Quote:
Originally Posted by tbach24
Yeah they were good benches, but I'm still not buying that this team is better (or really even close). All those Kings players have been drafted so this is actually a good discussion.
Agree that its good discussion. Lets go one point at a time. Just to be clear, we're talking about the 01-02 Kings, who went 7 games in the WCF, correct?
Quote:
We have the constant that both teams had Webber.
agreed.
Quote:
Then up front, it's Divac vs. Smits. Divac is better at pretty much everything (especially defense and rebounding).
Divac was very inefficient at this point in his career. He shot only 51.3 TS% and he proved it wasn't a fluke by shooting 51.9, 51.1, and 41.9 the next 3 years. I think you're remembering him from years past. He was also a step slower defensively by this time, as his steals/blocks were way down from his prime. Plus lets keep in mind, not just with Divac/Smits but with all of these comparisons, that these Kings played at the fastest pace in the league which inflated all of their stats.
Quote:
Not just that, but the Webber-Divac teamup was awesome because they both passed the ball so well and just drove that offense.
See, I very much disagree with this here. I think it actually negated each other somewhat. You only need to have one big man who can come up to the top of the key or the high post and be a good passer. The other big man can just stay down low, work the post, or crash the boards. To have two post men who can do this really doesn't help any because you only can use one of them at one time. I guess you could run the play to either side, so thats an advantage, but its really a minimal one imo.
Quote:
Then you have Peja! Peja was awesome there because he got so many good looks because everyone on that team passed the ball so well. Howard with Smits and Webber works because they both can spread the floor to allow for Howard to get some work done, but that's not nearly as good offensively as the Peja-Webber-Divac offense was.
Howard is obviously a much different type of player than Peja and can create his own shot more. I agree with you that Peja works well with a good passing big man for sure, but I don't think its a kiwis to kiwis comparison.
Quote:
Then you had Christie, who although not nearly as good offensively, is so much better on defense than Blackman.
agreed
Quote:
And that Kings team didn't need Christie offensively, so it didn't really matter.
I think this is a pretty weak argument. Could I say that this team has other good defenders, so they don't ned Blackman's defense?
Quote:
Blackman's a great scorer yeah, but not having good defense is not good.
Ummm...ok.
Quote:
At point is the big difference, but Dumars wasn't that much better at 24 than Bibby was (at 23 on that Kings team).
LOL...you just got done telling us how much not having good defense hurts you and how good defense helps so much, and now you're completely glossing over one of the best defensive players of the 80s.
Quote:
Also, Bibby, like Christie, didn't really need to do anything other than step up and hit a shot once in awhile (although he wasn't that great at it that year).
I'm really not understanding this "well his team didn't need it, so its ok" argument that you're using here. AND YOU ONLY SEEM TO BE USING IT FOR THE KINGS WHILE NEVER USING IT FOR THE OTHER TEAM...VERY UNFAIR IMO.
Quote:
Also, as for the "constant," of Chris Webber, Webber was WAY better that year with the Kings than he was for the Bullets at 24. He didn't jack up any 3's, had learned how to shoot FTs (55% to 70%), shot more FTs, and was a better passer and defender.
That Wizards roster had one player that has been drafted so far- an aging Rod Strickland. I think its pretty unfair to say that Webber wasn't as good when he had such worse teamates.
So like I said, there is NO WAY that this team is better than the Kings team that Clark mentioned before