improve. Just my two cents. GOOOOOO KIIINNNNNGGGGSSSS.....
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
