PDA

View Full Version : Cowherd: JO most overrated



Roy Munson
06-12-2008, 11:23 AM
A few minutes ago Colin Cowherd said that Jermaine ONeal is the most overrated player in the NBA over the last 15 years! Herd says a lot of dumb things, but this time I think he got one right. Pacers will never be able to trade JO because no other teams wants him

indygeezer
06-12-2008, 11:27 AM
A few minutes ago Colin Cowherd said that Jermaine ONeal is the most overrated player in the NBA over the last 15 years! Herd says a lot of dumb things, but this time I think he got one right. Pacers will never be able to trade JO because no other teams wants him

That dipwad has had a thing about the P's for forever. He was the first and loudest voice I heard shouting about Artest. I make an intentional habit of not listening to him.

spreedom
06-12-2008, 11:31 AM
I tend to agree with him as well... at this point, I'd probably say he's more overpaid than overrated, because to be really honest... I don't think he is very highly valued at all around the league right now.

esabyrn333
06-12-2008, 11:35 AM
He also said the Celtic's had ZERO chance at winning the NBA title when they traded for Garnett. Why...Because everyone know's that Defense win's championships and Garnett, Allen, & Paul Perice are all known for being very soft and don't know squat about playing D....This is also a guy who will tell you he does not like basketball. I like Herd personally but when it comes to the NBA I would not worry much about Collins views.

Ownagedood
06-12-2008, 12:10 PM
No.. He's not overrated at all.. He got injured, which seemingly ruined his career.. We all know he isn't capable of much now.. But remember just a few years back when him Garnett and Duncan were fighting for the MVP award?? He used to be awesome.. But the injury messed him up.. I think he is just taking in the past couple years when JO has been playing hurt.

He is overpaid.. Not overrated.

Kegboy
06-12-2008, 12:35 PM
Cowherd has repeatedly shown that he has zero knowledge of any sport besides college football. He's a no-talent ***, and I feel sorry for anyone who listens to him.

ABADays
06-12-2008, 01:08 PM
No.. He's not overrated at all.. He got injured, which seemingly ruined his career.. We all know he isn't capable of much now.. But remember just a few years back when him Garnett and Duncan were fighting for the MVP award?? He used to be awesome.. But the injury messed him up.. I think he is just taking in the past couple years when JO has been playing hurt.

He is overpaid.. Not overrated.

Overpaid = Overrated. By Pacer standards he may have been a "franchise" player but in a comparison with past and present "franchise" players he doesn't, and hasn't, measured up.

Trader Joe
06-12-2008, 01:11 PM
When JO was signed to that contract, it didn't look nearly as outrageous as it does now. So Cowherd is a little late to the party. If he had said this the day JO signed that contract he would have been on to something. Otherwise he is just regurgitating a statement most people know.
JO is overpaid, but overpaid players get traded quite often in this day and age.
Take a look at JKidd and Shaq. Neither of them deserve the money they are currently making.
I'm rambling right now, but I just don't think anyone saying JO is overpaid or overrated right now is very ground breaking.

rock747
06-12-2008, 01:31 PM
No one else kind of thought JO was a little overated all those years of turn around jumper misses?? He's not a bad player, but honestly I have always kind of thought he was a little overrated.

Rajah Brown
06-12-2008, 01:41 PM
J.O. isn't even 'rated' at all. If he was an EKG printout, he'd be a
flatline. He's basically been a (ridiculously expensive) non-entity
for two years now.

Wether he'll be more than that from here on out, who knows. If
I was a cynic, I'd add, who cares.

JayRedd
06-12-2008, 01:42 PM
Starbury is outraged by this statement.

Putnam
06-12-2008, 01:48 PM
But what IF Purdue ran the table?






anAD4Wp0DgA






.

DGPR
06-12-2008, 02:01 PM
I'm just waiting for relish to turn into Batman.

ChicagoJ
06-12-2008, 02:03 PM
Come on. The last fifteen years includes Harold Minor.

And Olowokandi. And Joe Smith.

And Shareef.

And Sarunus and Shawne Williams and Fred Jones and Austin Croshere and Jon Bender.

JO isn't even the fifth most overrated Pacer in the past 15 years.

He may be perpetually injured now, but he earned his max contract from 2002-2004. I know people tried to avoid watching the EC during those years but at that point in time the only other player in the conference that was even close to JO's level of play was after Jason Kidd was traded to the Nets.

Granted, that was 30 pounds ago. JO just hasn't been healthy enough to prove it since.

Trader Joe
06-12-2008, 02:04 PM
Starbury is outraged by this statement.

Starbury is barely in the NBA right now.
He's more of a sideshow act at this point.

Shade
06-12-2008, 02:07 PM
We need a hard definition of "overrated."

JO was severely underrated in Portland.

Kwame Brown and Darko Milicic were far, far more overrated coming out of the draft than JO.

Cowherd must be drinking the :haterade: with :kravitz: this morning.

Trader Joe
06-12-2008, 02:08 PM
I mean Rashard Lewis is more overrated than JO at least by the Orlando Magic.

grace
06-12-2008, 02:46 PM
But what IF Cowherd had the intelligence of a gnat?


Fixed.

Putnam
06-12-2008, 03:12 PM
The intelligence of a gnat....and the mouth of a roaring lion.

Sure, the guy is a pestilence on the Earth. I wouldn't believe anything he said about anything. But if he said it as funnily as he slapped down Purdue Pete, I willing to laugh.

Unclebuck
06-12-2008, 03:20 PM
Cowherd has repeatedly shown that he has zero knowledge of any sport besides college football. He's a no-talent ***, and I feel sorry for anyone who listens to him.

I've grown to enjoy his show and also appreciate that he doesn't not believe the Donaghy allegations. (he does discuss college football way too much)

Naptown_Seth
06-12-2008, 03:38 PM
I've grown to enjoy his show and also appreciate that he doesn't not believe the Donaghy allegations. (he does discuss college football way too much)
Herd had his "Top 10 reasons to think your NBA game might be fixed".

#5 - "If the ref is open he takes the shot." :D
#4 - "Scoreboard disclaimer - all scores approximate."

Otherwise I stand with Kegboy on Herd. He's not quite SAS, but he'd like to be.

JO is overrated like Grant Hill ended up overrated. Injuries don't make you overrated unless people are still saying "he's great right now". Who's saying that? NO ONE has JO valued high, specifically because of his injuries and reduced output.

Honestly if JO is truly healthy again this season then right now he's being seriously underrated. But how can anyone expect him to be at that level of health given the history? There is no way ANYONE is trading the kind of pieces you'd have to trade for JO if he returns to 2003 pace. Someone would be getting a hella deal if JO turns out to be back, including the Pacers if they keep him. That's because no one expects that, thus they value him low.

count55
06-12-2008, 04:06 PM
Overpaid = Overrated. By Pacer standards he may have been a "franchise" player but in a comparison with past and present "franchise" players he doesn't, and hasn't, measured up.

I'm going to disagree with at least the first part of this. Overpaid may mean that someone, at some point, rated the guy more highly than he deserved, but I tend to think of overrating as something of a present-tense adjective.

Leaving JO out for the moment, I believe it is possible for someone to be overpaid (for their actual contribution) but not overrated. We have two possible examples on this current team in Troy Murphy and (possibly) Junior.

Coming into this season, both Murphy and Dunleavy were considered to be grossly overpaid, as a general rule. As a result of their bad contracts, they were largely considered to be bad players. I don't believe this is actually true.

Murphy, while still one of the nastiest contracts in the league, is actually a pretty solid player. I'd consider him on a general level with Foster, though each bring different things to the table. Foster is considered (generally) a scrappy bargain at $5.5 mil, while Murphy is a pig at $11mm. Based only on basketball talent and contribution, Foster is probably properly to slightly overrated while Murphy is underrated.

Dunleavy actually made huge strides towards earning out his contract this year, though he's probably still a little rich for my blood. While this fanbase has developed an enhanced appreciation for him (though not all are fans), the rest of the NBA fans and media still have largely the same view. Dunleavy is slightly overpaid, but significantly underrated.

Back to JO. I think that JO has been, at various points of his career, somewhere between slightly and moderately overrated. He was positioned and treated as a franchise player, but clearly was not up to the task. Today, however, it's much more difficult to determine exactly how he's rated.

I believe on this board (and RealGM Pacer board), there's a pretty decent balance of people who over and under rate JO. I, personally, don't know how to rate him, other than to say I think he's a pretty good player with questionable reliability from his health perspective. On the whole, I guess it would be fair to lean towards overrated solely on the games missed factor.

However, Cowherd's statement about him being the most overrated player in the last 15 years is blatant hyperbole, and it was meant to be. Cowherd (and other talking heads) have no real interest in speak the truth, which is often nuanced and somewhat muddy. They prefer staking out clear positions to create more juice for the conversation. I would question whether he actually believes it, or if, two weeks from now, we could get the same quote from him about Vince Carter or Tracy McGrady. Hell, if the C's roll over and lose their lead, I would not be shocked to hear him throw Garnett under the bus.

I do not believe JO is the most overrated in the last 15 years. With the hype machine that exists, it's easy to forget that Vin Baker was a max contract player. So was Jalen Rose. Somebody mentioned Starbury, but forgot to mention Steve Francis. Carter and McGrady have tons of pub, but very little in the way of meaningful team accomplishments.

In a world where any flash of success is greeted with immediate comparisons to all-time greats, who hasn't been overrated at one point in time or another?

Rajah Brown
06-12-2008, 04:23 PM
Count55-

Well stated. Truth is, you could probably count on one hand the
number of 'max' guys in recent years who haven't been overpaid
and most are probably overated too, depending on rating criteria.

Anthem
06-12-2008, 04:27 PM
Injuries don't make you overrated unless people are still saying "he's great right now". Who's saying that? NO ONE has JO valued high, specifically because of his injuries and reduced output.
My thoughts exactly. Maybe I'm working on a different definition, but it's hard for me to see Jermaine as "most overrated." That's a guy who people make a big deal about, but I don't fear when he's in the game.

Jermaine hasn't been seen as a threat by anybody in over a year.

Kaufman
06-12-2008, 06:45 PM
I might suggest that Shaq is a bit overrated at this point. He's a guy I think of when I think of as overrated.

Anthem
06-12-2008, 09:21 PM
I might suggest that Shaq is a bit overrated at this point. He's a guy I think of when I think of as overrated.
I've always thought of Iverson.

BlueNGold
06-12-2008, 10:04 PM
JO is unrated at this point....or maybe he has the same rating as the ball boy.

...and even when he did play he was not terribly overrated. In fact, he was very good. Trouble is, those days are over and the Pacers have a boat anchor of a contract around their neck. Time or a shrewd trade will heal this...but it will take at least a few more years...because there will be no shrewd trade.

Peck
06-12-2008, 10:15 PM
This is simply going to fall down into the thoughts of where you stand on J.O.

You have the J.O. lovers/apologist and the J.O. haters/doubters.

How you feel about him is exactly how you will feel about this statement from Cowherd, who I have no idea who he is btw so I have no opinion on him at all.

I will simply state this, most over rated in 15 years is hard to imagine. However I deeply believe that the man was never worth his contract injured or not.

I do not believe that he is or ever was a special player. Many of you disagree and that is your right.

BTW, just because I do not believe that he is a special player does not mean I think he is a bad player. I just do not believe nor ever believed that he he was a franchise player. So yes, I happen to agree that I think he is way way over rated.

It's funny that Shareef was mentioned here, because I've argued for years that J.O. and Reef are no differant other than J.O. is a better shot blocker and Reef is a better body up defender.

Peck
06-12-2008, 10:15 PM
I've always thought of Iverson.

We think alike on this then.

Anthem
06-12-2008, 10:21 PM
You have the J.O. lovers/apologist and the J.O. haters/doubters
And then you have Peck, who sees everything in terms of binary systems with no middle ground. :devil:

Luckily we can agree on Ivy. :buddies:

Oneal07
06-12-2008, 11:40 PM
. . . .Well the guy's been hurt lol

BlueNGold
06-12-2008, 11:46 PM
JO has gone through stretches in his career where he played nearly Garnett-like ball. I know he's a rung below that even when healthy simply because he does not hit the boards like Kevin (i.e. JO is soft) and does not shoot as well. However, he does block shots better and is generally on par defensively.

No, I don't think he deserved the knock...and it's not close. Now, if you ignore his injury, then yes the guy has a case...but that's unfair to say the least...even if JO should be placed in the archives at this point.

PR07
06-12-2008, 11:53 PM
A healthy JO is not overrated. That hasn't been the case though.

Kaufman
06-12-2008, 11:54 PM
I personally think Iverson is one of the most UNDERrated players in the league. Not enough to argue the point though, I think he's a lightning rod so I know people think differently. I think he has the heart of a giant and it is difficult to overrate that, in my personal opinion. I could see how others see him as overrated though.

Trader Joe
06-12-2008, 11:56 PM
I personally think Iverson is one of the most UNDERrated players in the league. Not enough to argue the point though, I think he's a lightning rod so I know people think differently. I think he has the heart of a giant and it is difficult to overrate that, in my personal opinion. I could see how others see him as overrated though.

Co-sign.

Peck
06-13-2008, 12:18 AM
And then you have Peck, who sees everything in terms of binary systems with no middle ground. :devil:

Luckily we can agree on Ivy. :buddies:

Gee, thanks. I actually was considering myself to be one of the haters.

But I now am elevated to neutral observer.:dance:

D-BONE
06-13-2008, 09:09 AM
Most overrated of past 15 yrs-not even close.

Overrated in the sense he's not as good as his contract/franchise billing even when healthy-yes. (However, not a bad player by any stretch.)

AI overrated? NO WAY!-Too much heart, durability, and multi-area production for a significant amount of time. Heck, he's even matured throughout his career. True, he's short on post-season success (one finals appearance?). Kind of sounds like Reggie. Barkley and Ewing also without a ring. Any of them overrated?

Fool
06-13-2008, 09:25 AM
Cowherd is terrible.

JayRedd
06-13-2008, 02:11 PM
I'm going to disagree with at least the first part of this. Overpaid may mean that someone, at some point, rated the guy more highly than he deserved, but I tend to think of overrating as something of a present-tense adjective.

Leaving JO out for the moment, I believe it is possible for someone to be overpaid (for their actual contribution) but not overrated. We have two possible examples on this current team in Troy Murphy and (possibly) Junior.

Coming into this season, both Murphy and Dunleavy were considered to be grossly overpaid, as a general rule. As a result of their bad contracts, they were largely considered to be bad players. I don't believe this is actually true.

Murphy, while still one of the nastiest contracts in the league, is actually a pretty solid player. I'd consider him on a general level with Foster, though each bring different things to the table. Foster is considered (generally) a scrappy bargain at $5.5 mil, while Murphy is a pig at $11mm. Based only on basketball talent and contribution, Foster is probably properly to slightly overrated while Murphy is underrated.

Dunleavy actually made huge strides towards earning out his contract this year, though he's probably still a little rich for my blood. While this fanbase has developed an enhanced appreciation for him (though not all are fans), the rest of the NBA fans and media still have largely the same view. Dunleavy is slightly overpaid, but significantly underrated.

Back to JO. I think that JO has been, at various points of his career, somewhere between slightly and moderately overrated. He was positioned and treated as a franchise player, but clearly was not up to the task. Today, however, it's much more difficult to determine exactly how he's rated.

I believe on this board (and RealGM Pacer board), there's a pretty decent balance of people who over and under rate JO. I, personally, don't know how to rate him, other than to say I think he's a pretty good player with questionable reliability from his health perspective. On the whole, I guess it would be fair to lean towards overrated solely on the games missed factor.

However, Cowherd's statement about him being the most overrated player in the last 15 years is blatant hyperbole, and it was meant to be. Cowherd (and other talking heads) have no real interest in speak the truth, which is often nuanced and somewhat muddy. They prefer staking out clear positions to create more juice for the conversation. I would question whether he actually believes it, or if, two weeks from now, we could get the same quote from him about Vince Carter or Tracy McGrady. Hell, if the C's roll over and lose their lead, I would not be shocked to hear him throw Garnett under the bus.

I do not believe JO is the most overrated in the last 15 years. With the hype machine that exists, it's easy to forget that Vin Baker was a max contract player. So was Jalen Rose. Somebody mentioned Starbury, but forgot to mention Steve Francis. Carter and McGrady have tons of pub, but very little in the way of meaningful team accomplishments.

In a world where any flash of success is greeted with immediate comparisons to all-time greats, who hasn't been overrated at one point in time or another?

This is the best post I've seen in months.


And then you have Peck, who sees everything in terms of binary systems with no middle ground. :devil:

There are two types of people in this world: People who group people into two groups of people, and people who don't.


I personally think Iverson is one of the most UNDERrated players in the league. Not enough to argue the point though, I think he's a lightning rod so I know people think differently. I think he has the heart of a giant and it is difficult to overrate that, in my personal opinion. I could see how others see him as overrated though.

Co-sign Part Deux.

Gamble1
06-14-2008, 07:10 PM
Cowheard will also tell you that the Colts will go 8 and 8 this year and not make it into the playoffs.

He simply hates all things Midwest including the BIG Ten, Colts, Pacers and quit possibly the ICE.

He is just like the Kravitz and if you like that stir the pot type of none sense then thats your prerogative.

grace
06-14-2008, 07:24 PM
He is just like the Kravitz and if you like that stir the pot type of none sense then thats your prerogative.

That's an insult to one of them. I just can't decide who.

quiller
06-15-2008, 07:41 PM
There was a time, before the shoulder dislocation when I would say JO was on par or ahead of Garnett. They are different type of players, JO is ahead defensively, even now. But Garnett had a better 15-18 foot shot, JO slightly better inside with ball, Garnett slightly better passer. Sense injury though JO has dropped off that level offensively and lost a little in the rebounding side. Right now though I would say JO is still better then Shaq. If someone says JO is overrated now then so should be Shaq. I also would say AI is equally overrated now.

Trader Joe
06-15-2008, 08:25 PM
The idea that JO was ever equal to KG defensively is laughable. The argument could be made that JO was on pace to be better than KG offensively, his posts moves were deadly, but he was never better than KG defensively.

BlueNGold
06-15-2008, 09:00 PM
There was a time, before the shoulder dislocation when I would say JO was on par or ahead of Garnett. They are different type of players, JO is ahead defensively, even now. But Garnett had a better 15-18 foot shot, JO slightly better inside with ball, Garnett slightly better passer. Sense injury though JO has dropped off that level offensively and lost a little in the rebounding side. Right now though I would say JO is still better then Shaq. If someone says JO is overrated now then so should be Shaq. I also would say AI is equally overrated now.

Yes, as for D, JO has always been better at blocking shots and that's borne out in the statistics. It's not even close. Didn't he lead the league recently? There is also no one better at drawing charges. Nah, there's never been much wrong with his defensive abilities, unless it's against a physically dominant player who simply pushes his skinny booty under the basket.....that's where Mr. softy folds like a deck of cards. Oh, and if only the guy could rebound the ball. If rebounding is considered defense, JO is a shell of Garnett...but IMO, it's not.

As for his offense, he has always been less efficient and that too is borne out in his putrid FG% for a center....where Garnett has been over 50% many times. Seriously, offensive efficiency is a huge gap between their games and the root of that is the ability to shoot the ball...without a hitch...and to score within the context of the game rather than attempting a lame fadeaway clanker. BTW, Garnett is a team-first player who has always known how to pass the ball. Those are the big differences...

Trader Joe
06-15-2008, 09:35 PM
JO's one on one defense could not under any circumstance be considered elite. He is a fantastic help defender. KG is elite in pretty much every defensive aspect.

BlueNGold
06-15-2008, 10:08 PM
JO's one on one defense could not under any circumstance be considered elite. He is a fantastic help defender. KG is elite in pretty much every defensive aspect.

I agree with every point you make here. But I see the bigger gap on offense.

Whether it's the giant gap in FG% over many years or the ability of these players to share and pass the ball...and make plays. Throw it in to JO ball has never been the answer whether he looks like a ballerina in the post or not. It's just never been an efficient way to score.

Trader Joe
06-15-2008, 10:15 PM
I agree with every point you make here. But I see the bigger gap on offense.

Whether it's the giant gap in FG% over many years or the ability of these players to share and pass the ball...and make plays. Throw it in to JO ball has never been the answer whether he looks like a ballerina in the post or not. It's just never been an efficient way to score.

I think the argument can be made that the year KG won MVP JO had a bigger bag of tricks offensively. Ever since JO put on the weight he has become more guardable.

Anthem
06-15-2008, 11:25 PM
I think the argument can be made that the year KG won MVP JO had a bigger bag of tricks offensively. Ever since JO put on the weight he has become more guardable.
And more injury-prone.

Peck
06-16-2008, 12:41 AM
Thus why I always said that trading Brad Miller away was one of the biggest mistakes that we made.

D-BONE
06-16-2008, 08:17 AM
1) Can any of the people who state AI is overrated provide a specific case for why?

2) I just don't think JO was ever better or on par with KG in anything. Yes, there was a time when JO was playing much closer to KG level, but KG has been the best all around inside player for some time now hands down IMO. Maybe in the area of shot blocking JO could be said to be superior. That's all I can think of.

quiller
06-16-2008, 11:40 PM
JO's one on one defense could not under any circumstance be considered elite. He is a fantastic help defender. KG is elite in pretty much every defensive aspect.

I do not see KG as being a elite defender on the low blocks against a opposing elite center, JO was a much better one on one defender against the elite centers then KG.

quiller
06-16-2008, 11:42 PM
JO's one on one defense could not under any circumstance be considered elite. He is a fantastic help defender. KG is elite in pretty much every defensive aspect.

When JO was at his prime I totally disagree with you here. KG was not as good as JO guarding against a true elite center.

Gamble1
06-17-2008, 12:36 AM
1) Can any of the people who state AI is overrated provide a specific case for why?

2) I just don't think JO was ever better or on par with KG in anything. Yes, there was a time when JO was playing much closer to KG level, but KG has been the best all around inside player for some time now hands down IMO. Maybe in the area of shot blocking JO could be said to be superior. That's all I can think of.

I didn't state it but I'll argue it. He has lost his quick first step and has become a chucker with avg percentages.
His defense is weak in which he gets a lot of steals but only by going for the ball and not staying in front of his man. He has not helped the Nuggets and is riding down the tail end of his career.

I still don't think he is the most overrated player though.

ChicagoJ
06-17-2008, 08:22 PM
When JO was at his prime I totally disagree with you here. KG was not as good as JO guarding against a true elite center.

Agree 100%.

If Garnett had been mentally tough enough to get in the paint at both ends of the court and do what JO did, maybe the Wolves would have had some post season success with him.

Or maybe his body would have taken the same beating as JO's took.

Either way you lose, with JO's willingness to play in the paint even though his body couldn't take the pounding, or KG's refusal to play in the paint when his team needed him to ("You're a seven-footer, not a SF. Get in the paint where you belong, softie.") What we do know is that JO appeared to be tougher mentally that Garnett, but we don't know who was tougher physically.

I do think that if JO had insisted (especially back in 2002/3/4) on playing SF at 220-225 pounds we wouldn't be talking about his injuries, and we'd be screaming at him to get in the paint where we needed him.

Is there any truth to the rumor that Garnett was pictured on the side of a milk carton in Boston this week?

Peck
06-17-2008, 09:53 PM
Agree 100%.

If Garnett had been mentally tough enough to get in the paint at both ends of the court and do what JO did, maybe the Wolves would have had some post season success with him.

Or maybe his body would have taken the same beating as JO's took.

Either way you lose, with JO's willingness to play in the paint even though his body couldn't take the pounding, or KG's refusal to play in the paint when his team needed him to ("You're a seven-footer, not a SF. Get in the paint where you belong, softie.") What we do know is that JO appeared to be tougher mentally that Garnett, but we don't know who was tougher physically.

I do think that if JO had insisted (especially back in 2002/3/4) on playing SF at 220-225 pounds we wouldn't be talking about his injuries, and we'd be screaming at him to get in the paint where we needed him.

Is there any truth to the rumor that Garnett was pictured on the side of a milk carton in Boston this week?

http://www.prankmonkeys.com/v/vspfiles/photos/M-Lies-2T.jpg

Trader Joe
06-17-2008, 09:54 PM
I think JO and KG both aren't exactly tough mentally. KG is definetely tougher physically.

Naptown_Seth
06-18-2008, 10:37 AM
Gee, thanks. I actually was considering myself to be one of the haters.

But I now am elevated to neutral observer.:dance:
Um, I do not think he meant what you think he meant.

He's saying that NOT ONLY are you a hater, but that you view everyone falling into only 2 extreme POVs with no subtlety of thought. Not exactly netural, and on the subject of JO I'd say that asking if you are neutral on the issues is on par with a PD secret handshake. Similar to asking if MagicRat is neutral on Tinsley or I'm neutral on Carlisle, etc. ;)

I meet a guy who says he's a PD regular and then says "I don't think Peck has an opinion of JO really" then I punch him in the face and say "that woman is a man, baby!" :D


KG is more emotionally expressive, but there have been too many times that he's disappeared in critical moments. You can be fiery but also intimidated, like a scrappy, barking dog who wants no part of a bigger dog when he turns his attention to him.

ChicagoJ
06-18-2008, 10:50 AM
http://www.prankmonkeys.com/v/vspfiles/photos/M-Lies-2T.jpg

What about hyperbole? Jesus used parables to make his points. I've only got hyperbole and sarcasm to make mine.

:shrug:

2minutes twowa
06-18-2008, 02:33 PM
After escaping Portland's bench, JO was a 5 time all-star averaging 19.5 pts, 9.7 rbs, 2 blocks per game over 7 seasons on a team that was in the playoffs every year and title contender most of those years until injuries started slowing him. I remember watching JO's first few games as a Pacer. He flew around the court and made the rim look like a toy! The great players find new ways to improve even when their bodies start to age. This is where I think JO has faltered. Overpaid? Maybe. Overrated? Don't think so. Over the hill? Quite possibly.

Unclebuck
06-18-2008, 03:49 PM
I do not see KG as being a elite defender on the low blocks against a opposing elite center, JO was a much better one on one defender against the elite centers then KG.

Not sure I agree with you, but give me a name of who JO used to guard.

Unclebuck
06-18-2008, 03:52 PM
Agree 100%.

If Garnett had been mentally tough enough to get in the paint at both ends of the court and do what JO did, maybe the Wolves would have had some post season success with him.

Or maybe his body would have taken the same beating as JO's took.

Either way you lose, with JO's willingness to play in the paint even though his body couldn't take the pounding, or KG's refusal to play in the paint when his team needed him to ("You're a seven-footer, not a SF. Get in the paint where you belong, softie.") What we do know is that JO appeared to be tougher mentally that Garnett, but we don't know who was tougher physically.

I do think that if JO had insisted (especially back in 2002/3/4) on playing SF at 220-225 pounds we wouldn't be talking about his injuries, and we'd be screaming at him to get in the paint where we needed him.

Is there any truth to the rumor that Garnett was pictured on the side of a milk carton in Boston this week?


I'm rather shocked that a few of you are questioning KG's mental toughness. We must have a different definition of mental toughness, because I think KG is has mentally tough as anyone in the whole NBA. He might lack a little in the basketball IQ department and he is too unselfish, but he's tough.

Does anyone else agree with me that JO is a much softer player than KG.

Really though to me the bottomline is number of games played.

Sollozzo
06-18-2008, 06:23 PM
Agree 100%.

If Garnett had been mentally tough enough to get in the paint at both ends of the court and do what JO did, maybe the Wolves would have had some post season success with him.




Last I checked, Garnett as a Wolve went as far in the postseason as JO did (conference finals).

Maybe if Garnett would have ever had some decent help around him the Wolves would have gone out of the first round more years. It's no coincidence that when they got Spree and Cassell that Garnett was able to take them further than ever.

If people would actually look into the teams the Wolves played in the playoffs from 97-03, they would find that KG's "playoff failure" label is vastly overrated.

1997: In KG's second year, they take the defending WCF champion Sonics to a 5th and deciding game in the first round. Should they have won this series as playoff virgins? No way.

1998: Lost to the twin tower duo of the Spurs

1999: Lost to the Trail Blazers, who were in the midst of 3 straight conference finals appearances.

2000: Tragically lost Malik Seally and were beaten by the Blazers, who almost Eliminated the Lakers 2 rounds later.

2001: Spurs, who had the best record in the league.

2002: Mavericks

2003: Lakers, who were red hot going into the playoffs and were the 3 time defending champion.

Then in 2004, KG finally gets a cast and wala, they make the conference finals.

Should the Twolves honestly have beaten any of those teams in that 7 year period? Every single one of those teams that knocked out Minnesota from 97-03 had superior rosters to the Wolves. Compare what Duncan had to what KG had, or compare what Nowitzki had to what KG had. You have to be kidding if you really think that the Wolves should have beaten any of those teams.

KG consistently faced much tougher competition in the first round than JO's Pacers did. 2 of the 3 playoff series JO has won has come against Boston (who one of those years was a complete joke of a team).

I mean, if KG's Wolves would have ever been embarassed by a team as medicore as say, the 03 Celtics (who were swept by NJ the next round), then I would be calling out KG as well. But every one of those years you can say that the Wolves were beat by a superior team.

JO and KG both made the conference finals in 04. The Pacers went through Boston (an absolute joke), and Miami (a respectable team on the rise). The Wolves went through Denver (superior to Boston) and Sacramento. I think KG had a tougher road.

ChicagoJ
06-18-2008, 07:58 PM
UB,

I can keep this simple. Any seven-footer who thinks they are a small forward is a mental wimp in my book. That puts Jon Bender at the top (or bottom) of the list, with Garnett as a close second.

I also find Garnett to be very selfish, for the same reason. He wasn't willing to get in the paint and help his team, so they had to construct a goofy roster around having him play on the perimeter. Sure, he was willing to share the ball with a goofy, unbalanced roster, so maybe on the playing court he was unselfish but he was a nightmare to build a team of complimentary players around. Meanwhile, he stood out on the perimeter, made some spectacular plays, and convinced everyone that he was a megastar.

The biggest reason Garnett's team only advanced beyond the first round of the playoffs one time (and only forced Game #5 once (swept twice,

ChicagoJ
06-18-2008, 08:09 PM
What the heck just happened?

I'll try this again.

UB,

I can keep this simple. Any seven-footer who thinks they are a small forward is a mental wimp in my book. That puts Jon Bender at the top (or bottom) of the list, with Garnett as a close second. You can figure out a few others I don't care for.

I also find Garnett to be very selfish, for the same reason. He wasn't willing to get in the paint and help his team, so they had to construct a goofy roster around having him play on the perimeter. Sure, he was willing to share the ball with a goofy, unbalanced roster, so maybe on the playing court he was unselfish but he was a nightmare to build a team of complimentary players around (not that McHale was competent, but a decent GM also would have told him to shut up and get in the paint.)

Meanwhile, he stood out on the perimeter, made some spectacular plays, and convinced everyone that he was a megastar. He realized that NBA fans no longer appreciate the big guys that do the dirty work - look at all the criticism Shaq got while being the best and most dominant player in the league.

The biggest reason Garnett's team only advanced beyond the first round of the playoffs one time (and forced Game #5/7 once, they were swept twice and lost 1-3 three times - JO's playoff record was better than that so that comparison is irrelevant - read that again, that's five years where Garnett won a single playoff game or less, the only time that happened to JO was his first year with the Pacers when we were the #8 seed. How's that for a run-on parenthetical?) is Garnett's selfishness to play SF and force the team to be constructed around his unwillingness to play in the paint. Dean Garrett had to be a major part of Minnesota's rotation, for goodness sakes, just because KG was selfishly playing on the perimeter because he was too much of a pretty boy to get into the paint.
<!-- / message -->

Naptown_Seth
06-18-2008, 08:16 PM
Does anyone else agree with me that JO is a much softer player than KG.
Much? Obviously not. But assuming that because of how he presents himself that KG likes to get in the paint and bang with guys like Ben Wallace in his prime is just as wrong to me.

This is KG at times... ARR ARR ARR BRING IT...fade jump shot

Not that a nice fade doesn't have it's place in a rounded game, and I hate that JO gets blasted for working that shot (make it more sure, but it's not inherently bad to have it), but at times KG has shown the intimidation face much more than the intimidation play.

I'd say a guy like Oakley intimidated the paint a lot more than KG with a lot less expression about it. I'd say Dale did too, and in that regard I'd clearly give the edge to Dale over JO as well (that's just for Peck right there).


But every one of those years you can say that the Wolves were beat by a superior team.Odd that a team with MVP KG would always be worse than the team they were playing, don't you think? And let's be a little fair about that Boston thing, the Pacers had one of the WORST records in the NBA post-all star that year. It was the massive Ron meltdown with Isiah's new "Quick" flopping big time.

Let's not confuse comparing JO to KG now with comparing them then. The Pacers had a rep and results to match of being one of the most physically grinding defenses out there in JO's prime. Ron was a big factor in that, but with Tins, Reggie, Harrington and Brad Miller joining them I'd say JO was right behind Ron as a critical factor in earning that rep.

KG's WCF team was coached by Flip, a guy with a big time rep as an all offense coach, thus the questions when he came to Detroit.

Anthem
06-18-2008, 08:36 PM
What about hyperbole? Jesus used parables to make his points.
But not BABY Jesus. You're thinking of the GROWN MAN Jesus, while Peck is clearly talking only of the Baby Jesus.

zKDC2iBQTYg

Peck
06-18-2008, 09:36 PM
Guys could we please stop saying tough and Jermaine O'Neal in the same sentence. My head is about to explode.

How about we all agree on this, Jermaine O'Neal and Kevin Garnett are neither tough players either physically or mentally.

The mere thought of either of these two having to go agains the Pat Riley Knicks makes me smile.

O'Neal would not get across the half court mark before he was turning to the nearest ref. to complain about being touched and Garnett would sit on the floor and cry when he ran into a back pick set by Mason.

I just don't get this argument at all when it comes to O'Neal.

I would never argue that he wasn't a good basketball player or that he couldn't shoot, rebound, block shots, etc., etc.

But I thought the one thing that was almost common, even among J.O.'s biggest fans, was that he did not like physical contact. In my life I have never seen a person more indignant about being touched by a defender in the paint than J.O.

The entire reason we have to have a Foster, Miller, etc. was because we needed someone who would by a physical defender.

But feel free to ignore me, I'm just a hater.:D

Sollozzo
06-18-2008, 10:02 PM
Odd that a team with MVP KG would always be worse than the team they were playing, don't you think? And let's be a little fair about that Boston thing, the Pacers had one of the WORST records in the NBA post-all star that year. It was the massive Ron meltdown with Isiah's new "Quick" flopping big time.

Let's not confuse comparing JO to KG now with comparing them then. The Pacers had a rep and results to match of being one of the most physically grinding defenses out there in JO's prime. Ron was a big factor in that, but with Tins, Reggie, Harrington and Brad Miller joining them I'd say JO was right behind Ron as a critical factor in earning that rep.

KG's WCF team was coached by Flip, a guy with a big time rep as an all offense coach, thus the questions when he came to Detroit.

Go back and read my post. I was talking about 97-03, the years Garnett's teams were beat in the first round (when I said they were beat by superior teams). Last I checked, Garnett won MVP in 2004 (which is the year that the Wolves went to the WCF's).

When you look at the teams that knocked the Wolves out from 97-03, I don't think you can rationally say that the Wolves should have won any of those series'

And since when is the best team automatically the one with the MVP (in reference to your "odd that a team with MVP KG would be worse than another team" remark)? The last 5 MVP's have been awarded to guys whose teams didn't win it all.

Anthem
06-18-2008, 11:08 PM
But feel free to ignore me, I'm just a hater.:D
No problem, I will. :D

I'm tired of fighting the same battles, so I'm sitting this one out. Jermaine will be gone after this summer anyway, so we can all talk instead about how much we like Danny Granger.

Stryder
06-18-2008, 11:35 PM
Garnett +1 Championship
J. O'Neal 0 Championship

In the end, that is all that counts.

Anthem
06-18-2008, 11:50 PM
Garnett +1 Championship
J. O'Neal 0 Championship

In the end, that is all that counts.
I sure hope not. Because if that's all that counts, the lesson learned is "When offered a max contract by the Indiana Pacers and the San Antonio Spurs, ditch the Pacers."

avoidingtheclowns
06-19-2008, 12:18 AM
Garnett +1 Championship
J. O'Neal 0 Championship

In the end, that is all that counts.

brian scalabrine +1 Championship
charles barkley 0 Championship


first ballot hall of famer?

Bball
06-19-2008, 01:14 AM
I should just keep eating popcorn but instead here I go....

JO fans should just skip to the next post.

Of course JO is not the most overrated NBA player. At one time he probably belonged in the discussion tho, at least among active players.

Someone else has already mentioned it but JO is simply overpaid now... nobody in the hierarchy of the NBA overrates JO any longer. Maybe a few diehard fans still live on some "ifs and buts" but that pool is drying up as well.

JO was a very athletic player who came to a team that was riding a wave of popularity locally (as well as nationally). The Pacers had acquired many new fans in that recent period of time. Not just bandwagon fans but young people who had come of age watching the '90 era Pacers. At that time many (especially newer fans) thought Walsh could do no wrong and that the Pacers were perennial contenders for life. The local media at the time helped fuel that scenario. These new fans were people who hadn't experienced the ebb and flow of the NBA nor known of the Pacers when 20 wins was an accomplishment. Of course a lot of older fans were still pretty giddy about the ride we'd just been on.

Personally, I think a lot of younger fans thought the Pacers, if they lacked anything, lacked some 'showtime'. Well, here come JO, thrust into the spotlight out of necessity as much as anything. He could "throw down". He had the raw tools and a team in desperate need of a player possessing just that with the way Walsh had allowed things to play out. He was not just groomed to be the franchise player, he was handed the mantle almost immediately.

The problem is, JO was only "JO" when he had plenty of other very good players around him sacrificing their games. ...Something that he's yet to be willing to do.

He was soft and played with a sense of entitlement that really has never left his game. He was all about drama, whether it was making every injury appear to be career threatening (or else he must've had the lowest threshold of pain known to the NBA), or whether it was preening for the camera after even the most mediocre of plays. Maybe he wasn't being overly dramatic with those early 'injuries'... maybe that was just a precursor to what was to come later when he no longer healed as quickly.

I've spoken many a time about JO needing to have a lightbulb game where it all clicked. But that never happened. He never figured out how to sacrifice his own game for the betterment of team. The only thing he ever figured out was how to speak well in front of a camera... and speak well he did. If the subject was "JO" he could talk for days. He never found an interview where he couldn't talk about leading the team.. usually followed by talk of him dominating games, making the all-star game, etc.. Everything was (and so far still is) "Me, me, me..."

He never earned his huge contract. He got it based on potential... The Pacers handed him everything- From declaring him leader (instead of making him earn it) to putting him in a starmaker role where he relished in the limelight and we only fed the monster. He's usually referred to as a 20-10 player... altho I'm not sure he ever actually reached that plateau or did it for more than 1 season (if that). He got close... but the thing is... for the amount of offense we ran through him and how we focused on him 20-10 should've been a given. It should've been more. It wasn't.

Here was a power forward, on a max contract, on a team willing to hand him everything on a silver platter... and he couldn't even reach the 50% FG plateau. I don't think I've ever seen a player of his supposed stature (read: franchise player) who could so easily be taken out of his game mentally. He's been that way from the start.

He's continually made bad decisions with the ball... demanding the ball and then clanking fadeaways off the side of the rim... And that creates nothing but question marks and chemistry issues around him as players could see he wasn't progressing and was in fact becoming an albatross with his contract and on court demands. If he couldn't co-exist with Rose, how could he co-exist with Artest?

LMK the next time he blocks out because it will be a first.

On another team, it wouldn't have gotten this bad. Either he would've been put in his place and made to earn his role regardless of his contract, or been shipped off before his attitude, athleticism, or 'potential' declined. But in 49 states it's basketball... but this is Indiana... And Walsh didn't admit mistakes or give up on players.

So here we are, the contract is more of an albatross than ever, but JO's athleticism is gone and he's only a shell of his former self. But that shell is an impermeable layer of ego that still hasn't had that lightbulb game IMHO.

He still doesn't appear to 'get it'. Even with his skills eroded, it's all about JO being "the man" in his book. At least that is what I still hear when I hear him talk.

He's not "the man" and never was "the man".

His defense is overrated because he blocks shots... itself one of the most overrated defensive stats. His individual defense is so-so at best but he's learned the art of sliding into position for a charge or putting a shot into the stands. Altho when you swat a shot into the stands, the other team still gets the ball back. ...Also... Typically it's not his man he's taking a charge from or blocking. So while those are 'pretty' defensive stats, they don't get to the meat and potatoes of what the team needs on the court.

I still argue he could mean more to this team by taking a step back, swallowing the ego, closing his mouth, opening his mind, and simply becoming an overpaid role player.

When I think of JO I think of the NJ series when he first tasted the PO's with the Pacers and he had that big game (or big half as it were). Everyone was speaking his praises, including JO himself. Funny thing was, NJ adjusted and JO was minimized the rest of the way (including a stupid turnover in crunchtime of the deciding game which has been forgotten thanks to Reggie's last second heave). All JO's big talk meant nothing. That's the story of his career.

-Bball

grace
06-19-2008, 08:16 AM
But feel free to ignore me, I'm just a hater.:D

Not that I'd ever ignore you, but admins can't be put on ignore. :mad:

count55
06-19-2008, 08:35 AM
brian scalabrine +1 Championship
charles barkley 0 Championship


first ballot hall of famer?

:highfive:

Trader Joe
06-19-2008, 09:58 AM
Garnett +1 Championship
J. O'Neal 0 Championship

In the end, that is all that counts.

I'd pose this question...Is Kevin Garnett more mentally tough than Reggie Miller?

KG isn't mentally tough, but neither is JO. Like Peck said ten years ago they both would have been pansies.
I can't believe that Pacer fans could ever really consider JO or KG tough. We watched Dale Davis for many years in a Pacers uni. Heck the year of the brawl Dale was still just as tough as anyone he matched up against.

ChicagoJ
06-19-2008, 10:24 AM
How about we all agree on this, Jermaine O'Neal and Kevin Garnett are neither tough players either physically or mentally.

The mere thought of either of these two having to go agains the Pat Riley Knicks makes me smile.


Okay, I'll buy that. On the relative scale, JO was slightly more willing than Garnett. He at least was willing to bulk up to play in the paint. Garnett, not so much. That has to count for something. I'll give you that neither of them are going to be mistaken for Willis Reed, ever.



-snip-

But I thought the one thing that was almost common, even among J.O.'s biggest fans, was that he did not like physical contact. In my life I have never seen a person more indignant about being touched by a defender in the paint than J.O.

Come on. Lies make baby Jesus cry. I know you've watched Bender. Garnett didn't have to be indignant because he wouldn't even go in there for a long stretch of his career. Was/ is JO a crybaby? Sure. But he was willing. Lots more people would have called JO a superstar if he would have worked on his face-up game and long jumpshot - an idea that made most of us cringe. But that's exactly what Garnett did.

I'm just saying I'd rather have JO try and fail to play the paint that Garnett not even try for long stretches of his career.


The entire reason we have to have a Foster, Miller, etc. was because we needed someone who would by a physical defender.

You just put Foster and Brad Miller in the same sentence for physical defender?? C'mon. Are you trying to make my head explode? Did Uncle Buck get to you this season? What a tragedy.

I've heard Foster actually played some post defense this season, but in the past he was always so unphysical in the paint that Rick would run that zone-gimmick front the post crap. JO would at least body up behind somebody like a real big man would.


But feel free to ignore me, I'm just a hater.:D

I haven't just been ignoring you this season, I've been ignoring the entire league. :buddies:

ChicagoJ
06-19-2008, 10:27 AM
Not sure I agree with you, but give me a name of who JO used to guard.

Shaq. In Miami. Pollard would start those games in place of Foster, pick up a few quick fouls and bruises, and then JO would take over.

Next?

Unclebuck
06-19-2008, 10:40 AM
Shaq. In Miami. Pollard would start those games in place of Foster, pick up a few quick fouls and bruises, and then JO would take over.

Next?

Maybe I should have asked who he guarded well. Pollard always did a pretty good job, but I never thought JO did.

Naptown_Seth
06-19-2008, 12:51 PM
How about we all agree on this, Jermaine O'Neal and Kevin Garnett are neither tough players either physically or mentally.

The mere thought of either of these two having to go agains the Pat Riley Knicks makes me smile.

Shake and done. :D

I do think JO would have bought into that mentality quicker if put on that roster.


I'm just saying I'd rather have JO try and fail to play the paint that Garnett not even try for long stretches of his career.
JO has pretty consistantly drawn a lot of fouls on low post players and has carried a fairly healthy FT/G rate in most seasons. Try and fail isn't even always fail.

Now able to get the ball in the post and make a big play from that spot at the end of games? Not a JO strength, thus the reason he got blasted for not being clutch and wasn't embraced like Reggie was despite the other numbers and the AS selections.

Naptown_Seth
06-19-2008, 12:54 PM
No problem, I will. :D

I'm tired of fighting the same battles, so I'm sitting this one out. Jermaine will be gone after this summer anyway, so we can all talk instead about how much we like Danny Granger.
Not for long. ;) :devil:

Use this thread, take out JO and replace with Danny. Then just swap out some positive and negative adjectives that fit better with a SF and the pros/cons of Danny's game. Then postdate it for 2 years from now.

Bball
06-19-2008, 01:08 PM
Not for long. ;) :devil:

Use this thread, take out JO and replace with Danny. Then just swap out some positive and negative adjectives that fit better with a SF and the pros/cons of Danny's game. Then postdate it for 2 years from now.

Danny is earning his ascension thru the ranks by his actions both on the court and off. Nothing was handed to him. JO was handed the 'face of the franchise' tag, proclaimed the leader, and given a starmaker role but the actual player never caught up with the hype (except verbally where he can talk a good game with anyone in the NBA).

There's a reason Danny is surpassing JO in the hearts of Pacer fans and it isn't because the team decided to overhype Granger and hope he fulfills their desires.

Granger still has a ways to go, and with the change in upper management things may move differently these days, but Granger is going to have to change who he is before we need to worry about him suffering the same fate as JO. In fact, part of JO's problem is an unwillingness to accept a better player into the fold and/or to defer for the sake of the team. I've yet to see anything that makes me think Granger is cut from that same mold. A player can have the moral character and will to win and be a leader whether he's ultimately the best player or not. ...IMHO

-Bball

Trader Joe
06-19-2008, 01:30 PM
Granger averaged basically 20 PPG and 6 RPG this season. I would have been pretty content with that as his ceiling.

Unclebuck
06-19-2008, 01:45 PM
Granger averaged basically 20 PPG and 6 RPG this season. I would have been pretty content with that as his ceiling.

There is however a big difference between averaging 20 pts and 6 rebs on a team that wins 34 games vs doing that on a team that wins 54 games.

Trader Joe
06-19-2008, 01:47 PM
There is however a big difference between averaging 20 pts and 6 rebs on a team that wins 34 games vs doing that on a team that wins 54 games.

I agree, but still Granger progressed much further than I thought he woudl this season.

Hicks
06-19-2008, 02:53 PM
What's the difference? The only thing I can think of is touches (presumably a better team would have better talent and the ball would be shared more). Otherwise, good team or horrible team, you have to play the same 29 opponents. I don't think Danny was a volume shooter, so I'd argue that he'd put up similar numbers on any quality of team in this offense.

count55
06-19-2008, 03:15 PM
What's the difference? The only thing I can think of is touches (presumably a better team would have better talent and the ball would be shared more). Otherwise, good team or horrible team, you have to play the same 29 opponents. I don't think Danny was a volume shooter, so I'd argue that he'd put up similar numbers on any quality of team in this offense.

Danny took just over 15 shots per game and accounted for about 17% of his team's shots. Those don't seem to be numbers that would indicate he'd have to give up a large number of shots on a better team. Of course, that would be dictated by who he was playing with.

If he was along side a Garnett, he would almost certainly be able to keep up his looks, but playing with a James, Anthony, or Kobe, his numbers might go down. On the whole, however, I don't see any reason to put a huge asterisk next to the numbers he produced.

Unclebuck
06-19-2008, 03:37 PM
What's the difference? The only thing I can think of is touches (presumably a better team would have better talent and the ball would be shared more). Otherwise, good team or horrible team, you have to play the same 29 opponents. I don't think Danny was a volume shooter, so I'd argue that he'd put up similar numbers on any quality of team in this offense.

Ask Ray Allen about the number of shots he gets on a really good team vs a bad team.

Granger was probably the Pacers best player this past season - he was one of the main guys, so he got a lot of shots. Put him on the Celtics and he would get half as many shots so his pts per would decrease. But his shooting % would probably be better because he would get better shots

If Ray Allen was on the Pacers this past season, he would have average more points thna he did on the C's

Hicks
06-19-2008, 03:54 PM
You really think if/when we get another good player in the coming years, Danny's going to take less than 15, 14, 13 shots per game? If he were taking closer to 25 than 15 I'd agree, but he's being fairly efficient about it.

Unclebuck
06-19-2008, 04:08 PM
You really think if/when we get another good player in the coming years, Danny's going to take less than 15, 14, 13 shots per game? If he were taking closer to 25 than 15 I'd agree, but he's being fairly efficient about it.

Depends on how good Granger becomes. But this past season if the Pacers had a greater number of good players, Granger certainly would have shot less.

I guess what I'm driving at is I don't know if Granger can ever be the best player on a team that wins 50 plus games. But we already know he can be the best player on a team that wins 35 games.

Hicks, I understand your point, DG didn't didn't take that many shots to begin with, so he might be the exception

duke dynamite
06-19-2008, 06:44 PM
After escaping Portland's bench, JO was a 5 time all-star averaging 19.5 pts, 9.7 rbs, 2 blocks per game over 7 seasons on a team that was in the playoffs every year and title contender most of those years until injuries started slowing him. I remember watching JO's first few games as a Pacer. He flew around the court and made the rim look like a toy! The great players find new ways to improve even when their bodies start to age. This is where I think JO has faltered. Overpaid? Maybe. Overrated? Don't think so. Over the hill? Quite possibly.
Wow, I couldn't have said it better myself.

ChicagoJ
06-19-2008, 07:56 PM
For perspecitve, Reggie's career high in FGA's was 1287, when Dick Versace gave him the green light to shoot in 1989-90. That's a "whopping" 15.7 shots per game.

JO is on pace to be become the most misunderstood and polarizing sports figure in Indiana since either Bobby Knight or AJ Foyt, take your pick.

rm1369
06-19-2008, 08:00 PM
Also... Typically it's not his man he's taking a charge from or blocking. So while those are 'pretty' defensive stats, they don't get to the meat and potatoes of what the team needs on the court.

-Bball

I'm not a huge JO fan, but some of the stuff I see said about the guy seems much more like pure hatred than honest criticism, IMO. I mean are we really knocking the guy for taking charges? Un-freakin' believable. JO is an average on the ball defender and an excellent help defender. Taking a charge usually means sacrifising your body to cover someone else mistakes. IIRC the Pacers team defense was much better this season when JO was in the lineup. This is largerly do to his ability to help cover the other horrible defensive players mistakes. He is simply the Pacers best overall defender, IMO, by a large amount. Foster is a better on the ball defender against quicker 4s, but thats the only person remotley close.

I also don't agree that JO hasn't adapted his game to help the team. IMO he gained weight to play in Rick's grind it scheme. Rick was, IMO, the single worst thing that has happened to JO. Offensively and defensively he asked JO to be something he wasn't - basically Shaq . JO was best when he played a game more similiar to KG or Bosh. He was much more effecive using his athleticism than he ever was using power. Ricks no motion offence basically dumped the ball into JO with his back to the basket and little time on the shot clock. Not suprisingly Artest was a much better post player under Rick than JO was. He was built to simply bull over his opponent and get a shot up - JO wasn't.

IMO, some people are criticizing JO for the way the team has asked him to play and then complaining about him more because he isn't extermly effective at it. If you can't tell I think the notion that JO has tried to do the best for the team is bunk. IMO he's tried to do what was asked of him by the team and failed. There is a huge difference.

Bball
06-19-2008, 09:28 PM
I'm not a huge JO fan, but some of the stuff I see said about the guy seems much more like pure hatred than honest criticism, IMO. I mean are we really knocking the guy for taking charges? Un-freakin' believable. JO is an average on the ball defender and an excellent help defender. Taking a charge usually means sacrifising your body to cover someone else mistakes. IIRC the Pacers team defense was much better this season when JO was in the lineup. This is largerly do to his ability to help cover the other horrible defensive players mistakes. He is simply the Pacers best overall defender, IMO, by a large amount. Foster is a better on the ball defender against quicker 4s, but thats the only person remotley close.

I'm not knocking him for taking charges (or making blocks either for that matter)... I'm simply saying that we shouldn't use those things to say that JO is an excellent one on one defender because these things don't actually show that. If someone calls JO an excellent defender, it is typically the above things they reference.




IMO, some people are criticizing JO for the way the team has asked him to play and then complaining about him more because he isn't extermly effective at it.

I believe the team played the way JO wanted to play. And of course I'll always point to the 8th game hissy fit as one of the prime examples.

-Bball

rm1369
06-19-2008, 09:50 PM
I believe the team played the way JO wanted to play. And of course I'll always point to the 8th game hissy fit as one of the prime examples.

-Bball

So someone that absolutley hates physical contact, in most peoples opinion, wanted to gain weight and play slug ball? Doesn't add up to me. As a head coach Carlisle has consistantly played a slow down grind it style. That started the minute he came to the team - not when JO got here or started getting recognition. And many players have complained about the offense under Carlisle - not just JO. If the team played that style because JO wanted to then Carlisle is plain and simply a horrible coach. And DW and Bird are absolutley horrible GMs. All three should then get way more criticism than JO.

BlueNGold
06-19-2008, 10:09 PM
For perspecitve, Reggie's career high in FGA's was 1287, when Dick Versace gave him the green light to shoot in 1989-90. That's a "whopping" 15.7 shots per game.

JO is on pace to be become the most misunderstood and polarizing sports figure in Indiana since either Bobby Knight or AJ Foyt, take your pick.

JO is on pace to being a nothing in Pacer history....if he's lucky. More likely, he will be recalled as an oft-injured, whining, all-talk, sub-par franchise player and will be forever linked to the brawl and Ron Artest...who was probably the better player.

The next franchise player we have has to be a better player...or we will never make the playoffs again.

Trader Joe
06-19-2008, 10:12 PM
JO is on pace to being a nothing in Pacer history....if he's lucky. More likely, he will be recalled as an oft-injured, whining, all-talk, sub-par franchise player and will be forever linked to the brawl and Ron Artest...who was probably the better player.

The next franchise player we have has to be a better player...or we will never make the playoffs again.

Wow, I really hope thats not the way JO is remembered.

I'll remember him as the guy that would have done anything to get Reggie a ring, and I'm convinced JO never really recovered mentally from failing to do that. I'll remember him as a guy that turned down a max deal from the Spurs to stay loyal to the Pacers. I'll remember him as a guy that I truely believed liked playing for the Pacers and loved the city he played in. I'll remember JO writing "Remember Why #31" on his shoes.
If people really do remember JO that way, well that will just be sad, and it won't say a whole lot for the supposed great basketball knowledge of this state.

BlueNGold
06-19-2008, 10:20 PM
Wow, I really hope thats not the way JO is remembered.

I'll remember him as the guy that would have done anything to get Reggie a ring, and I'm convinced JO never really recovered mentally from failing to do that. I'll remember him as a guy that turned down a max deal from the Spurs to stay loyal to the Pacers. I'll remember him as a guy that I truely believed liked playing for the Pacers and loved the city he played in. I'll remember JO writing "Remember Why #31" on his shoes.
If people really do remember JO that way, well that will just be sad, and it won't say a whole lot for the supposed great basketball knowledge of this state.

I think some people will remember him as you describe. But I believe that the masses will associate him with the brawl and the fact he never came close to backing his words. What you bring up are the more subtle things that much of the public do not focus on. Most hard core people, myself included, have respect for JO on many of these issues and respect the way he acts professionally. However, much is expected of a player on a max contract....particularly one following the great one (R. Miller).

Edit: BTW, you will find greater support on this board for JO than with the general public. JMHO. ...oh, and I'm not kidding that this team will need a better franchise player to do anything in the playoffs. Even when healthy, JO was shut down by the likes of Kenyon Martin (who is not soft) in the playoffs....even when the team had several other talented players to take off the pressure.

Trader Joe
06-19-2008, 10:35 PM
No, I agree the general public is definetely disenchanted with JO. I'm just hoping they'll remember him better once he is gone.

Bball
06-19-2008, 10:40 PM
Wow, I really hope thats not the way JO is remembered.

I'll remember him as the guy that would have done anything to get Reggie a ring, and I'm convinced JO never really recovered mentally from failing to do that. I'll remember him as a guy that turned down a max deal from the Spurs to stay loyal to the Pacers. I'll remember him as a guy that I truely believed liked playing for the Pacers and loved the city he played in. I'll remember JO writing "Remember Why #31" on his shoes.
If people really do remember JO that way, well that will just be sad, and it won't say a whole lot for the supposed great basketball knowledge of this state.

Did he really get offered a confirmed max deal from the Spurs or is that one of those things that gets stated on the internet enough it just becomes accepted as 'fact'? ...And regardless... A 'max' deal from the Spurs was not the same 'max' deal the Pacers offered (the Pacers could and did offer more than anyone else could've).

If people remember JO the way BlueNGold said it's just as likely because of the fans' great knowledge of basketball as it is some alleged lacking of knowledge.

And I agree with BnG that you'll find more love for JO on these forums than you do out and about in the general public... And IMHO even sitting in the arena for that matter...

-Bball

BlueNGold
06-19-2008, 10:47 PM
No, I agree the general public is definetely disenchanted with JO. I'm just hoping they'll remember him better once he is gone.

I do too. He's been a good guy, albeit not much of a franchise player. There are worse #1's in the league...but generally on the bottom feeders.

rm1369
06-19-2008, 10:55 PM
Did he really get offered a confirmed max deal from the Spurs or is that one of those things that gets stated on the internet enough it just becomes accepted as 'fact'? ...And regardless... A 'max' deal from the Spurs was not the same 'max' deal the Pacers offered (the Pacers could and did offer more than anyone else could've).

-Bball

I honestly didn't think JO got a max offer from SA. IIRC there was alot of speculation about them adding JO or Kidd. Kidd always made more sense as Tony Parker was considered the weak link at the time. I thought they offered Kidd, but he re-signed with the Nets instead. I could be mistaken though.

Of course Reggie always gets credit for his loyalty, but he flirted with New York alot more than JO did with SA. Including more public statements about it than I remember from JO. IIRC reggie didn't necessarily make a decision either - NY did by deciding to offer big money to Alan Houston. I personally always thought if New York wanted him he would have went. For a showman that would have been the place to be.

Unclebuck
06-20-2008, 08:07 AM
No, I agree the general public is definetely disenchanted with JO. I'm just hoping they'll remember him better once he is gone.

95% of my problem with him, and I don't blame him for it, but my problem is that he simply cannot stay healthy and because of the injuries he is a shell of his former self