Revisiting 2003-2004

[est.1999]

I always wondered how big shaqs suspension would have been had his punch connected on miller

 

[CruzDude]

Documented where?

About a year or so after CWebb tried the Kings comeback an ESPN writer in an article about CWebb's impact on the Wiz made a direct comment about his adverse impact in the Kings for the same item, starting uber alles. The writer cited several coorroborating sources within the Kings. The writer is reliable and stated multiple sources. It also made sense not that that had anything to do with my input.

 

[juicij36]

Four and a half years later the first glimmer of real hope has finally shown up.

Hmmm, really?

 

[Yoda]

About a year or so after CWebb tried the Kings comeback an ESPN writer in an article about CWebb's impact on the Wiz made a direct comment about his adverse impact in the Kings for the same item, starting uber alles. The writer cited several coorroborating sources within the Kings. The writer is reliable and stated multiple sources. It also made sense not that that had anything to do with my input.

Calling you on this one. I want to see the link.

 

[CruzDude]

Was no reason to keep the link once I read it as it explained the situation in my opinion and I was done with it. I brought it up as the one thorn in my side from 03-04. Think about it. Why would he keep starting when the team began a major downslide as it did when he came back? They did great without him and terrible with him when he was playing while trying to rehab. As a starter. It was 4 years ago, water long under the bridge.

 

[Bricklayer]

Was no reason to keep the link once I read it as it explained the situation in my opinion and I was done with it. I brought it up as the one thorn in my side from 03-04. Think about it. Why would he keep starting when the team began a major downslide as it did when he came back? They did great without him and terrible with him when he was playing while trying to rehab. As a starter. It was 4 years ago, water long under the bridge.

Because we had no hope without him back at 100% and had only 2 months to get him there. The strategy was never as mysterious as Ailene tried to make it seem. Play for 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th) by staying the course without any inside presence. Or try to get back Webb, the real Webb, as quickly as possible and have a real shot in the playoffs. We chose B. It was the right call.

 

[VF21]

Was no reason to keep the link once I read it as it explained the situation in my opinion and I was done with it. I brought it up as the one thorn in my side from 03-04. Think about it. Why would he keep starting when the team began a major downslide as it did when he came back? They did great without him and terrible with him when he was playing while trying to rehab. As a starter. It was 4 years ago, water long under the bridge.

Sorry, Dude, but I'm calling shenanigans on this. There was NEVER any proof that it was Webber's demand that he start. I'm not sure what ESPN article you're referring to and I pretty much read every single thing written about the whole scenario as it unfolded.

The decision was made to start him for reasons that have been mentioned above, but it was NOT Webb's bull-headedness that created the situation.

 

[CruzDude]

One correction. The article I refer to was written about CWebb when he was with Philly not the Wiz. It was a 76ers ESPN article and the comparison was a small part of one sentence and not the theme of the article.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I wonder if this is the article in question: ESPN Daily Dime 1/12/2006.

It's a Marc Stein piece. The single sentence in question is as follows (parens correct a mistake in tense):

The Kings' desire to move Webber stem(med) partly from the belief that Webber would have never accepted a No. 2 designation in Natomas County.

If this is in fact the article, that seems like pretty weak sauce. There's a pretty big gulf between "Webber demanded to start immediately once back from knee injury" and "Kings officials believed Webber would not be happy as the #2 option".

 

[AriesMar27]

I wonder if this is the article in question: ESPN Daily Dime 1/12/2006.

It's a Marc Stein piece. The single sentence in question is as follows (parens correct a mistake in tense):



If this is in fact the article, that seems like pretty weak sauce. There's a pretty big gulf between "Webber demanded to start immediately once back from knee injury" and "Kings officials believed Webber would not be happy as the #2 option".

the part of that article that i thought was the best was...

The problem? The Kings remain at least one more significant deal away from convincing anyone that they've found that direction. It's too premature to say that Petrie won't find it after dealing Webber, especially given his track record. Yet even when you concede that the three players Sacramento took back (Kenny Thomas, Corliss Williamson and Brian Skinner) are easier to move separately in future trades than finding a Webber taker, it's not easy to picture where the Kings proceed from here.

wow... hella wrong....

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I wonder if this is the article in question: ESPN Daily Dime 1/12/2006.

It's a Marc Stein piece. The single sentence in question is as follows (parens correct a mistake in tense):



If this is in fact the article, that seems like pretty weak sauce. There's a pretty big gulf between "Webber demanded to start immediately once back from knee injury" and "Kings officials believed Webber would not be happy as the #2 option".

I should hope that that's not the article, since it does not seem, in any particular respect, to corroborate the allegation that Webber refused to come of the bench while recovering. And he shouldn't have been the number-two option: Webber, on one leg, was still the best player on this team. I would probably liked to have seen Webber recuperate for the full season, if only to watch them fall on their faces in the playoffs and prove me right, but by no means should he have ever been the #2 option during any point of his tenure here.

 

[cstorm]

I can't say I ever read or heard anything about Webber demanding to lead the team when he came back, but his actions spoke volumes in my opinion. It seemed every time he got the ball he tried to force something to happen. Around our house we used to make a "thabong" sound when he had the ball because his inevitable shot usually ended up hitting the front of the rim. His normal money shots just were not dropping, and he just never gave up taking them.

 

[Ryan]

Webber, on one leg, was still the best player on this team.

Come on Slim, really? Peja was the only reason we were contenders that year. He finished top 5 in scoring, MVP talks, and you still think Webber was a better player when he was on one leg?? I would take Brad Miller (in 03-04) over webber with his bad leg.

 

[AriesMar27]

Come on Slim, really? Peja was the only reason we were contenders that year. He finished top 5 in scoring, MVP talks, and you still think Webber was a better player when he was on one leg?? I would take Brad Miller (in 03-04) over webber with his bad leg.

no, slim is right... webber on one leg is still the second best player to play for this team in the past decade after the two legged version of chris webber of course....

that same one legged webber won more games during the 04-05 season before he was traded than we've won in the past 2 season... well almost, we were 34-20 when he was traded averaging 21ppg/9.7reb/5.5ast.... we havent had a player put up those kind of numbers since that day; not for a week, month, let alone season...

 

[Ryan]

no, slim is right... webber on one leg is still the second best player to play for this team in the past decade after the two legged version of chris webber of course....

that same one legged webber won more games during the 04-05 season before he was traded than we've won in the past 2 season... well almost, we were 34-20 when he was traded averaging 21ppg/9.7reb/5.5ast.... we havent had a player put up those kind of numbers since that day; not for a week, month, let alone season...

Oh ok, then maybe I read his post wrong. I was referring to the 03-04 season.

 

[AriesMar27]

Oh ok, then maybe I read his post wrong. I was referring to the 03-04 season.

he was but webber was still the best player on the team... he was the best player in the pllayoffs that season as well... that team overachieved in the post season....

 

[Ryan]

he was but webber was still the best player on the team... he was the best player in the pllayoffs that season as well... that team overachieved in the post season....

I don't want to argue so I'll just throw out my opinion. Webber was a Dallas killer and I'll agree that he was out best player in THAT series. But, I still think he messed up our chemistry and we would have been better off with him playing limited minutes and/or coming off the bench.

KrisKros (yeah, what ever happened to that guy?) brought up a great point that year - why couldn't we win without Webber? We did during the regular season, why not the playoffs? We went 12-12 when he came back. Maybe that was due to a hard schedule, maybe. But if you closely watched the team that year you knew something was wrong when Webber came back. We were barely beating teams that we should have killed.

IMHO, without Webber in 03-04, we had the 3rd best team of the Kings golden years. Webber came back, slowed down our pace, didn't defend, rebound, or score as much as should have. Peja was on fire that year, he was our first option, then Miller, then Webber...or at least that's how I think it should have been.

 

[AriesMar27]

i remember that season all too well... its not webbers fault that peja is insecure and couldnt adjust to webbers return. it didnt hurt bibby... peja was on fire but cant create for himself, never could... what hurt peja was the fact that miller wasnt there to feed him the ball. with webber out everyone on the team spent most of the shot clock trying to set up peja.

i remember those games where he would come off of 2 screens to get an easy layup. i didnt want webber to come back early just so we could see what the rest of the team could do.

 

[uolj]

KrisKros (yeah, what ever happened to that guy?) brought up a great point that year - why couldn't we win without Webber? We did during the regular season, why not the playoffs? We went 12-12 when he came back. Maybe that was due to a hard schedule, maybe. But if you closely watched the team that year you knew something was wrong when Webber came back. We were barely beating teams that we should have killed.

That point was already addressed in this thread (I'm sure it was back then as well). The schedule was a lot harder when Webber returned and Miller and Jackson both had injuries after Webber returned.

It's hard to say exactly what would have happened, but the belief held by Adelman and those on the board in favor of bringing Webber back as a focal point was that the team would be exposed in the playoffs (and down the stretch of that season) due to a lack of defense and questionable late-game/playoff scoring ability. So, that's why people thought we wouldn't win without Webber.

I felt that way at the time, and still feel that way. Looking back, I underestimated the severity of the injury and how it would hamper his skills and I underestimated the negative locker room toll the whole episode apparently took. But I don't really miss seeing that pre-Webber 03-04 team try to win in the playoffs.

 

[Andre87]

I agree that it would have been a 1st or 2nd round exit anyways.
We actually had a much better chance the year before but then came that C-Webb's injury again...

 

[Ryan]

I would also like to point out that this was the year we added the "positive rating" system for KingsFans members. That was fun.