|
Allanfan20
Posts: 35947
Alba Posts: 50
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #542
USA
|
Posted by Silverfuel:
Posted by Allanfan20:
Warrior, most abused term in sports. What is your definition of a warrior by the way? Somebody who plays through injury? Houston did it. Somebody who plays hard? Houston did that too, wasn't that good on defense but he still gave his best. Or is it somebody who isn't that good but still makes a contribution on other things like boards and defense. Not Houston, but was Oakley and Starks, yes.
Someone that leads the attack aggresively, every single night in battle. My definition of warrior may not be absolute but I know one when I see one. Houston unfortunately was just "too soft". He was too much like Glen Robinson and Keith Van Horn to be called a warrior.
Those to me are some characteristics that define "warrior" I never ever called Houston a "Warrior" but he is a "Fighter" for playing through all these injuries until he just couldn't, as well as abuse from fans like you and half the people who go to the garden nowadays.
Playing through fan abuse, hmmm. Tim Thomas gets booed, he has good games every now and then. Ward played through boos for a month after his anti-semitic quotes came out. Is he being a warrior? Dealing with 'boos' which you call abuse, is nothing unique to Allan Houston. Players get that very often, especially in New York.
And that's just emotional and pain stuff. How about how he managed to average 20 ppg his final 2 seasons with a solid 44% FGP, while shooting close to 50% from midrange (Check 82games.com. One of the posters here brought it up awhile ago) while the opposing teams best defenders always abused him.
Glen Robinson did that for 8 seasons. He averaged more points on a team with more scorers.
I understand you don't like Houston at all. But he was a very good player and a boarderline all star.
Not good enough to be a franchise or 2nd best player. He is a shooting specialist. They usually come after a post presence and a penetrator.
Like I said, I pretty much agree he shouldn't have his # retired, for the most part, unless he helped win a championship but he didn't, so like Marbury, Spree, Oak and Starks, he doesn't deserve to have his # retired. At this point, all of those guys are on the same level. Houston isn't more or less deserving to have his # retired than those other 4. He was a very good player who made big contributions to some good teams and some bad teams who never made it to the promise land.
Spree and Marbury dont belong in the same line as Oak and Starks. Marbury still has a chance.
Now, if you don't think he was a good player, that's your opinion. It's wrong, but it's your opinion. I respect that. But like I said, it's incorrect. 
I have never said he wasnt a good jumpshooter. I give him credit for having an awesome looking jumpshot. What I have been saying all along is this: he was extremely 1-dimensional and an incomplete basketball player because of the whole no defense, no rebounding, no driving, no passing thing. And yes, I would call him a good player, incomplete, but good. If you dont agree, thats your opinion. It's wrong, but it's your opinion. I respect that, (I really do) but its incorrect. 
Dude, lol, first off I never said he was a franchise player. Second off, I never said he could be the 2nd best overall player on the team. He was PERFECT for that '99 team, and before b/c he was usually somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd best player. Also, what is wrong with a 22.5 ppg scorer on 44, 45% fgp being a go to scorer. If he does it on jumpshots, then he does it on jumpshots. He still goes through the net, and he also managed about 5 FTs a game. His game wasn't penetrating. If you expected that out of him, and to be a franchise player, then you will naturally be dissapointed. But he lived up to my expectations and then went past him in his final healthy season, b/c he finally stepped up on D a little bit better, and his passing was always PRETTY GOOD. Not great, not awesome, not bad, not mediocre. His passing was always a solid pretty good, even though he only got about 2, 3 assists a game. Yes, his rebounding was a major issue. I've been saying that all along. But it appears that you had extremely high expectations for him, w/ or w/o the contract, so naturally you'll be dissapointed. But like I said, he was a very good player, boarderline all star. Nothing more, nothing less. Never lived up to that dumb ass contract, but also certainly reached his own potential, besides on the rebounding and defense earlier in his career. Like I said though, if you're dissapointed, then that's your thing. “Whenever I’m about to do something, I think ‘Would an idiot do that?’ and if they would, I do NOT do that thing.”- Dwight Schrute
|
9/15/2005 7:40 AM
