Team USA Basketball Thread

[improbus]

Originally Posted by MaineRed

That is fine, it doesn't make him the most complete post player because he can execute one post move. The guy averages about 15 PPG. 90% of his time is spent on the perimeter or yapping at the refs. It takes one call to get him off his game. A complete player wouldn't let the refs get under his skin.

Rasheed is like Derrick Coleman. The ability to be the best but just not the head to do it. 20 years is a long time. You are spanning the careers of Karl Malone and Charles Barkley, two guys who should be considered much better players (and complete) than Wallace. Barkley could kill you inside and out. He could dribble by you or go thru you. Malone might be the best 4 to ever play the game and he too could hit the outside shot.

If I were going to build a post-player, it would be Rasheed. He is 7'0'', his shot is almost unblockable, and he is able to defend almost anyone, and is a good rebounder. Rasheed is a very unselfish player. He could have easily averaged 25+ in his prime, but he understands basketball and he understands that his scoring isn't always the most important thing. Barkley was a career 27% 3 point shooter, Rasheed is a 34% shooter (and is getting better). Barkley and Malone were better players, but they were not as versatile as 'Sheed.

[Jack Burton]

I'll be rooting for them to lose, I think it would be funny considering how much money they get paid to play the game "professionally". It's not much of a team concept with USA basketball, it's all about the highlight material.

[Hoosier Red]

I'm curious how many games you've watched in the last two years Jack?

While certainly true of the teams that could win on pure talent(up to 2000 Olympics)

I think that was a bit overblown as the reason for losing in 2002, 2004, and 2006, and is certainly not true of the current incarnation of the team.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by Jack Burton

I'll be rooting for them to lose, I think it would be funny considering how much money they get paid to play the game "professionally". It's not much of a team concept with USA basketball, it's all about the highlight material.

It's not like the other teams aren't using pros.

[Roy Tucker]

Originally Posted by Chip R

It's not like the other teams aren't using pros.

Yep.

I think the word "amateur" left the Olympics with Avery Brundage.

[MaineRed]

Kobe and Kidd are the guys I am talking about. Kobe is a punk, I don't care what his fans who would go to the grave for him, say. Kidd beat up his wife and he too is a punk. I hope the two of them collide into coach K, putting all 3 out of commision. Then I hope Lebron yells "FREE TIBET" after a dunk which starts the riot I mentioned in the other thread.

[SeeinRed]

Originally Posted by Jack Burton

I'll be rooting for them to lose, I think it would be funny considering how much money they get paid to play the game "professionally". It's not much of a team concept with USA basketball, it's all about the highlight material.

This kind of attitude irks me. 1. How much do they get paid to play for team USA? 2. If you could play the game well, would you play for 100 dollars a game just to play or would you play for the amount that a team is willing to pay you because fans will come out and watch you by the thousands? These players aren't just handed millions of dollars to go play how they want because they are greedy. They play well enough to help a professional team play and these teams are willing to pay them millions to help them win. That is made possible by the fact that millions of people are willing to pay, in some form, for the entertainment these athletes provide. Being an athlete on a high level isn't all just showing up for a couple hours to play a game either. Most athletes spend most of their waking hours trying to better themselves and staying in shape. Yeah, its not pencil pushing in a cubicle, but they have the talent to be in a profession that pays really really well. They may not "deserve" the money in your opinion, but then again, nobody "deserves" money. You earn it. They earned theirs by putting in the time and practicing constantly. They have a lot of natural ability as well, but there are a lot of people that are naturally better at math. They get good jobs like engineers and make more money than some also. I don't make much, but I don't hate people who make more than me. Maybe I'm just not an envious person.

I've yet to meet one person that wouldn't take the oppurtunity to make millions if it was offered to them. The reasoning might be different.

[MaineRed]

Originally Posted by 15fan

Tim Duncan has a whole lot of hardware in his living room that might dispute that assertion.

Agreed. Simply forgot about TD. I think he too is more complete of a player than Mr. Wallace.

Yes, Wallace can shoot the 3 better than most folks, but does that really make him a more complete player? 3 point shooting is only a small part of the game. Shooting only 2 pointers if you can shoot 50% it is just as good as 34% from behind the arc.

Barkley couldn't shoot as well as Sheed but he could dribble by people where Wallace can't dribble by anyone with ease. In all most other areas, Barkley was better than Wallace, so how he is not more complete? Same with Duncan. He trumps Wallace just about everywhere, just not the 3 ball.

[MaineRed]

Originally Posted by SeeinRed

I don't make much, but I don't hate people who make more than me. Maybe I'm just not an envious person.

Where did he say he "hated" people who made a bunch of money. He said it would be "FUNNY" if they lost.

[improbus]

Originally Posted by MaineRed

Agreed. Simply forgot about TD. I think he too is more complete of a player than Mr. Wallace.

Yes, Wallace can shoot the 3 better than most folks, but does that really make him a more complete player? 3 point shooting is only a small part of the game. Shooting only 2 pointers if you can shoot 50% it is just as good as 34% from behind the arc.

Barkley couldn't shoot as well as Sheed but he could dribble by people where Wallace can't dribble by anyone with ease. In all most other areas, Barkley was better than Wallace, so how he is not more complete? Same with Duncan. He trumps Wallace just about everywhere, just not the 3 ball.

Barkley was limited on defense because of his size. Sheed can guard any 4 or 5 in the league (he has even guarded Shaq many times) and there is no way that Chuck could have guarded the Daddy. Barkley was a unique guy. Name me another 6'5'' guy who can do what he did.

I want to make this absolutely clear, Barkley was a better player than Rasheed. But NO ONE has been able to replicate Barkley and no one ever will be that combination of size, speed, and back-side. What I am saying is that Rasheed has all of the tools that you want in a post player. Duncan is better, Shaq was better, but 'Sheed had more overall tools.

[MaineRed]

Yes Rasheed has all the tools. So did DC (Coleman). I was hoping the Celtics would get Sheed back when the Pistons got him because I felt he was much better than his reputation. He is misunderstood and probably not near the distraction that the media makes him out to be but I still believe calling him the most complete anything is a stretch. Heckuva player but you are calling him more complete than more than a few HOFers. McHale was still solid 20 years ago. I realize he couldn't hit the 3 but he was a fantastic defender with his long arms.

[improbus]

Anyone watch the USA vs. Australia? I caught some of it. The US team really struggled on offense with Kidd on the floor. Defenders sag off of him and that crowds the lane making it difficult for Kobe and LeBron to attack. I love JKidd, but it is time to put him out to pasture.

[Redsfaithful]

Isn't it American to root for the underdog? That's definitely not Team USA. I mean, I'll be rooting for them, but some of you are acting like this actually matters.

[improbus]

It is a rare case indeed when we are the true underdog. But, this is where the great irony kicks in. If America really wanted to get behind a real underdog and stick it to the rest of the world (which we really enjoy doing), there is only one sport and team to support. US Men's Soccer. The American Sports Media spends so much time disparaging and downplaying soccer that it fails to see what could become one of the greatest achievements in American sports. Imagine this scenario, the underdog American soccer team beats France to go to the final match of the World Cup. How mant "red-blooded" Americans would be able to resist beating the French at their own game?

[MaineRed]

The American Sports Media spends so much time disparaging and downplaying soccer

Yeah, because soccer sucks.