# OT: Walton Trashing Sheed



## Sheed30 (Apr 3, 2003)

Did anyone hear Bill Walton trashing Rasheed for a good 5-10 mins. It was the first time that I have heard anyone talk about that on live air when the game if going on for that amount of time. I hate Bill Walton..He shouldn't even be announcing the game, he is the most boring annoucer.


----------



## NYKBaller (Oct 29, 2003)

I would think that atleast Blazers fans would love Walton....


----------



## ElevatorMan (Jan 8, 2004)

bill walton is hilarious.. he says it like it is though.. if somebody is playing like **** then he says it..if they are playing well then he talks about it.. i never heard what he said about sheed but it was probably true


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sheed30</b>!
> Did anyone hear Bill Walton trashing Rasheed for a good 5-10 mins. It was the first time that I have heard anyone talk about that on live air when the game if going on for that amount of time. I hate Bill Walton..He shouldn't even be announcing the game, he is the most boring annoucer.


Bill Walton was simply stating his opinion - take it for what it is worth, Walton's opinion that changes like the wind. Walton is a lot of things but boring isn't one of them, IMO.


----------



## DocBakk (Jan 3, 2003)

I find Bill Walton at times to be a very good announcer (he's a great basketball mind). My problem though is when he goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on about the brilliance of the way someone *fill in the blank* (passed into the post, boxed out, tied thier shoes). He goes overboard with explaining things sometimes and when he does that no one is as annoying. He drops some gems of basketball knowledge from time to time though.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> "_With all that pounding to the head, let's hope Darius Miles doesn't develop a repetetive stress injury to the brain_." ~ Bill Walton


Bill Walton silly quote of the year!! :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## Sheed30 (Apr 3, 2003)

True, Walton is a good announcer. But I would say Bill can get very annoying at times.


----------



## Sheed30 (Apr 3, 2003)

Walton's best quote has to be that Rick Fox is one of the best SF of all- time.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> 
> Bill Walton silly quote of the year!! :laugh: :laugh:


what, a bill walton quote of the year without "in the history of the western civilization..."


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

While Bill definitely has a tendency to over embellish his opinions, I think he was, for the most part, pretty accurate regarding his statements of Sheed. Isn't Rasheed an underachiever? Does he not have all world ability, but is sorely lacking in consistency? I thought Walton's statements were pretty close to right on, he is not leading POR anywhere.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

*Re: Re: OT: Walton Trashing Sheed*



> Originally posted by <b>Gym Rat</b>!
> Bill Walton was simply stating his opinion - take it for what it is worth, Walton's opinion that changes like the wind. Walton is a lot of things but boring isn't one of them, IMO.


When on a nationally televised broadcast operating as a _supposed_ "neutral" announcer of ceremonies one would expect an individual to be a bit less inflammatory in stating his/ her opinion.

This classless tirade coupled with the hate filled diatribe (ESPN article) he released upon the unsuspecting public a few months back is tasteless hatred, plain and simple.

When in a position of influence as Walton is one cannot display this level of reckless behavior. Even more disappointing then this passive aggressive display of cowardice is the realization that nobody (in the media) possesses the stones to call him out on it.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

Is this topic really new? I've heard Walton "trashing' Rasheed Wallace for awhile now, and Bill's opinion hasn't changed since.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Walton may be an idiot 99% of the time but on this rant he is 100% right about Sheed. Nothing and I mean nothing he said about Sheed is untrue, even the part when he said we are getting other teams mistakes for Sheed now in trade!

I think it's gutsy as hell for him to say that right in front of Sheed.

Don't get me wrong Walton is an idiot, but today he was onnnnnnnnnnn!


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: OT: Walton Trashing Sheed*



> Originally posted by <b>The Enigma</b>!
> 
> 
> When on a nationally televised broadcast operating as a _supposed_ "neutral" announcer of ceremonies one would expect an individual to be a bit less inflammatory in stating his/ her opinion.
> ...


Why is Walton's opinion of Sheed a problem? Walton is NOT supposed to show favoritism toward either team, but stating his opinion about a player has little to do with being a neutral broadcaster. Otherwise, basketball analyst would have little to say during a game. They are there for their expert opinions.

I am not a big Bill Walton fan unless Snapper is with him to neutralize his crazy thoughts. But the man has a right to state his opinion of a player while analyzing a game. That is what he is paid to do. And, if Walton was not neutral, I imagine he would be routing for Portland, don't you?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

So let me get this straight.

When Walton says Rasheed is among the most physically talented players in the league, it's being fair and he's telling the truth.

But when he says Rasheed is inconsistant and a negative influence to the team, it's being unfair, biased and infamatory.

In my opinion, he's right on in his comments. Rasheed is million dollar talent with a 10 cent head.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> So let me get this straight.
> 
> When Walton says Rasheed is among the most physically talented players in the league, it's being fair and he's telling the truth.
> ...


Ahhh, well. Give him a break. At least he's landed a guest spot on _Less Than Perfect_.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Bill Walton's hypocrisy:

Z-Bo can't be on the All Star team cuz his team isn't winning, but LeBron should have been on the team. His rationale? The Cavs are going to make the playoffs. Never mind that the Cavs are nowhere near the playoffs and on a losing streak. We're playing the best ball in the league!


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

LMAO - "He's a changed man"! :laugh:


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Qyntel is the new odd man out.

How long before he gets traded?


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Guys, remember Walton has one good thought a game and he used it on Sheed. 

This is Bill guys!


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Who wouldn't agree that Brent Musburger is the perfect _yin_ to Bill Walton''s _yang_? :yes:


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Fork- we're going to always have an odd man out. I don't see how trading players will change that.

I don't feel sorry for Qyntel. He's been given more chances than he's earned. We've started him at least 5 times this year and the results have been minimal. I hope the next time he's called on, he does the most he can with it.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> Bill Walton's hypocrisy:
> 
> Z-Bo can't be on the All Star team cuz his team isn't winning, but LeBron should have been on the team. His rationale? The Cavs are going to make the playoffs. Never mind that the Cavs are nowhere near the playoffs and on a losing streak. We're playing the best ball in the league!


Now he says we are playing like playoff contenders.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Because we are.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> 
> 
> We've started him at least 5 times this year and the results have been minimal.


Dude, he's *not* a Point Guard.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

We started him at Small Forward dude.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> We started him at Small Forward dude.


Not for 5 games we didn't......dude.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

We sure as hell did!

He started at SF when Sheed was hurt. Sheed was out 4 games.

I also remember that we started Q for BOTH games vs New Jersey.

That's 6.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

We started him the last time we were at Arco too!

7.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Just checked NBA.com. Q has started 8 games.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> Just checked NBA.com. Q has started 8 games.


OK, I stand corrected.

My whole point, though, is that I think he's played his poorest ball at the PG position. Also, I hope that he gets a chance to play more at the 2. I really think that this could be his strongest position. He's really a poor man's Clyde, you know.

His best chance, however, (if he is to remain a Blazer) will be next year. That is, if the Blazers choose not to re-sign Wes.


----------



## blazerbraindamage (May 5, 2003)

Walton sucks ! 

Blazers should unretire his jersery and place it in the hall of shame!


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

Too funny, Musberger - One thing is for sure there will NOT be an interview between Bill Walton and Rasheed Wallace Coming up on Sports Center... :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## blazerbraindamage (May 5, 2003)

lmao

BTW,anyone remember Kevin Nealon's impression of Brent Musburger? :laugh:


----------



## obiwankenobi (Jan 31, 2004)

On Walton - 

He was doing his job. I wouldn't expect Steve Jones or Mike Rice to be as blunt as Walton since they are employed by the team, but he is well within his ESPN/ABC analyst's right to question both Rasheed's behavior, his inconsistency and management's plan of attack to rebuild. Nothing out of bounds there at all.

Nobody seems too concerned with his abundant criticism of the performance of Rashard Lewis...

As for Walton's writings earlier this season, they were in direct response to Wallace's troubling interview with Geoffrey C. Arnold in the Oregonian. He had every right to that opinion then, now and in the future, especially since he was responding to a hot topic brought on by Wallace's own words.

Walton can be overbearing and downright ridiculous at times, but he's also a self-made man, a hell of a human being, a tireless professional and one of the nicest celebrities/athletes that I've had the chance to meet. (The same goes for Mo' Lucas.)


----------



## blazerfan4life (Dec 31, 2002)

I used to be a Bill Walton fan..but after his 2 comments..one about Wallace and the other about Z-BO not any more...MY thought about BILL is that he is a joke... and thank god he is not playing in the NBA anymore..not that he had much a NBA career...sure he won while he was here..but got lucky in BOSTON .hey if he is right to say what he thinks then i am sure right to say that i think....:laugh: Atleast his comments didn't ruin a great BLAZER WIN


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>obiwankenobi</b>!
> 
> .....but he's also a self-made man...


Yeah......he does seem rather _fabricated_ at times.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

I didn't hear Walton's comments, but I'm not surprised by his continuing his anti-Wallace tirade. 

Walton does the same thing that lots of radio talk show hosts do - make inflammatory comments for the sake of a reaction. It makes for good theater, but inaccurate analysis. Rasheed Wallace is a very talented player, but he's inconsistent, which is true of countless players in the NBA... However, Wallace's inconsistency shows up most clearly in the part of the game that's easiest to quantify - in the scoring column. On defense, Wallace is pretty darn consistent and when it comes to staying in shape and keeping healthy, Sheed is among the top. Those things often get lost amid the "sound-byte pearls of wisdom" shared by the likes of Walton. 

Walton's an entertainer... if you want analysis, I'd recommend re-runs of Hubie Brown.

Is that obiwankenobi, the Oregonlive veteran? Welcome - from the poster formerly known as AugmonAnthony99.


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Public Defender</b>!
> 
> Is that obiwankenobi, the Oregonlive veteran? Welcome - from the poster formerly known as AugmonAnthony99.


Yes and of fanhome fame too. 

It took Obi a little longer than the rest of us, but he found his way.


----------



## obiwankenobi (Jan 31, 2004)

The one and the same, Public Defender.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

I've never liked Bill Walton much as an announcer, and this game was typical of why. He loves to heap praise on the stars of the game, shout the obvious, contradict himself endlessly, and hasn't left a dead horse unbeaten yet. He certainly has a right to his opinions and ESPN has the right to show them as they please. Firtunately I had a choice today, so I turned ESPN off and watched the excellent Kevin Calabro and Billy McKinney do the local Seattle broadcast.

They are terrific, and noticeably give credit where it's due, even for other teams. They are clearly fans of the game, and are quite willing to interrupt whatever their point is on some particular player or team with actual game commentary. I turned off "Rasheed Wallace is a cancer"-type stuff to "an excellent defensive play by Wallace". Night and day. It's a shame the rest of the basketball world doesn't get to hear these two professionals.


----------



## blazerbraindamage (May 5, 2003)

I thought Walnut was bashing our whole team every time he opened his mouth for the entire game!

But what really angered me was him picking on Omar Cook and saying Damon was our best player.:upset: 

At that point I wanted to kick him square you no where.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>obiwankenobi</b>!
> As for Walton's writings earlier this season, they were in direct response to Wallace's troubling interview with Geoffrey C. Arnold in the Oregonian. He had every right to that opinion then, now and in the future, especially since he was responding to a hot topic brought on by Wallace's own words.


That article was in response to an opinion and it was an offloading of pent up hatred.

From the Bob Dylan quotes (Idiot Wind) to the tone of the piece I found it entirely inappropriate. I will not bother arguing the point because what others perceive could not sway me in the least. 

I suggest you read over the article.



> Walton can be overbearing and downright ridiculous at times, but he's also a self-made man, a hell of a human being, a tireless professional and one of the nicest celebrities/athletes that I've had the chance to meet. (The same goes for Mo' Lucas.)


I know him not but I know of him from what extends past his teeth. He is a hypocrite and coward and I personally have little respect for such individuals.

What ever happened to integrity? What ever happened to public displays of civil behavior towards an individual (even if one despises the other)?

Two wrongs do not make a right and an individual making controversial (somewhat ignorant) statements towards an establishment does not give the Walton's of the world a free pass to preach personal hatred (publicly).

He quoted in regards to Wallace that he was too stupid to breath. He quoted prophecies of one (Rasheed) lying bloodied in a ditch. He did it with the words of another in representation of his own thought (the most cowardly avenue of all). 

O'Neal confronted Walton in the past in regards to his back stabbing and double-talking. This along with his overly inappropriate response to an (admittedly) inappropriate opinion has given me a good indication of the character of this individual. 

He is a yap, a coward, a back stabber and a hypocrite. All characteristics typically disliked by we human animals (regardless of walk, like and creed).

-----

Interestingly enough following Walton’s offloading on Wallace all members on the ESPN staff (from the members in the studio down to Walton himself) bent over backwards to sing Wallace's praises from that point out.

Interesting response to an opinion many believe t be so "in place".

-----

Idiot Wind...

As an example of one of life’s many ironies this *Idiot Wind* concludes with the admittance that both parties are idiots (both the accuser and the accused):

_"Idiot wind, blowing through the buttons of our coats,
Blowing through the letters that we wrote.
Idiot wind, blowing through the dust upon our shelves,
We're idiots, babe (Rasheed and Walton).
It's a wonder we can even feed ourselves."_

How fitting.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*walton*

Walton spoke the truth,but it was abit unprofessional to say that much during a game.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FeloniusThunk</b>!
> 
> They are terrific, and noticeably give credit where it's due, even for other teams. They are clearly fans of the game, and are quite willing to interrupt whatever their point is on some particular player or team with actual game commentary. I turned off "Rasheed Wallace is a cancer"-type stuff to "an excellent defensive play by Wallace". Night and day. It's a shame the rest of the basketball world doesn't get to hear these two professionals.


I actually didn't even know the game was on ESPN, but whenever I have a chance to see the Blazers called by Calabro and McKinney, I take that opportunity. They don't shy from being on the side of the Sonics, but they are much more willing to complement the other team and call the how the ref's are doing much more straight than almost anyone else in the business.

They're good at what they do.

Ed O.


----------



## blazerfan4life (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: walton*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Walton spoke the truth,but it was abit unprofessional to say that much during a game.


So your saying that Z-BO shouldn't go to the ALL-STAR game cause he was on a (Walton quote) a bottom feeder team..BUT LEBRON who is on a "bottom feeder team" too..should be...what a crock...Z_BO has as much right to be in the ALL-STAR game as does LEBRON...:upset:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: walton*



> Originally posted by <b>blazerfan4life</b>!
> 
> So your saying that Z-BO shouldn't go to the ALL-STAR game cause he was on a (Walton quote) a bottom feeder team..BUT LEBRON who is on a "bottom feeder team" too..should be...what a crock...Z_BO has as much right to be in the ALL-STAR game as does LEBRON...:upset:


Last year's Portland team (with minimal contributions from ZR): 50-32.

Last year's Cleveland team (with no LeBron): 17-65.

This year's Portland team (with massive ZR contributions): 23-25

This year's Cleveland team (with massive LeBron contributions): 19-32.

So, in other words, James has led a team that's already won more games than they had ALL last year... while ZR's led a team that's lost nearly as many games as it had all last year.

I'm not sure that James deserves a spot on the all-star team, but I think he deserves one more than Randolph if I had to compare their relative worthiness.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: walton*



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Last year's Portland team (with minimal contributions from ZR): 50-32.
> ...


There are so many other factors than pure win/loss record. 

Cleveland has made those improvements in a weak eastern conference. Cleveland was going from rock bottom, so aquiring ANY player of worth would have improved their record. They're still farther out of the playoff race than Portland, despite the improvement of several teams in the west. Portland lost more talent than Cleveland over the off season. 

James doesn't deserve the spot MORE than Zach.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

Walton did bash Sheed and I found myself agreeing with him for the most part. I really don't think he did it in a hateful way but more of a "i'm pissed my team isn't doing all that great" kind of way. And him actually being a Blazer I'd think that gives him the right to do such things. I really don't agree with doing it on a national broadcast because people can take it in the wrong way.

You would think Sheed might shape up and prove Bill wrong, but I don't think Sheed is that type of player. He'll probably just roll up a blunt and say f' that old hippy.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

*walton. childish and venimous*

that's it. i feel coments like his should be left to the streets not for publication and not for brodcast. unless it is a special interest forum.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Walton made nothing up about Sheed, all he said was true! People may be pissed that he went on that long on national TV, but don't be angry at the content. 

However that is where his great knowledge of our team ended and he began to look like the stuttering idiot he really is. The Damon comments, the trading Miles at the end of the year for cap space and of course the best the butchering of our new PG for being a college drop out while tooting up Lebron who never even went to school. However that's Walton!


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*blazerfan4life*

What on earth are you talking about????
quoting me on something that has nothing to do with your comments ...
geesh..cool your jets..

My post was in response to Walton talking about Sheed..!

I said I thought was he said was correct,but unprofessional
to talk during the game.

Apology please.


----------



## blazerfan4life (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: walton*



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Last year's Portland team (with minimal contributions from ZR): 50-32.
> ...


But ED..we also had SABONIS and PIPPEN and DANIELS last year..so last year doesn't matter...what matters is what happened this year when CHEEKS put Z-BO into the starting lineup....he is playing great and he deserves to be in the ALL-STAR game

Plus we have a chance to be in the playoffs...do you think CLEVELAND can say that


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> ...
> You would think Sheed might shape up and prove Bill wrong, but I don't think Sheed is that type of player. He'll probably just roll up a blunt and say f' that old hippy.


This would make a lot more sense if the "he" in the last sentence were referring to Bill and not Sheed, but I doubt if that's what you meant.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

The Cavs may very well make the playoffs but let's remember a losing record can give you a birth in the JV conference.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>FeloniusThunk</b>!
> 
> 
> This would make a lot more sense if the "he" in the last sentence were referring to Bill and not Sheed, but I doubt if that's what you meant.


he he he... yeah man. now that's the kind of bill bashing i love to hear!!! who went on a tie dye tour of the play offs, and followed the dead? that old hippy that's who!!


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>FeloniusThunk</b>!
> 
> 
> This would make a lot more sense if the "he" in the last sentence were referring to Bill and not Sheed, but I doubt if that's what you meant.


If you're trying to tell me Sheed doesn't smoke, go light another one yourself because I don't know who you're trying to fool.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: walton*



> Originally posted by <b>blazerfan4life</b>!
> 
> But ED..we also had SABONIS and PIPPEN and DANIELS last year..so last year doesn't matter...what matters is what happened this year when CHEEKS put Z-BO into the starting lineup....he is playing great and he deserves to be in the ALL-STAR game


He's not playing as well as LeBron on an individual level, and his team has taken a big step back the more they've relied on ZR, unlike Cleveland, who's traded their leading scorer from last year (Ricky Davis) and has taken a big step forward.



> Plus we have a chance to be in the playoffs...do you think CLEVELAND can say that


Um. Yes. Portland is 4 games out of the playoffs. Cleveland is 3.5 games out.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: walton*



> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> There are so many other factors than pure win/loss record.


Not really any that matter on a team basis... from a purely individual achievement level, comparing team records is so inexact that it's not even worth doing. If we're looking at team achievement then trying to pin the blame (or give the credit) for huge swings in a team's fortunes doesn't make much sense.

Team-wise, all that anyone really cares about is whether the team is better this year than last. With that said, let's look at the factors you cite as mitigating the vast swings in the teams with these two players...



> Cleveland has made those improvements in a weak eastern conference.


They were terrible last year in a weak East, too. If they're been out West they might have lost 75 games, rather than 65. If Portland were out East last year they might have won 60 games... I don't see that it really matters.



> Cleveland was going from rock bottom, so aquiring ANY player of worth would have improved their record.


Some improvement? Sure. A potential doubling of wins? Not likely.

If Cleveland had added a starting center, a pair of veteran PGs and a solid SG and THEN improved their record, I wouldn't attribute it to nearly as much to James. See: Carmelo.



> They're still farther out of the playoff race than Portland, despite the improvement of several teams in the west.


Nope. Cleveland's 3.5 games out. Portland's 4.0 games out. (in a previous post I'd said 4.5... espn.com hadn't updated their standings yet.)



> Portland lost more talent than Cleveland over the off season.


Well, Cleveland lost no talent, so that's of course true... I don't think that Smush Parker's absence has really hurt them. But Portland only lost a single player who's making any sort of difference in the NBA this year: Antonio Daniels, and he barely played for Portland last year. Losing Sabas and Pippen obviously hurts, but if Zach's really deserving of an all-star appearance doesn't it seem he'd make up for a good chunk of their absence? To the extent that the team wouldn't be hovering near the bottom of the western conference all year?



> James doesn't deserve the spot MORE than Zach.


I sure as heck think he does.

Ed O.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Walton made nothing up about Sheed, all he said was true! People may be pissed that he went on that long on national TV, but don't be angry at the content.


HUMBUG!

Walton was just sharing his version of the big lie: "Sheed has all world talent/potential, but he is a lazy underachiever."

Sheed is not KG or Duncan AND NEVER COULD BE! He simply DOES NOT have that kind of talent. No amount of hard work is going to change that.

This argument against Sheed falls into the same category as ripping Drexler because he wasn't Jordan, or ripping Buck because he wasn't the Mailman. 

Sheed is a good, productive player who is capable of the occassional 30 Pt outburst - nothing more. 

Rip TBob for giving him a bad contract, but stop ripping Sheed just because his reality doesn't match some peoples' fantasies!

:soapbox:


----------



## nikebasketball (Jan 28, 2004)

*
I absolutely can not stand Bill Walton.

He is so critical and I really don't think anyone ever agrees with him.

I really think that he should keep his mouth shut.

I feel like he's jealous of what these kids now a days have and he hates that things were'nt like they are now back when he was playing.


*


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

You are wrong Grouch!!!!!!!

Sheed has more talent than CWebb and Jermaine, a better three ball than any PF in the game except maybe Dirk, and the most undefendable turn around I've seen. He plays great defense when he wants to and he can get up for anything tossed his way.

You and many others on this board have provided Sheed with an easy out for far toooooooo long, same as the coaching staff and his teamates. Sheed needs to be challenged cause he can produce at a very high level and he's shown that how many times?

No one believes except Blazer fans that Sheed can't be one of the best every night and that's why Walton makes the comments he does. Pure Frustration!

It's guys like you Grouch, that makes Sheed feel comfortable showing up every third game.

Fans that talk about how rich their history is should want their players to be all they can be or those players should hear about it in the press and media like they do in winning cities like Boston, LA and Detroit.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> You are wrong Grouch!!!!!!!
> 
> Sheed has more talent than CWebb and Jermaine, a better three ball than any PF in the game except maybe Dirk, and the most undefendable turn around I've seen. He plays great defense when he wants to and he can get up for anything tossed his way.
> ...


I understand your frustration. I wish Sheed WAS a great player - but he isn't.

The team went through this once already with Mychal Thompson. 

Thompson was no super-star, and he certainly shouldn't have been drafted ahead of Bird. The guy was a productive NBA player for many years, but many folks in Portland could never get over blaming him for not being first team all NBA like Bird.

The big difference, was that Thompson was more personable than Sheed. People wanted to like the guy, so they accepted that he was over-rated, as opposed to labeling him lazy. They blasted him as a *player*, without turning it into a character flaw.

Do you see the distinction I am trying to make?


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

The comparison of Sheed to JO and Webber has got me to thinking. Here is how I see it.

Vs JO
Scoring: roughly even
Passing: Sheed
Rebounding: JO
1-on-1 def: Sheed
help def: JO

Vs Webber
Scoring: Webber
Passing: Webber
Rebounding: Webber
1-on-1 def: Sheed
Help def: arguable, but I will say Sheed

Seriuosly, what has Sheed done, in college or the NBA, to suggest he is better than either of these players, as Terrible suggests? Sorry, but I just don't see it.

If I were to compare Sheed to any 1 player, it would be Sprewell.
When Spre was young, he was compared to Clyde, Pippen, even (gasp) MJ. In hindsight, most fans now accept that this was silly.

Spre is a productive offensive player who gets after people on D. He is capable of getting hot and hanging 30 points on anyone. He, like Sheed, is NOT capable of doing it consistently. Like Sheed, he has been limited by shakey fundamentals/mechanics, and a sometimes questionable basketball IQ. (not to mention being too emotional for his own good)


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!Spre is a productive offensive player who gets after people on D. He is capable of getting hot and hanging 30 points on anyone. He, like Sheed, is NOT capable of doing it consistently. Like Sheed, he has been limited by shakey fundamentals/mechanics, and a sometimes questionable basketball IQ. (not to mention being too emotional for his own good)


I thought the whole time you were making the Spree comparison you'd get to the one physical characteristic that both he and Wallace share, relatively small hands. Both have problems palming the ball, which limits them a bit at their respective positions. 

BTW, I also don't see Wallace as the superior physical talent to Webber and Jermaine... same ballpark sure, but if anything those guys are better specimens IMO. Both seem like bigger then Sheed (size matters for a post player), and can both palm the ball like its a grapefruit which helps a lot in passing, rebounding, and controlling entry passes. They have plenty of general athletism/coordination going for them too. Wallace probably has the best shooting stroke, and is a fluid defender especially adept at guarding anyone along the frontline in defensive switches, but I think both Web and Oneal are better equipt for posting up and rebounding. I see Terrible's point that he's the best of the three as arguable, but I'd definitely disagree.

STOMP


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> 
> 
> HUMBUG!
> ...


A player can be as good as he wants to be. Period end of question. Its just some players would have to work harder than others to get the same result. If Sheed had half the work ethic Timmy D (or any gym rat) has he'd be far better than he is now. 

You can't say anyone is limited, because thats selling someone short of what they could do. I'm a firm beleiver of the fact you can do anything you want if you want to put in the work to get there.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> 
> 
> A player can be as good as he wants to be. Period end of question. Its just some players would have to work harder than others to get the same result. If Sheed had half the work ethic Timmy D (or any gym rat) has he'd be far better than he is now.


So you have access to the gyms that both Timmy and Wallace work out in, or is this just your gut feeling that Sheed doesn't give a hoot? I'm sure you wouldn't speculate and maskerade your opinions as fact  

When Sheed and Timmy were freshman players in the ACC, Sheed had all the hype and recognition going into the season, but it was clear to me from the get go who was the better talent... he still is. 

STOMP


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> So you have access to the gyms that both Timmy and Wallace work out in, or is this just your gut feeling that Sheed doesn't give a hoot? I'm sure you wouldn't speculate and maskerade your opinions as fact
> ...


Roll your eyes all you want but if you honestly think Sheed works as hard as Timmy it would mean Sheed just sucks and can't get better as a player. 

If a player is more confortable being Robin to someone else's Batman he is already selling himself short of what he could be. This is what I think Sheed is doing.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> Roll your eyes all you want but if you honestly think Sheed works as hard as Timmy it would mean Sheed just sucks and can't get better as a player.


Huh? Let me see if I'm following your train of thought here? If I think that Wallace works out as hard as the games best player, but still isn't as good, then Wallace sucks and can't get better? I think there is a little more wiggle room to explain why he hasn't surpassed Duncan... like he isn't as good of a physical specimen, but he's still pretty darn good.

Way back when they were 17/18 years old, Duncan was putting up better numbers and leading Wake to victories over mighty UNC led by Wallace. Following their Soph years Wallace was drafted 4th, while Timmy opted to stay in school dispite public promises by Warrior's GM Dave Twardzic that he'd be the #1 pick. He turned down Phili's overtures following his Jr. year. He was ROY and has been All-NBA 1st team every year in the league. Timmy is taller, longer, and heavier, and IMO has always been the superior player, but I don't see how his successes reflects negatively on Sheed's respective talent or workout schedule one iota. Wallace is a very good player, but at no stage of his career past his Sr. year in High School was he thought of as a better (or even equal) talent then Duncan. 

Demontratively stating an opinion... "A player can be as good as he wants to be. Period end of question." ...doesn't make it any more or less valid IMO. Thats your take? Great, you're welcome to it. I hope it's OK with you that I feel otherwise.

STOMP


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> help def: JO


Weak side shot blocking (and protecting the paint), yes.
help defense, no

Rasheed is superior (in some cases far superior) to O'Neal in terms of trapping screens (high pick and roll), trapping and doubling post players, pressuring up the floor, covering smaller players off switches and recovering to contest outside shooters (all facets of help defense).



> Like Sheed, he has been limited by shakey fundamentals/mechanics, and a sometimes questionable basketball IQ. (not to mention being too emotional for his own good)


This is not in direct response to your statement but on the existing notion of Wallace being a poor fundamental player lacking in basketball intelligence.

That assumption is as far from reality as blue clouds and green skies.

Rasheed Wallace is not who many believe him to be capable of being and he displays poor mechanics in certain aspects of his game (dribbling and going up strong near the basket in particular). However Rasheed Wallace is one of the most fundamentally sound big men in the NBA at both ends of the court.

- He does not turn the ball over
- He keeps the ball high both off rebounds and on shots
- He does not foul excessively 
- He is an adequate shooter from anywhere on the court. 
- He has numerous moves on the blocks (both facing and back to the basket) 
- He passes to the open man, boxes out and ceils well.
- He does not force shots and he typically takes good shots (perhaps he shoots more threes then some would like but for the most part his 3 point shots are open looks at the basket).

His weakest fundamental area is ball handling, which is not a big knock on a F-C.

There really is no aspect of the game he is incapable of contributing from (at his position) He may be a tad below what many believe to be his capable level of production but that does not change the fact that he is a complete Basketball player. 

*Furthermore:* He *is* an intelligent basketball player. 
What precisely about Rasheed Wallace would lead one to the assumption of a questionable basketball IQ?

Dean Smith (the very coach some individual "claims" Rasheed pushed from the game) admits Rasheed to be a very knowledgeable and intelligent basketball player.

Even Cheeks claims Wallace to be a "heady" player.

_Emotionally he may lack intelligence but their is no questioning his basketball smarts IMO._


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> BTW, I also don't see Wallace as the superior physical talent to Webber and Jermaine... same ballpark sure, but if anything those guys are better specimens IMO. Both seem like bigger then Sheed (size matters for a post player), and can both palm the ball like its a grapefruit which helps a lot in passing, rebounding, and controlling entry passes. They have plenty of general athletism/coordination going for them too. Wallace probably has the best shooting stroke, and is a fluid defender especially adept at guarding anyone along the frontline in defensive switches, but I think both Web and Oneal are better equipt for posting up and rebounding. I see Terrible's point that he's the best of the three as arguable, but I'd definitely disagree.


I agree with most of what you say except the portion about Wallace being a lesser talent physically then both Webber and J. O'Neal. He is a lesser rebounder due to some of the aspects you pointed out but more so due to his mental approach to rebounding. He does not go after the ball and typically only acquires rebounds that come directly to him. Instinctually he is simply not a very good rebounder (though his defensive rebounding is adequate). 

In terms of running and jumping I would rate Wallace a better specimen then both. 

-----

On the classification of "physical talent".

I would agree that Webber was a superior physical talent 3 years ago but certainly not of late. Injuries have slowed Webber and he is no longer an explosive player. The past few seasons he has relied far more on his intelligence, shooting and ball handing abilities.
I have no recollection of Webber using his "size" for posting up the past few seasons (he is predominantly a high post player).

With that said I concede that he is physically stronger than Wallace (in the upper body) but he is by no means more athletic at this stage of his career.

O’Neal is a more athletic player in terms of lateral bursts and elevation but he is not as fast as Wallace nor is he as strong (no mistake).

Lost amidst the pointless chatter by some that Wallace does not work out in the off season (he has a "smooth body" some claim) and distorted by his affinity to playing a perimeter game is the fact that Wallace is an extremely strong player.

Next time Wallace is matched up against a Garnett, Duncan, J. O'Neal, Gasol, Webber etc. pay attention to how far he pushes (occasionally man handling) them off the box (this takes strength). In fact 4 of the above players mentioned tend to focus on facing Wallace up as their primary approach to attacking him.

A clear indication of his physical strength is his ability to both deny position and recover to block the shot of his man. This requires a great deal of lower body strength (to apply force against the opponent while maintaining body balance necessary to propel upwards).
Many defensive players are forced to exert so much of their body weight and total body strength in denying the premiere low post power players/ forwards (Duncan, J. O'Neal, Brand,) that they are too off balanced (leaning forward) to block the shot.

Wallace’s combination of strength, length, lateral quickness and overall athleticism on the defensive block is a rare combination possessed by less then a handful of NBA players (Wallace/ Garnett/ Duncan/ S. O’Neal).

Many seem to associate strength with establishing post position but strength can also be associated with denying it (preferring not to fight for post position on offence and lacking the size and strength to do so is not the same thing).

P.S. I agree that added size benefits players in their attempts to post up. It allows them to establish position without overly relying on physical strength to do so. This is a far more exhausting approach and it is easier to use size and weight to establish position on the box. Defensively, weight is not _as_ important as actual strength (IMO) because utilizing weight as a primary means of denying position would leave a defender susceptible to spin moves and lateral movement.

----

*On another note:* I believe that Wallace is closer to 240 pounds then his listed 230. He has been listed at that weight for his entire stay in Portland and it is obvious that Wallace is a bigger player now then when he arrived to the Blazers.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> A player can be as good as he wants to be. Period end of question. Its just some players would have to work harder than others to get the same result. If Sheed had half the work ethic Timmy D (or any gym rat) has he'd be far better than he is now.
> 
> You can't say anyone is limited, because thats selling someone short of what they could do. I'm a firm beleiver of the fact you can do anything you want if you want to put in the work to get there.


Is Duncan the best example of hard work?

Duncan is well documented for starting seasons off slow, picking up pace mid season then finishing strong. He also has the exact same body type as Rasheed (with very little muscle definition).

A logical person would assume it possible that Duncan (like Rasheed, presumably) does not put in much work in the off-season. All of these trends would point in the direction of this. 

The difference is not the work put in but the difference in ability.
Duncan is simply a better player then Wallace (particularly in the mental stability, focus and consistency department).

Wallace is a better athlete then Duncan but Duncan is a better Basketball player and a superior mind (simple as that)

-----

One cannot simply put in work and will themselves to bench-press 600 pounds (their comes a point when genetic blessings must be factored).


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Enigma</b>!
> 
> 
> Weak side shot blocking (and protecting the paint), yes.
> ...


On the issue of Jermaine's defense, I have to concede your point. That's what I get for posting when I am up in the middle of the night feeling sick!

On the other matter, I still disagree. 

When you have a player with an inconsistent shooting touch, which Sheed has clearly had this season, the root of the problem is generally inconsistent mechanics.

Nor do I agree that Sheed has sound fundamentals as a rebounder. Too often he finds himself way out of position. Other times, he gets beaten to the ball by players who simply time their jumps better. 


Lastly, why do I accuse Sheed of having a questionable basketball IQ?

First, because he doesn't always seem to recognize the weaknesses in his own game, and work to improve them.
He has worked hard to cut down on "Ts", but seems to have no clue that a PF should grab more than 7 boards a game.

Second, because he seems to have a weak grasp of his own strengths. Having a PF/C who can sink the trey is a fantastic weapon......but it would be even more valuable if he had a sense of *when* to take the 3 and when to go into the post.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Enigma</b>!
> 
> I would agree that Webber was a superior physical talent 3 years ago but certainly not of late. Injuries have slowed Webber and he is no longer an explosive player.


Semi-sidenote... I heard a Webber interview the other week where he stated that having his ankles cleaned up with surgery this past offseason has given him back some of the explosiveness that has faded from his game the last few years. He sounded very optimistic about his game and body saying that he expects to be playing the best ball of his career when he returns. We'll see...

STOMP


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> 
> 
> HUMBUG!
> ...


I have been making similar points on message boards for years now.

Haven't said it in a while, as it gets boring and repetitive. Thanks for saving me the trouble.

People are entitled to hate Sheed if they want, and Sheed has done enough stupid things to warrant it, but I get the sense that those that hate Sheed tend to do so in proportion to how dissappointed they are in his failure to live up to *their* expectations.

Me, I don't get it. I have always seen Sheed as a second bannana on the court and off the court. I have always felt he needed to be paired with a SuperStar (in their prime). Why blame the failure and bad luck of the Blazers in getting one on Sheed?


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Huh? Let me see if I'm following your train of thought here? If I think that Wallace works out as hard as the games best player, but still isn't as good, then Wallace sucks and can't get better? I think there is a little more wiggle room to explain why he hasn't surpassed Duncan... like he isn't as good of a physical specimen, but he's still pretty darn good.
> ...


So from your POV Wallace couldn't polish up his game and be a better player? Even tho you give him all this credit he can't improve his game at all through more work?


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> When you have a player with an inconsistent shooting touch, which Sheed has clearly had this season, the root of the problem is generally inconsistent mechanics.


Several factors go into shooting and missing and that does not necessarily indicate "inconsistent mechanics".

Opposing defense is a factor as is mental focus.

_Other then this season in which Wallace was forced to play out of position he has been a rather consistent high percentage shooter (btw)._



> Nor do I agree that Sheed has sound fundamentals as a rebounder. Too often he finds himself way out of position. Other times, he gets beaten to the ball by players who simply time their jumps better.


I never stated him to have "sound fundamentals as a rebounder".
I touched on his poor rebounding in another post...
However, in spite of his poor rebounding he still does a good job of boxing out and sealing.

Being a poor rebounder does not take away from his sound offensive and defensive fundamentals.

Keeping the ball high and utilizing maximum extension to get a shot off are fundamentals taught at the middle school levels, mastered by Rasheed, but under utilized by a startling number of NBA post players. As far as low post fundamentals go this is as basic as maintaining a pivot foot.

Think of the two players who excel at this in the league (Duncan and Wallace). The Big Fundamentals/ (???)…




> Lastly, why do I accuse Sheed of having a questionable basketball IQ?
> 
> First, because he doesn't always seem to recognize the weaknesses in his own game, and work to improve them.
> He has worked hard to cut down on "Ts", but seems to have no clue that a PF should grab more than 7 boards a game.


He is not a good rebounder. Much of that is a lack of instinct, hustle, mental timing and preparation. One simply cannot "work to improve" these things. 

Wallace is not the best rebounder but (coincidentally) his teams tend to be amongst the league leaders in rebounding differential (every year actually).
He is an adequate rebounder on the defensive end and he does a good job of both sealing his man (in order to free up the glass for teammates) and poking balls out allowing more rebounding opportunities for the Stoudamire's and Anderson's. His contribution on the glass is not impressive by any stretch but it is not as though his team suffers as a result of it. 



> Second, because he seems to have a weak grasp of his own strengths. Having a PF/C who can sink the trey is a fantastic weapon......but it would be even more valuable if he had a sense of *when* to take the 3 and when to go into the post.


Wallace’s increased 3 point shooting seems to correlate with the implementation of the zone defense, the hiring of Cheeks and the insertion of Davis into the starting lineup. Interesting don't you think?

Certainly I do not have to elaborate as to why his shooting from the outside was in the better interest of the team (personal sacrifice for team gain seems rather intelligent to me).

_Early this season perhaps Wallace should have displayed his "smarts" by playing inside along with Davis and Randolph. They could successfully clog the middle or perhaps allow the world a view of the beauty that is the Dale Davis jump shot._

Brilliant!


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

Me, I think Sheed's a fine player.

As to Walton, great player, lousy announcer. I've never heard him say anything aside from whiney comments. If there's a great basketball mind left after decades of pot, then it must be buried very very deep.

On the other hand, If I have to hear Doug Collins again I may shoot myself. All by himself he makes me want to cancel cable.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

ENIGMA:

I think part of our disagreement is semantic. What you refer to as "instinct", "mental timing", and "preparation" are things I would lump under "basketball IQ". 

There is something truly ironic about this debate. I am sometimes labeled as an apologist for Sheed......and yet I consider him more flawed than many of his critics!

As I have said before, I really believe that if Sheed was making half his current salary, we wouldn't be having these arguments. If he wasn't over-paid, people would be more willing to recognize the positives he brings to the team.


----------

