Garliguy said:
Superman, I don't think your comments about Webber are irrational in the least. I do appreciate that you offer them in an unemotional and unaccusatory manner (e.g. not labeling critics of Webber as "haters").
Thanks for the acknowledgement.
I would point out, however, that several people on this site predicted that Webber would disrupt the Kings tremendously when he came back from his injury because he would play selfishly, and that's exactly what happened.
You were one of them. You started the Miller vs. Webber thread that went on for weeks, I believe. I was of the opinion that we'd drop some games, but if he got back in enough time, he'd benefit the team because of everything that he can do on the court.
Now, there may or may not be valid reasons for that -- your and Brick's comments about 23 games of stats not being representative enough when a player returns after a serious injury is fair. But even still, there was no acknowledgement from the Webber supporters that Webber's decision to keep launching shots hurt the team tremendously last year. Not only was Webber our least efficient option, his insistance on being "the man" affected Peja's and Vlade's play (and they are not without blame for failing to stand up to Webber). It is hard for me to see how that is even logically disputable.
I acknowledged that his poor shot selection hurt the team at times; I don't think it did the team in. And I was always more concerned about our defense than I was about our offense. I wanted to see what the team played like on defense with Webber, since we all know that they stunk it up without him.
And though he was our least efficient option on offense over the span of 23 games (I don't even know why it's necessary to talk about what he did over the span of 23 games; it's not very telling if you ask me), when healthy, he's the most capable. He wasn't healthy, and it was up to him to realize that and play within himself. But since the "plan" was to get Webber ready for the playoffs and get the team used to playing with him, I think he pushed it too hard and hurt the team as much as he helped it in those 23 games. I don't really think it had anything to do with wanting to be "the man," but I think it's fair to realize that he's been just that - the man - since he's been with the Kings.
Either way, I still contend that we don't win a championship without Webber last season. Our defense whomped, and neither Peja nor Vlade played well. Peja's dead bottom percentages in the playoffs weren't due to Webber's presence. They were due to the defenses he had to deal with. It's telling that his percentages didn't drop in the 23 games that Webber played in at the close of the season; they dropped in the playoffs.
At what point will people have had enough of Webber's unintelligent play? If by Christmas Day he is shooting under 43% while taking the majority of our shots, is that enough time? Or should we wait until the All Star break? Or should we give him leeway until next season? If this continues (and I realize that some people here don't think it will) at what point do we all agree that Webber is too stupid and/or selfish to help us win?
In order for me to answer those questions, I'd have to assume that your predictions will ultimately be correct. I don't think they will be.
Question: In your opinion, has Webber been too stupid and/or selfish to help us win since he's been with the Kings, or is it the final months of the season that have you convinced of that? Wasn't Webber the impetus behind our successes from '99-'03? I'd say that he was one of the biggest factors.
Basically, I'm not willing to base anything on what happened last season. It's in no way indicative of what Chris Webber can do for the Kings, what he has done for the Kings, or what will happen next season.
And again, if this continues, I think some of the blame has to be shared by Rick Adelman. And I love Adelman -- I think he is a Hall of Fame coach. But a coach's job is not to make the big names happy. His job is to win. And it has been a long time since Webber has helped us do that.
I'd agree to all but the last sentence. If Webber comes back and plays like he did at the end of last season, then it's up to Adelman (and Petrie) to set things straight - one way or another. Allow me to express my doubt that he plays the way he did last season.
By the way, I don't think Adelman's concern is with placating Webber. If it was, I don't think he'd have benched Webber like he did in Game 2 of the Dallas series.
Regarding the last sentence, Webber helped us to 59 wins in 2003, and helped us past the Utah Jazz. He also would have helped us right past the Mavericks (I'm sure you won't argue what he's meant to us in recent years against Dallas, and that we likely would have won that series with him).
I know you're trying to make a point, and I understand what your point is, but it's hard to just ignore when things like that are said, because things like that are simply not true.
