is rahim a dissapointment?
- Thread starter tyrant
- Start date
Bricklayer said:
Oh yes, many a winner has been built around Shareef Abdur Rahim. 
He's just a stats guy. Its like an M&M with a pretty candy shell but nio chocolate inside. Empty and impact-free.
He's just a stats guy. Its like an M&M with a pretty candy shell but nio chocolate inside. Empty and impact-free.
K
Bricklayer said:
Oh yes, many a winner has been built around Shareef Abdur Rahim.
He's just a stats guy. Its like an M&M with a pretty candy shell but nio chocolate inside. Empty and impact-free.
He's just a stats guy. Its like an M&M with a pretty candy shell but nio chocolate inside. Empty and impact-free.
this is a ridiculous point. he would be making more money had he gone to jersey but his game would be the same. what brick and i are saying is not that shareef makes zero impact on a team. he's gonna put up his 16-20 a game, and may even grab a few boards as well. what we're saying is that he has little impact on the momentum of a game. he is not a game changer. he lacks intensity. for all intents and purposes, he is soft. he gets riled up if a call doesnt go his way, but thats about all the intensity i ever see from shareef. i never see him firing up his teammates, encouraging them, or throwing down the monster dunk with some attitude, screaming to the stands afterwards, raising his arms in defiance, forcing a crowd into or out of a game. he doesn't do those things. i dont think he has to if the kings can acquire somebody who will be a game changer, but thats not the point. basically, it is ridiculous for you to defend shareef in this regard when he just doesnt have it in him.
Bingo. Impact PFs don't have to settle for $5mil contracts.
The best thing about Reef is his contact. That in no way makes him an impact guy though. You can lose a lot of games with him as a main gun, as has been proven again and again and again.
Scoring is an empty exercise unless its accompanied by something more.
The best thing about Reef is his contact. That in no way makes him an impact guy though. You can lose a lot of games with him as a main gun, as has been proven again and again and again.
Scoring is an empty exercise unless its accompanied by something more.
Abdur-Rahim made $14.6M dollars last season; a PF, or any player, really, should certainly make an impact for that kind of cheese, but damned if he didn't figure out a way not to. What about injuries, you say? Well, his last full season in Atlanta he played eighty-one games, and I do not recall the Hawks making much noise in the playoffs. Come to think of it, they didn't make any at all, because they didn't get there; nice to know that $12.4M buys you a front row seat in Secaucus. I mean, Jason Terry, Glenn Robinson, Theo Ratliff, and you can't even get the eighth seed? In the east? Seven more wins would have got them there; $12.4M can't buy you seven more wins?
Abdur-Rahim has averaged just about $12.4M over his last five seasons, primarily as a #1 option, and has zero playoff appearances to show for it. He can't get a team in the house, he can't get a team to the door, he can't get a team to the porch. He can't even get a team to the sidewalk... He's not a guy who makes teams better.
Abdur-Rahim has averaged just about $12.4M over his last five seasons, primarily as a #1 option, and has zero playoff appearances to show for it. He can't get a team in the house, he can't get a team to the door, he can't get a team to the porch. He can't even get a team to the sidewalk... He's not a guy who makes teams better.
K
Oh yea and I remember Bibby making a lot of noise up in Vancouver and he took them to the playoffs right? Shareef needs another complimentary player with him and he will make the team better. He doesn't have that here in Sacramento. And read the thread. It says is Rahim a dissapointment. Rahim's has accomplished his role in Sacramento and has done even more IMO. I think we don't use him the right way on offense and thats how he distrupts of offense.
Shareef needs another complimentary player with him and he will make the team better. He doesn't have that here in Sacramento. And read the thread. It says is Rahim a dissapointment. Rahim's has accomplished his role in Sacramento and has done even more IMO. I think we don't use him the right way on offense and thats how he distrupts of offense.
Kings241 said:
Oh yea and I remember Bibby making a lot of noise up in Vancouver and he took them to the playoffs right? Shareef needs another complimentary player with him and he will make the team better. He doesn't have that here in Sacramento. And read the thread. It says is Rahim a dissapointment. Rahim's has accomplished his role in Sacramento and has done even more IMO. I think we don't use him the right way on offense and thats how he distrupts of offense.
Shareef needs another complimentary player with him and he will make the team better. He doesn't have that here in Sacramento. And read the thread. It says is Rahim a dissapointment. Rahim's has accomplished his role in Sacramento and has done even more IMO. I think we don't use him the right way on offense and thats how he distrupts of offense.
Your whole point, along with that of many Reef hommies is that he should be our #1 option on offence. That gets you NOWHERE. That gets you where we are now.
Shareef is not an impact player no matter how much you like to sugar coat it. A nice talented player who can score well but does nothing else. he is not a leader, he is not a defensive presence, he is not a great rebounder and he sure as hell is not a great initiator. He is just a good solid player. If Shareef is your number 1 man you are up in deep ****.
SAR has not been a disappoitnment. He has been about what we expected (other than his pee poor rebounding) but even as efficient as he has been, he is not the right fit for this team as long as Brad Miller is his front court partner. And if you ask me, I would rather stick with Miller and Bibby than I would with Reef. At least with Miller and Bibby you know you have a shot at getting back to the play offs. With Reef its nothing more than a guess.
P
Wait... Wait... Wait...
You are somehow going to blame Reef for pee-poor production from the bench? This is his fault?
You are going to blame Reef for the fact that Bibby and Peja went through mighty slumps? It's somehow Reef's fault that Peja can't hit open jumpshots right now? It's Reef's fault that Bibby was shooting 42%?
It's Reef's fault that every player is playing worse defense - even though the only defensive improvement from last year is at the PF spot?
That's a LOT of power that Reef has.
I mean - is he powerful enough to sway the stockmarket with a single purchase? What is the extent of his power?
There were more changes to this team than just Shareef. While Shareef may or may not be the ideal fit - it's pretty absurd to say it's HIM that's costing us games.
This team hasn't hit on all cylinders from the start.
You are somehow going to blame Reef for pee-poor production from the bench? This is his fault?
You are going to blame Reef for the fact that Bibby and Peja went through mighty slumps? It's somehow Reef's fault that Peja can't hit open jumpshots right now? It's Reef's fault that Bibby was shooting 42%?
It's Reef's fault that every player is playing worse defense - even though the only defensive improvement from last year is at the PF spot?
That's a LOT of power that Reef has.
I mean - is he powerful enough to sway the stockmarket with a single purchase? What is the extent of his power?
There were more changes to this team than just Shareef. While Shareef may or may not be the ideal fit - it's pretty absurd to say it's HIM that's costing us games.
This team hasn't hit on all cylinders from the start.
P
Bricklayer said:
Oh yes, many a winner has been built around Shareef Abdur Rahim.
Funny, that.
If you think for a minute ANY of the teams that Reef played for were BUILT AROUND him than think again. They were all sloppy messes, worse in cohesiveness than Sacramento ever thought of being.
Reef just happened to be the prime player on the team - but the team did nothing to "build" around him.
P
Magical thing this basketball game ... you shouldn't shoot 100% of the time you get the ball.
Holding the ball is called "surveying" the court. Every post PF does this. They are waiting on one or two of three things:
(1) A double team
(2) A cutter
(3) His team to clear the lane
Our plays are designed to get Reef the ball and have the SG pass Shareef and run through the lane. That's not Reef's fault that he has to wait for this.
Holding the ball is called "surveying" the court. Every post PF does this. They are waiting on one or two of three things:
(1) A double team
(2) A cutter
(3) His team to clear the lane
Our plays are designed to get Reef the ball and have the SG pass Shareef and run through the lane. That's not Reef's fault that he has to wait for this.
P
That team was AWFUL!
Jason Terry is worse than Mike Bibby in terms of actually playing PG. And was a much worse defender under Terry Stotts. It was so bad, Terry actually deferred to Robinson in the half court sets, because he couldn't initiate an offense. In fact, if the team was "built" around anyone it would have been Jason Terry.
Theo Ratliff spent 70% of the time on the bench and the other 30% complaining that Glenn RObinson and Jason Terry weren't exerting any effort on defense.
Glenn Robinson didn't run the floor defensively and was a volume shooter and a major black hole.
The team's problem was coaching and lack of identity from the start - then if you want to talk about missing pieces ... those teams were missing them in spades.
Don't pretend that throwing out names means anything.
Jason Terry is worse than Mike Bibby in terms of actually playing PG. And was a much worse defender under Terry Stotts. It was so bad, Terry actually deferred to Robinson in the half court sets, because he couldn't initiate an offense. In fact, if the team was "built" around anyone it would have been Jason Terry.
Theo Ratliff spent 70% of the time on the bench and the other 30% complaining that Glenn RObinson and Jason Terry weren't exerting any effort on defense.
Glenn Robinson didn't run the floor defensively and was a volume shooter and a major black hole.
The team's problem was coaching and lack of identity from the start - then if you want to talk about missing pieces ... those teams were missing them in spades.
Don't pretend that throwing out names means anything.
P
Shareef as your #1 option would be just fine - if the team around him complimented this.
It's absurd. It's like what people said about Brand, until he won.
It makes ZERO sense. If the ball is going in the basket at a decent clip and a decent %. The TOs are low. The assists are decent ... he's doing his part offensively. Period.
If he doesn't do the other things at a great level, that's a different story. But, he is easily talented enough to handle the bulk of a scoring load.
It's absurd. It's like what people said about Brand, until he won.
It makes ZERO sense. If the ball is going in the basket at a decent clip and a decent %. The TOs are low. The assists are decent ... he's doing his part offensively. Period.
If he doesn't do the other things at a great level, that's a different story. But, he is easily talented enough to handle the bulk of a scoring load.
I'm not "throwing out names;" those were the best four players on the team. And stop making excuses; I'm supposed to believe that Abdur-Rahim couldn't lead those guys at least to the eight seed when Tracy McGrady led a less-talented team to the seventh seed? Paul Pierce led Antoine Walker and a bunch of nobodies to the sixth seed and the second round. Abdur-Rahim can't even get a team to the eighth seed. The Hawks might have been "missing pieces," but in 2003, in the "leastern" conference, they had enough to make the playoffs; they couldn't. The only team in the east that year that was "out of it" completely was Cleveland. The 6-8 seeds were all wide-open; they could have done it. They didn't come close.
How many different teams does Abdur-Rahim have to lose with before you accept the possibility that Abdur-Rahim might have something to do with it?
How many different teams does Abdur-Rahim have to lose with before you accept the possibility that Abdur-Rahim might have something to do with it?
Always an excuse with Reef.
Oddly there is Jason Terry serving as the #2 gun for a 55+ win team down in Dallas, just as former running mate Mike Bibby has played PG for a 55+ win team here.
I do not believe you CANNOT win with Reef, but I certainly believe you will not win because of him, and a certain point it becomes a Peja-quest looking for the exact super-specific and perfect personnel to pair him with that will finally click. Meanwhile supposedly less talented guys all over the league are somehow getting it done with less-than-optimum running mates.
Oddly there is Jason Terry serving as the #2 gun for a 55+ win team down in Dallas, just as former running mate Mike Bibby has played PG for a 55+ win team here.
I do not believe you CANNOT win with Reef, but I certainly believe you will not win because of him, and a certain point it becomes a Peja-quest looking for the exact super-specific and perfect personnel to pair him with that will finally click. Meanwhile supposedly less talented guys all over the league are somehow getting it done with less-than-optimum running mates.
P
Most critics hailed the Atlanta Hawks abysmal from the beginning of the season - and expected them to finish where they did.
It wasn't "unexpected". That team had gaping holes at every position, and had ZERO bench. You think the Sacramento bench is bad - the old Hawks bench was weak.
Again, it wasn't Reef's offense that was the issue. It was the lack of team defense and the vast number of TOs at every position on the floor. I refuse to believe that Reef makes it difficult for Glenn Robinson to hold a ball or Jason Terry to get the ball over half court. I don't believe Reef was the cause of Terry forgetting to stay in front of the ball and overcommiting on the steal.
I don't blame Reef for the Hawks picking up a horrible bench of which 3 players were straight from the NBDL.
I don't blame Reef for Theo Ratliff being injured the majority of the year.
As for McGrady and Pierce - if you noticed ... those are different position and they can "DOMINATE" a basketball. Reef is in the position of Tim Duncan. He HAS to be fed the ball. He can't control the ball, dribble it across half-court or around the court looking for shots. Those guys can CONTROL and DOMINATE a basketball.
As for them having WORSE talent than the Hawks - the analysts didn't think they had less talent (especially after Theo was out) than any other team and expected them to place last.
I would expect the day he joins a team with real talent and a cohesive strategy.
Vancouver had more coaches than years in Canada. No structure, horrible management decisions (drafting 3 PGs in 3 years with top 5 picks, Big Country, lack of bench). No one could have succeeded fresh out of college out there.
Atlanta had the same issues.
Those teams were ROTTEN to the core. Just awful.
This team right now is experiencing similar issues, but I think they will solve them on the court. There is an identity upheaval and it's causing everyone to slump a bit.
I mean, can you REALLY blame Shareef for Bibby not hitting open shots? Can you blame Reef for Peja slumping? Can you blame Reef when he's on the bench and the bench gives away the lead and momentum our starting unit built?
If so - he's a powerful force. Very powerful indeed.
P
It's not an exuse. These are facts. Whether you want to interpret them as contributors to Reef's failure or not - they are facts.
I mean, sure, we could make the assumption that perhaps the losing had nothing to do with the mixture of having no bench, a poor coach, no strategy, hurt players and surrounded by no-defense playing players ... I mean, it could all be Shareef and those other factors amount to nil.
Of course, logic would lend itself to the notion that Reef is only one player and couldn't possibly be powerful enough to overcome all those flaws and thus gets caught up in it all ...
Have you watched how Dallas uses Jason Terry? Not as a PG, that's for sure. Atlanta tried to force him into the PG role and he was bringing the team down because it wasn't his style of ball.
It's amazing how much success Terry had before Reef got to Atlanta as a PG, and it just turned abysmal under Reef. Or perhaps --- Terry was never playing PG very well and all those teams lost --- BEFORE, DURING and AFTER Reef was there.
Oh yes ... let's not forget Mike Bibby. A PG for a 55 win team ... when they had talent and a bench. But he's not winning much right now .... with or without Reef.
Is Reef the answer for a team to win it all? No. I don't think so. But, saying he's detrimental is absurd, in my opinion. It just means you refuse to look at mitigating factors.
Perhaps the one thing you can pull away from examining Reef's career is that he's never had a defensive stopper on the perimeter to cover for his inability to intimidate the lane.
Who?
I mean, sure, we could make the assumption that perhaps the losing had nothing to do with the mixture of having no bench, a poor coach, no strategy, hurt players and surrounded by no-defense playing players ... I mean, it could all be Shareef and those other factors amount to nil.
Of course, logic would lend itself to the notion that Reef is only one player and couldn't possibly be powerful enough to overcome all those flaws and thus gets caught up in it all ...
Have you watched how Dallas uses Jason Terry? Not as a PG, that's for sure. Atlanta tried to force him into the PG role and he was bringing the team down because it wasn't his style of ball.
It's amazing how much success Terry had before Reef got to Atlanta as a PG, and it just turned abysmal under Reef. Or perhaps --- Terry was never playing PG very well and all those teams lost --- BEFORE, DURING and AFTER Reef was there.
Oh yes ... let's not forget Mike Bibby. A PG for a 55 win team ... when they had talent and a bench. But he's not winning much right now .... with or without Reef.
Is Reef the answer for a team to win it all? No. I don't think so. But, saying he's detrimental is absurd, in my opinion. It just means you refuse to look at mitigating factors.
Perhaps the one thing you can pull away from examining Reef's career is that he's never had a defensive stopper on the perimeter to cover for his inability to intimidate the lane.
Who?
So, basically what you're saying is that Abdur-Rahim's failure to deliver a team to the playoffs is the fault of everybody but Shareef Abdur-Rahim?
Blame the GM's.
Blame the coaches.
Blame his teammates.
Blame the beer vendor.
But, whatever you do, don't blame Abdur-Rahim; he had nothing to do with it. A victim of circumstance, right? He just happens to have the worst luck of any player in the history of the NBA, is that it? He just happens to always be on the worst team, with the worst coach that won't give him the ball, and the worst GM that won't find him those players that fit "just right." It's gotta be someone else's fault, right? Even after 699 games, it couldn't possibly be him?
Blame the GM's.
Blame the coaches.
Blame his teammates.
Blame the beer vendor.
But, whatever you do, don't blame Abdur-Rahim; he had nothing to do with it. A victim of circumstance, right? He just happens to have the worst luck of any player in the history of the NBA, is that it? He just happens to always be on the worst team, with the worst coach that won't give him the ball, and the worst GM that won't find him those players that fit "just right." It's gotta be someone else's fault, right? Even after 699 games, it couldn't possibly be him?
P
It's funny you make it sound like he's played for this plethora of teams in a host of different circumstances.
He's really played for two teams. Both teams were flawed before he got there and never really did much to recover or change this fact.
So, in the two situations - that really never dynamically changed over the course that he'd been there in terms of personnel ...
The only thing I would put on Reef is that he was overpayed to begin with and I believe that hurt teams when trying to fill the rest of the team with talent --- but looking at the selections that Vancouver made and Atlanta made, I'm not so sure.
This year, the only player you CAN'T blame anything on is Reef. He's been our best defender and our most efficient player. The only thing he's not done is grab rebounds ... and i fail to believe the 2 extra rebounds he could have grabbed is the whole reason we're losing and that Peja can't shoot and Bibby slumped and our bench decided not to show up every night.
Reef isn't a perfect player - far from it. He has some nasty flaws that I just don't see him rectifying ... but he wasn't the reason Atlanta failed. He's not the reason Vancouver failed. He's not the reason Sacramento isn't performing.
He's really played for two teams. Both teams were flawed before he got there and never really did much to recover or change this fact.
So, in the two situations - that really never dynamically changed over the course that he'd been there in terms of personnel ...
The only thing I would put on Reef is that he was overpayed to begin with and I believe that hurt teams when trying to fill the rest of the team with talent --- but looking at the selections that Vancouver made and Atlanta made, I'm not so sure.
This year, the only player you CAN'T blame anything on is Reef. He's been our best defender and our most efficient player. The only thing he's not done is grab rebounds ... and i fail to believe the 2 extra rebounds he could have grabbed is the whole reason we're losing and that Peja can't shoot and Bibby slumped and our bench decided not to show up every night.
Reef isn't a perfect player - far from it. He has some nasty flaws that I just don't see him rectifying ... but he wasn't the reason Atlanta failed. He's not the reason Vancouver failed. He's not the reason Sacramento isn't performing.
K
I think he said that Reef may not fit with this system but you can't blame the rest of the team's poor performance on Reef. If you guys noticed, I think we had a thing called a bench last season with Eddie House, Mo Evans, and Darius. They all were productive during there minutes and their numbers told the truth. Its pretty lame to say,"oh well we were a better team without Shareef", because its like you don't take any of those factors into consideration and just like to point on Shareef. I'm not trying to prove or say that Shareef is the best player on this team, but him and Bonzi are obviously the players who have given more effort and have played better then expected. Remember, before Shareef came here, he thought that he would have a easy role and play off the Kings offense but now the offense is so bad that he has become an first option which hasn't proven winning games.
If there is anything to blame on this team it's the bench and it starts with Kenny Thomas, I mean he is just too good of a player to be averaging about 6 points a game. You like how he played during the past 3 games with the effort. I didn't see that once off the bench this season and there should be no excuse like,"oh well he doesn't play with the bench well", there is never excuse for effort. Another thing is our PG. You guys enjoy Mike Bibby putting big numbers and all but what good is it when he allows the opposing PG to put big numbers too. Or how about your center who can't get a rebound if his life counted on it. Not to mention his poor defense. Or wait what about Peja who keeps comming with these wierd injuries and can't hit a shot. All these factors impact our record and it shows. If these weren't to happen and Shareef put the same numbers you guys would be probably satisfied with Shareef's performance and would not even mention him as a dissapointment.
If there is anything to blame on this team it's the bench and it starts with Kenny Thomas, I mean he is just too good of a player to be averaging about 6 points a game. You like how he played during the past 3 games with the effort. I didn't see that once off the bench this season and there should be no excuse like,"oh well he doesn't play with the bench well", there is never excuse for effort. Another thing is our PG. You guys enjoy Mike Bibby putting big numbers and all but what good is it when he allows the opposing PG to put big numbers too. Or how about your center who can't get a rebound if his life counted on it. Not to mention his poor defense. Or wait what about Peja who keeps comming with these wierd injuries and can't hit a shot. All these factors impact our record and it shows. If these weren't to happen and Shareef put the same numbers you guys would be probably satisfied with Shareef's performance and would not even mention him as a dissapointment.
Abdur-Rahim played eighty-six games for Portland; why doesn't that count?
If Shareef Abdur-Rahim was as good as advertised, he should have made it to the playoffs in Atlanta. Saying that his teammates were terrible is a excuse, because it's only part of the story. It's not like they were playing in the western conference, where forty-three win teams don't even make it in the playoffs. The team with the best record in the east that year would have opened up on the road in the west. The east was weak. Very weak; they could have done it. They might not have been good, but in that conference, in that season, they were good enough.
So, essentially you're saying that you steadfastly refuse to accept the possibility that Abdur-Rahim could be the problem, unless he goes to a team that's already championship-ready like the Spurs or the Pistons, and they somehow managed to fail to make the playoffs? Because I get the sense that, no matter what other kind of situation that Abdur-Rahim could possibly find himself in, that you would find some way to rationalize that the team wasn't built properly, or that he wasn't coached properly, or whatever.
So, it's contender or bust then, huh? He has to derail a frontrunner before you'll accept the possibility that it's him? And any other circumstance means it's somebody else's fault?
If Shareef Abdur-Rahim was as good as advertised, he should have made it to the playoffs in Atlanta. Saying that his teammates were terrible is a excuse, because it's only part of the story. It's not like they were playing in the western conference, where forty-three win teams don't even make it in the playoffs. The team with the best record in the east that year would have opened up on the road in the west. The east was weak. Very weak; they could have done it. They might not have been good, but in that conference, in that season, they were good enough.
So, essentially you're saying that you steadfastly refuse to accept the possibility that Abdur-Rahim could be the problem, unless he goes to a team that's already championship-ready like the Spurs or the Pistons, and they somehow managed to fail to make the playoffs? Because I get the sense that, no matter what other kind of situation that Abdur-Rahim could possibly find himself in, that you would find some way to rationalize that the team wasn't built properly, or that he wasn't coached properly, or whatever.
So, it's contender or bust then, huh? He has to derail a frontrunner before you'll accept the possibility that it's him? And any other circumstance means it's somebody else's fault?
P
I've said that since the get go.
Of course, I truly believe that they COULD work well together if we had a solid defender at the PG slot.
The real problem is there isn't one major defender at any of the spots that make the biggest differences (C, PF, PG). Reef plays awesome defense against his man, but isn't going to stop any lane penetration or intimidate it enough to make a real difference over the course of a game.
Of course, I still think we could contend in most of our games if our our players are healthy and our bench is performing.
But, the odd man out is definitely Reef. He just isn't acclimated to their type of game ... yet.
Of course, I truly believe that they COULD work well together if we had a solid defender at the PG slot.
The real problem is there isn't one major defender at any of the spots that make the biggest differences (C, PF, PG). Reef plays awesome defense against his man, but isn't going to stop any lane penetration or intimidate it enough to make a real difference over the course of a game.
Of course, I still think we could contend in most of our games if our our players are healthy and our bench is performing.
But, the odd man out is definitely Reef. He just isn't acclimated to their type of game ... yet.
P
Two reasons -
(1) He wasn't even a part of their strategy.
(2) The team was under MAJOR rehauls. They were beginning to dismantle and were in full swing while Reef was there.
That team did nothing to use Shareef, and that was to be expected. He was told they would trade him, but never did. He wasn't a part of the designs.
That's NOT an excuse for a PF. That's a fact. There are VERY few people that have ever played in this league that can just overtake the lack of talent and effort of their teammates and still win.
Not having a bench and not having a strategy and having the only defender on the team injured for the majority of his time in Atlanta aren't excuses. They are facts.
You have to take all factors into account. It makes a lot more sense to look at the plethora of mitigating factors (usually one of which is enough to hamper a team, but having all of them and it's hopeless) rather than looking at one player and go "it's his fault".
Just like this team. Is it Bibby's fault? Is it Peja's fault? Is it Miller's fault? Is it Reef's fault? Is it the bench? Is it the coach? It's a plethora of issues. There is a whole lot more than Reef's game that is causing this team to suck.
Obviously not, eh?
No one else, except Atlanta fans and organization and the casual fan, thought that Atlanta had any chance of achieving anything.
No, that's not the case. But, I would accept that perhaps Reef is the issue and flawed if this happened.
I just don't see how being one of the most effiecient players in the league is a flaw and detrimental to your team. I fail to see how he is such a problem player that teams still try to devise strategies to defend him and put their best one or two players on him defensively.
I fail to see how he's bringing the best defense on the team - yet he's the problem.
What I would like to see is Reef on a team that is already playing solid defense in the perimeter spots. For Reef to be truly successful, he needs a PG that isn't letting his man past him every play ... because Reef isn't good enough defensively to cover those mistakes. He needs a strong bodied, defensive center that can cover the mistakes on the perimeter that are made. You give him those things ... and I promise he'll have a lot more success.
He can score on anyone (except Rasheed Wallace). He can put the points up when it matters and when it doesn't. In fact, over the past 5 years he's one of the more "clutch" players in the final 5 minutes of games within 5 points.
He needs help defensively to cover his inability to be a stud in that role.
P
Okay - it's all Reef.
Those teams were destined for greatness before Shareef and are on the verge of dynasty after Shareef.
I just didn't realize it.
I always took the signing of Big Country to a near max contract that he played one year of hampered the Grizz financially and thus they couldn't attract decent FAs. I always thought that perhaps going three straight drafts picking PGs that they turned over the following year might be a poor way to spend the picks and hurt the team's talent level. Not to mention, I figured it was folly to always expect a rookie PG to help out. How wrong I was! I always figured that having a bench where the best player out of all the years Reef was a fixture there named Tony Massenburg MIGHT have something to do with it. I figured, incorrectly, that having more coaches than years played might cause the team to be in constant turmoil and strife - especially when the best coach was named Brian Hill.
Nope, it was all Shareef. I mean, everyone has seen the success Sid Lowe and Lionel Hollins have had since coaching Vancouver. We've all seen that Vancouver was an 82 game winner before Shareef and it was him that was holding them down. All Shareef. The bum.
In Atlanta, I remember their record wasn't sub-30s before Shareef arrived - but rather they were on the verge of having the most 70+ win seasons in the history of basketball. The team had undergone a derth of success with Terry at PG and certainly didn't remove two straight coaches because of lack of success before Shareef showed up. It certainly wasn't the fact that the best player Atlanta aquired while Shareef was there was named Theo Ratliff and he sat in a business suit more than a basketball uni. It couldn't have been the fact that the team didn't have a bench to begin with and the best player off the bench was Toni Kukoc, who was also injured 90% of the time. I couldn't have been Glenn Robinson functionally being the worst defender in the league the year he was in Atlanta, nor his career high number of unforced TOs (the result of trying to dribble). Nor could it have been that Jason Terry wasn't a PG and didn't have court vision, as every person other than the Atlanta organization realized (including Dallas, where they have him as a mismatch at SG). It certainly couldn't have been the fact that the bench was as unproductive as Sacramento's. It certainly wasn't the fact that they averaged 18-24 TOs a game (because we know that Reef was the culprit for 17 of those TOs himself, the team really would have averaged 1TO). It couldn't have been the fact that our PG and SG were the last one's back on defense, resulting in the worst transition defense in the league (at least statistically).
Again, it's obvious all this was caused by Shareef. Shareef broke Theo's hip and would pray to Allah that the ball got slippery and people would turn it over. THEN he single-handedly forced poor shot selection and FORCED that team to play awful.
How it couldn't have been more obvious to me, I'll never know. I now realize that Shareef ALONE was responsible for the tragic play in Atlanta and he single-handedly ruined that franchise and brought an end to their 70 win seasons.
Thank you for clearing that up and making me see properly.
Those teams were destined for greatness before Shareef and are on the verge of dynasty after Shareef.
I just didn't realize it.
I always took the signing of Big Country to a near max contract that he played one year of hampered the Grizz financially and thus they couldn't attract decent FAs. I always thought that perhaps going three straight drafts picking PGs that they turned over the following year might be a poor way to spend the picks and hurt the team's talent level. Not to mention, I figured it was folly to always expect a rookie PG to help out. How wrong I was! I always figured that having a bench where the best player out of all the years Reef was a fixture there named Tony Massenburg MIGHT have something to do with it. I figured, incorrectly, that having more coaches than years played might cause the team to be in constant turmoil and strife - especially when the best coach was named Brian Hill.
Nope, it was all Shareef. I mean, everyone has seen the success Sid Lowe and Lionel Hollins have had since coaching Vancouver. We've all seen that Vancouver was an 82 game winner before Shareef and it was him that was holding them down. All Shareef. The bum.
In Atlanta, I remember their record wasn't sub-30s before Shareef arrived - but rather they were on the verge of having the most 70+ win seasons in the history of basketball. The team had undergone a derth of success with Terry at PG and certainly didn't remove two straight coaches because of lack of success before Shareef showed up. It certainly wasn't the fact that the best player Atlanta aquired while Shareef was there was named Theo Ratliff and he sat in a business suit more than a basketball uni. It couldn't have been the fact that the team didn't have a bench to begin with and the best player off the bench was Toni Kukoc, who was also injured 90% of the time. I couldn't have been Glenn Robinson functionally being the worst defender in the league the year he was in Atlanta, nor his career high number of unforced TOs (the result of trying to dribble). Nor could it have been that Jason Terry wasn't a PG and didn't have court vision, as every person other than the Atlanta organization realized (including Dallas, where they have him as a mismatch at SG). It certainly couldn't have been the fact that the bench was as unproductive as Sacramento's. It certainly wasn't the fact that they averaged 18-24 TOs a game (because we know that Reef was the culprit for 17 of those TOs himself, the team really would have averaged 1TO). It couldn't have been the fact that our PG and SG were the last one's back on defense, resulting in the worst transition defense in the league (at least statistically).
Again, it's obvious all this was caused by Shareef. Shareef broke Theo's hip and would pray to Allah that the ball got slippery and people would turn it over. THEN he single-handedly forced poor shot selection and FORCED that team to play awful.
How it couldn't have been more obvious to me, I'll never know. I now realize that Shareef ALONE was responsible for the tragic play in Atlanta and he single-handedly ruined that franchise and brought an end to their 70 win seasons.
Thank you for clearing that up and making me see properly.