# Chris Webber and the Sacremento Kings



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Chris Webber and the Sacramento Kings*

We all know how underappreciated C-web has been in Sac over the past year. Bibby's been getting the glory when the team does well, while Webber takes the blame when the team doesnt win. (that's a matter of opinion)
However, Chris Webber is facing felony charges for lying to a grand jury, which could possibly land him in jail for the next ten years. 

If Webber gets locked up, how will the Kings fair without their scapegoat?
:uhoh:


----------



## jsa (Jul 16, 2002)

I can not agree with that. Webber had a good year but was not clutch in the playoffs, and he must accept that burden. Bibby had a good year and played like a clutch superstar in the playoffs.How can you critisize that?

Sacramento has a lot of fine players, more than anyone in the NBA. Webber is the key player, but others can do the job. He must have a great playoffs next year to deflect the criticism. 

I doubt he will see jail time. He will have a great lawyer and get off lightly. 

Most NCAA rules are for the benefit of the NCAA or institutions, very few are fair to the athletes.There will be infractions because of this and human nature.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

I agree Bibby is a good player who really stepped up in crunch time but if you expect him to play like that during the reg. season this year you are sadly mistaken. This is still Webbers team and if he goes the kings will be no better than 7th in the WC.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*just my opinion*

that's why I say its a matter of opinion.

I dont know what Kings fans mean when they say Webber didnt step up in the playoffs. It's true he wasn't knocking down the big shots at the end of the games, but that isn't his job. It's Bibby's.
But if you take a look at the numbers in the Western Conference Finals, Chris Webber averaged more points, rebounds, and assist than Mike Bibby. In fact he lead the team in each category.
So I'd say Webber did his part, and this is why I label him the Kings scapegoat. But again, It's all a matter of opinion.

Getting back to the question, which you never answered. 
How far can the kings get without Cweb?


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

I agree totally with the person who said it's still Webber's team and that Bibby won't play like that all season long. Look Webber doesn't ever come through in the clutch I think more to do with nervousness generated by messing up that play in college he seems to just tighten up, Bibby was thrust in that role almost by default no one else on the team wanted the role so he said what the hell, but for the Kings to go as far as their fans want Webber will bring them to that point and Bibby will bring it home they hope. Bibby is a good player whose value was inflated because no else would step up except him, but to think that he'd carry that team getting 20 a night would be a mistake,he'll do what he did last regular season and come playoff time in the big moments come through again Kings fans Hope.


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

Last year the Kings were 15-5 w/out Webber to begin the season (including wins over the Spurs (twice), Lakers, Mavs, NJ, and Portland) and 18-8 overall w/out Webber. This year, Keon Clark can step in for Webber if needed. The Kings are clearly a better team with Web, but without him they could still win 60+ games and challenge for the title. 

If the Kings could get within one shot of the Finals with their 2nd best player essentially contributing nothing, its no great stretch to think that an older, wiser, and upgraded Kings team could do the same without their best player. Depth and balance are wonderful things.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*No way buddy*



> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> The Kings are clearly a better team with Web, but without him they could still win 60+ games and challenge for the title.


No way would the Kings win 60+ without Webber. 

They only won 61 games last year!

This is what i'm talking about, No one appreciates what Cweb brings to the table. He should have left Sacramento as a free agent.

:upset:


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

RangerC, thanks for reminding everybody how well Sacramento played without Webber last year. They are certainly used to playing without the guy, one of the more injury-prone and therefore undependable players in the league.

Rich people don't go to prison in this country, let's just get that straight. Have some of you people never heard of OJ Simpson? But I do think the legal stuff will provide a distraction for this team.

I think you could pretty convincingly argue that the key to this team is Vlade Divac; this team simply could not move the ball around as well as it does without the best passing big man in the NBA. And do not forget that Divac is 35 years old, that the Kings played late into the postseason, and that this guy THEN played half of the summer for his country's World Championships team. Divac will be EXHAUSTED by January, and THAT will be the likely downfall of this team.

Also consider that expectations are very high, which means that these players are under a lot of pressure; that Mike Bibby may or may not duplicate his postseason success in the regular season, and his desire to score may hurt the team's offense in the long run (Peja Stojakovic could really see a dip in production if Bibby decides to be a 20 ppg guy); Keon Clark is a notoriously enigmatic player who simply cannot be counted on night in and night out, this guy will probably find himself in the doghouse pretty quickly.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the Kings are going to be one of the most disappointing teams in the league this season. I expect the team to fall all the way to fourth in the Western Conference. This team blew its best chance at a championship, fellas. I don't expect very many people to agree with me, but I think you guys will find out soon enough (the regular season is just over a month away)!

By the way, fellas, a reminder--get to work on yr preseason predictions, we're going to have a post here in a week or so, everybody will be expected to give their predictions on the 2002-03 season. We can save the post for March or April, when we can all laugh at how stupid each other is, sound good?


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

*Re: No way buddy*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> No way would the Kings win 60+ without Webber.
> ...


They 'could' win 60; considering that their 15-5 start last year projects to 61/62 wins and 18-8 w/out Web projects to 57 wins. With the improvement in the West, I don't think the Kings would win 60 games w/out Web, but it's no great leap to say they 'could'. It's not a slam on Webber (I don't think anyone thinks the team is actually better off w/out him); rather, it's a praise of the team's overall depth.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*I agree with a lot of what you say*



> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> RangerC, thanks for reminding everybody how well Sacramento played without Webber last year. They are certainly used to playing without the guy, one of the more injury-prone and therefore undependable players in the league.
> 
> Rich people don't go to prison in this country, let's just get that straight. Have some of you people never heard of OJ Simpson? But I do think the legal stuff will provide a distraction for this team.
> ...



I agree with alot of what you've said, especially about rich people not going to jail. I know Cweb will not be locked up. I just thought it made for a good topic of discussion.

You're right about the expectation of the Sacramento Kings. They wont live up to the hype. They've already proven they can't handle the pressure. If they ever had a shot at becoming champs it was last year, unless of course Shaq gets injured or Kobe mysteriously get food poisoned again:grinning: 

One thing I have to disagree with is Vlade being the best passing big man in the league. I think his teammate Chris Webber gives him a good run for his money!
OUT


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: No way buddy*



> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> 
> 
> They 'could' win 60; considering that their 15-5 start last year projects to 61/62 wins and 18-8 w/out Web projects to 57 wins. With the improvement in the West, I don't think the Kings would win 60 games w/out Web, but it's no great leap to say they 'could'. It's not a slam on Webber (I don't think anyone thinks the team is actually better off w/out him); rather, it's a praise of the team's overall depth.


you know the funny thing about statistics is they only tell you what happened last time.:grinning:


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

Actually, I'm not afraid to admit that I think the Kings ARE better off without Webber, one of the all-time biggest losers in the history of the sport. The team should have seen what they could get for him this summer. I'm pretty sure that the Trailblazers would have GLADLY agreed to a straight-up Rasheed-for-Webber deal, and I'd take Rasheed over Webber any day of the week. There were probably any number of ways that the Kings could have upgraded their team by trading Webber this summer, and they didn't do it. I think that they will end up regretting that in a couple of years, when the dude is missing more and more games and getting paid more and more money for a small market team with a payroll that keeps getting bigger and bigger.

I doubt anyone around here agrees with me on this one, though.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> Actually, I'm not afraid to admit that I think the Kings ARE better off without Webber, one of the all-time biggest losers in the history of the sport. The team should have seen what they could get for him this summer. I'm pretty sure that the Trailblazers would have GLADLY agreed to a straight-up Rasheed-for-Webber deal, and I'd take Rasheed over Webber any day of the week. There were probably any number of ways that the Kings could have upgraded their team by trading Webber this summer, and they didn't do it. I think that they will end up regretting that in a couple of years, when the dude is missing more and more games and getting paid more and more money for a small market team with a payroll that keeps getting bigger and bigger.
> 
> I doubt anyone around here agrees with me on this one, though.


I've always been a Chris Webber is a loser type of guy too, but i can't watch people bad mouth Web and say he didnt do his part in the playoffs last year because he did. He lead the team in the WCF in pts, reb, and ast.

The Kings could have gained alot by trading Chris but its probably best that they didnt. Webber plays a finesse game. He likes to shoot instead of drive, he'd rather pass instead of go for it, so this is probably the best team he'll ever play with. he's got some very good shooters around him and another Big man with excellent court vision. that makes it easier for everyone to get the ball, which is perfect for Cweb because he doesnt seem to want the ball when it wants him.

Rasheed for Chris would not be a good move. I am a true Rasheed "just shut up" guy. If this guy would learn to play and not fight he'd be a great player. Since he can't maintain his composer, I'm sure he would have only hurt the Sac the way he does in Portland. Plus Portland with Cweb would be dangerous!:bbanana:


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> 
> 
> The more I think about it, the more I think that the Kings are going to be one of the most disappointing teams in the league this season. I expect the team to fall all the way to fourth in the Western Conference. This team blew its best chance at a championship, fellas. I don't expect very many people to agree with me, but I think you guys will find out soon enough (the regular season is just over a month away)!
> ?


You made some good arguments, but remember that the Kings are actually (with the exception of Divac and Christie) one of the younger teams in the league. 8 of the 10 players in the likely rotation are 29 or younger. 4 of the 10 are 25 or younger. Stojakovic, Bibby, Turkoglu and Wallace all have their best years ahead of them and Webber, Jackson, Pollard, and Clark are in their 'prime' years. The majority of the Kings' rotation is more likely to have a superior year next season as opposed to an inferior one.

Also, their depth can solve just about any problem. If Vlade proves to be too worn out, Pollard can step in or the Kings can shift to a small lineup (Kings were 2-0 w/out Vlade and played just fine when Vlade had his shoulder injury and was largely ineffective). If Christie pulls a Nick Anderson and his shot never recovers from the WCF, Hedo, Jackson, and Wallace can fill in. The Kings were 30-11 without at least one of their starters last year (41 games without an opening day starter is above average for the league, as well). It's going to take a multitude of problems to get the Kings to finish as low as 4th considering they had the league's best record last year with a relatively large amount of injuries (missing one of your top 2 players for 36 games is probably top 3 in the L).


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> You made some good arguments, but remember that the Kings are actually (with the exception of Divac and Christie) one of the younger teams in the league.
> 
> If Christie pulls a Nick Anderson and his shot never recovers from the WCF, Hedo, Jackson, and Wallace can fill in.


You can't replace Vlade or Doug with any of the Kings players and expect to be as good of a team. 
Vlade is the father of this team and his knowledge of the game exceeds anything skill wise any of the Kings bigman can provide.

Doug has some killer defense. You can throw Hedo in there if you like, but you'll be missing doug when Hedo's getting roasted!:wbanana:


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

It's totally ridiculous to say the Kings are better without C Webb, just because they won some games early in the year without him doesn't mean that could work for the course of another 62 games how does a 20 game snapshot of a portion of a season turn into winning 60 games without Webber thats a baseless argument, The Kings as a franchise were lost without Webber and would be lost if he left lets consider this,

Divac left Charlotte because he wasn't helping them become a great team,

Bibby left the Grizzlies because they weren't going anywhere with him so they jettsoned him granted he helped Sac and the trade seems lopsided but he has only made a good team great not a sorry team good. 

Christie just a role player in Toronto, 

Now C Webb has never played on a bad professional team I'm a wiz/laker fan when he was here and on the court the team was good, he had off court problem that made him tradeable not on court problems, before him here in DC the team was dreadful, He's one of those players that can make a sorry team good and he's the only player on that team that could do that no one else. 

Without Cwebb the kings would catch hell making the playoffs, I'd bet this year they wouldn't with the improvement of some teams. 

granted C Webb is a bonehead at times and is gutless in the clutch but he's so wonderfully talented that he commands another teams respect for double teams and overall focus, I don't think any team C Webb ever plays on where he's their best player will be champions because of his mental make-up in the clutch, but they'll always will be good nevertheless.


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> 
> You made some good arguments, but remember that the Kings are actually (with the exception of Divac and Christie) one of the younger teams in the league. 8 of the 10 players in the likely rotation are 29 or younger. 4 of the 10 are 25 or younger. Stojakovic, Bibby, Turkoglu and Wallace all have their best years ahead of them and Webber, Jackson, Pollard, and Clark are in their 'prime' years. The majority of the Kings' rotation is more likely to have a superior year next season as opposed to an inferior one.


RangerC, keep in mind that I am the dude around here who just a couple of weeks ago was arguing that a player's prime is between the ages of 23-28 (rather than between the ages of 28-32, which is conventional wisdom), that when a guy turns 30, IT'S ALL DOWNHILL. Some people agreed with me, some people didn't.

When you look at the Kings' roster from THIS perspective, well, things don't look so rosy for the next couple of seasons. Here is a list of how old each of the key Sacramento players will be when the 2003 playoffs begin:

Chris Webber--30 years old. Expect this guy to miss MORE, rather than FEWER, games due to injury over the next 2-3 years. In other words, expect Webber to get WORSE, not BETTER.

Mike Bibby--24 years old. Just entering his prime, no problem here.

Peja Stojakovic--25 years old. Still several prime years left, so again, no problem here, although who becomes this team's go-to guy when Webber is on the sidelines, Peja or Bibby?

Vlade Divac--35 years old. Like I said, this guy has been playing basketball NON-STOP for a year now. Expect a major decline this year.

Doug Christie--32 years old. This guy's best years are DEFINITELY behind HIM. Expect a decline.

Scot Pollard--28 years old. On the tail end of his prime.

Keon Clark--28 years old. Also on the tail end of his prime.

Bobby Jackson--30 years old. I bet you guys didn't know how old Jackson was, did you?

Hidayet Turkoglu--24 years old. This is a big year for this guy, he is just entering his prime, so if he's going to get a lot better, now's the time to do it.

I don't know, fellas. I'm sticking with my guns here. If Divac goes down, neither Pollard nor Clark can step in and even come CLOSE to moving the ball around like Divac does. Guess who led the 2001-02 Kings in assists/game? VLADE DIVAC! Again, the key to this team's success is ball movement, and the key to that ball movement is the superior passing skills of Divac.

The Kings finish fourth in the West and fail to make it back to the Conference Finals. Spurs vs. Lakers in the 2003 Western Conference Finals. I'm calling it!


----------



## tinygiant (Sep 10, 2002)

Jazzy,
I think that was a great post. I totally agree with your assesment of the Kings. Before Webber arrived on the scene the Kings were one of the continual jokes in the NBA. Even Mitch Richmond couldn't make them a good team averaging 25+ points a game. Webber saved this franchise. Yes, roby, he's had a lot of injury problems in his career. But he is not a loser. In his rookie year he carried Golden State to the playoffs, in Washington he made a playoff appearance with another team that hasn't been good aside from that year for at least a decade. And now in Sacramento he has been the key player in turning them into one of the best teams in the league. Alright he hasn't won a championship, but other than Shaq, Kobe and Duncan, neither have any other of today's "superstar" players. Nobody would accuse them all of being losers because of this. I think Webber deserves a little more consideration as a good player in this league.


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> The Kings finish fourth in the West and fail to make it back to the Conference Finals. Spurs vs. Lakers in the 2003 Western Conference Finals. I'm calling it!


You act as if the Kings deevolved. The entire league improved (se Nets, Wizards, Spurs, etc.). However, Sacramento has had an incredible off-season, keeping up with other teams in keeping key players and signing for other role players to tweak the roster. 

The age of the Kings is not a major concern either. The Spurs with the exception of Parker and Emmanuel are not spring chickens either. Nor as the Lakers, with Shaq's ever-declining big-toe young either. 

At this point, remaining healthy is the key factor. Expecting declines from people is speculation. I could say Shaq might not be the same after surgery or I could say the Spurs are not as good as you think they are. Saying if they couldn't make the Conference Finals last year, it's not like they're gonna bump Sacramento out (barring Webber being in jail).

So let's just sit back and watch it happen.


----------



## <<<D>>> (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Chris Webber and the Sacramento Kings*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> We all know how underappreciated C-web has been in Sac over the past year. Bibby's been getting the glory when the team does well, while Webber takes the blame when the team doesnt win. (that's a matter of opinion)
> However, Chris Webber is facing felony charges for lying to a grand jury, which could possibly land him in jail for the next ten years.
> 
> ...



Bibby's Glory??........credit CWebb
Bibby has really made an impact in Sactown, he plays with a lot of heart and he's proven big time player. Let's not forget, Cwebb is the leader of the team, On the negative side of things, he's been criticized for not showing up when the game is on the line or making the big basket down the stretch, I've wondered if this is really the case. But if you look at it at a different perspective, this is where great players show their overall game. Chris is a great team player he's an experienced veteran and he will sacrafice and do the other little things for his team to succeed while he doesn't have to change his entire game. 

A good example in the WCF, Chris knew the Lakers were struggling to guard Bibby on the Pick and Rolls and on the perimeter, he stuck with that option of creating oppurtunities for Bibby and they came that close to taking it all. These are just a few things why Chris is soo valuable to the Kings and why I feel he should deserve credit for some of Bibby's succes last season, they can play an effective 2 man game.

Kings Without Cwebb???
As deep as the Kings are, I think they would still be successful in the regular season, But a big Question in the playoff's, they're capable of winning a series, but without their leader and centerpiece it would be difficult. The Kings play an unselfish game, A good passing team, They have great outside shooting, they have players that can create and take the ball strong to the hole, but they would feel the effects of Webbers absence and lacking the strong inside game on both ends of the floor. Vlade can still put up productive numbers, and Pollard along with Clark will hold their own, But definitely not enough to follow through. I wouldn't want to see this happen though, you would always want to see teams play at full strength. I'm hoping and confident Chris will be out there playing again, if not the Kings might find it difficult late into the season. CWebb is important :yes:


----------



## Wiggum (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> If Divac goes down, neither Pollard nor Clark can step in and even come CLOSE to moving the ball around like Divac does. Guess who led the 2001-02 Kings in assists/game? VLADE DIVAC! Again, the key to this team's success is ball movement, and the key to that ball movement is the superior passing skills of Divac.


Actually, Mike Bibby led the Kings in assists per game.

Look, I'm sorry, robyg, but I really don't understand why Chris Webber is one of the biggest losers in the history of the game. You're sensationalizing this guy's failures WAY too much.

Chris Webber's career (so far):
- 22.1 PPG
- 10.2 RPG
- 4.3 APG
- 1.51 SPG
- 1.76 BPG
- 2001-2002 All-NBA Second Team
- 2000-2001 All-NBA First Team
- 1999-2000 All-NBA Third Team
- 1998-1999 All-NBA Second Team
- Placed 4th in the 2001 MVP voting
- 2000-2001 All-Interview First Team
- 1999-2000 All-Interview Second Team
- 1994 Rookie of the Year
- First Rookie ever to tally 1000 points, 500 rebounds, 250 assists, 150 blocks, and 75 steals
- 4 time All-Star

One of the biggest losers in the history of basketball...? Come on, robyg...


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

I agree Wiggum totally C Webb has never been on a bad team in his life. College, Pro, highschool, Kings would slowly melt back into the siberia of the league again. They have good players and I said slowly but it would happen,if C Webb goes to jail. I really hope this thing turns out okay for him I don't wish jailtime on anyone least of all a talented allstar pf.


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

Wiggum:

You're right, Bibby led the Kings in assists/game (5.0), Divac wasn't even close (3.7). It seems that, in December or January, Divac WAS leading the team in assists/game, but I guess he really tailed off in the second half, huh?

Anyway, this whole "Chris Webber is a loser" argument is nothing new, it's a debate we've all seen a million times, and it's a debate that Webber himself is painfully aware of, which obviously doesn't help him when he finds himself in clutch situations and big games. Is Webber a tremendous ballplayer? Of course he is. Does he put up great stats? Of course he does. But when I think of Webber, I think of three things: 1) that out-of-bounds play at Michigan that cost his team a national championship; 2) the end of Game 5 in the Western Conference Finals (one of the two biggest games of the dude's professional career) when he threw the ball out of bounds, I had no idea who he was even TRYING to pass the ball to (of course, the refs claimed that the ball ricocheted off a Lakers player, but anyone who was actually watching that game knows that it did not TOUCH a Laker, and that The Powers That Be clearly wanted for that series to continue); and 3) the OTHER biggest game of his professional career, Game 7 of the Western Conference Finals, when he totally didn't show up in the second half and overtime, when his team needed him most. The dude is getting paid BIG BIG BUCKS to be the team's GO-TO GUY, to STEP UP and make BIG PLAYS, and what happened? 2 points in the 3rd quarter, 2 points in the 4th quarter, and 2 points in overtime.

I'm not accusing Webber of being a "loser" because "he's never won a championship." There are plenty of terrific players, WINNERS, who never win a championship. Anybody who thinks that John Stockton isn't a WINNER is a complete idiot, obviously. In fact, I HATE the whole "but he never won a championship blah blah blah" argument, it's totally retarded. The reason Webber is a "loser" is because, when the game is on the line, he chokes. He always has and he always will. Did guys like Charles Barkley ever win a championship? No, but when the game was on the line, Barkley came up big, every single time, a totally clutch player. (Dear lord, how about that clutch three from the top of the key with David Robinson in his face at the end of a key playoff game about ten years ago? Jesus!) And there are any number of terrific players who have not had the opportunities that Webber has had. I doubt that any other high profile NBA player in in the league today, if given the big game opportunities that Webber has had over the years, could choke as consistently as Webber has, which is why I have no problem calling him the biggest loser in the NBA.

Webber KNOWS he's a loser, too, which is why, at the end of both Games 5 and 7, the FIRST THING HE DID EVERY SINGLE TIME HE GOT THE BALL was to start frantically looking for somebody else (preferably Mike Bibby, who WANTED to take the big shots) to pass the ball to. Why? Because he didn't want to lose The Big One ONCE AGAIN for his team on national television. The dude isn't getting paid A TON OF MONEY to NOT lose the game for his team; he's getting paid A TON OF MONEY to WIN the game for his team! Talk about watching a game of "hot potato"!

But, like I said, this "Chris Webber is a loser" debate is an old debate, a debate that we've all seen a million times, and a debate that will never die.

As for his stats, sure, they look great, but the dude has only made the All-NBA 1st team ONCE, and the best he's ever done in MVP voting is FOURTH. And I don't think that making the "All Interview Team" is a major accomplishment, do you?


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

I don't think Webber will get locked up. You see how rich people get away with things.

Webber was never a scapegoat. The fact that he didn't step up during crunch time last season is true. He wasn't the only scapegoat. The blame also goes to Christie and Peja who missed their wide open 3's. They are all at fault, but that doesn't mean the Kings should trade them. They simply lacked confidence, that's all. They'll get the Lakers this season, you'll see.

Thinking that the kings will decline this year is ridiculous. They're just getting started!


----------



## Wiggum (Jul 29, 2002)

Well, some people think that winning the slam dunk contest is an accomplishment...I was putting the All-Interview team selections on there to show that the media doesn't see him as a "loser" because it enjoys what he has to say, and considers him an interesting, informative player. I just don't see that as being characteristic of a "loser". Your right, though, it isn't a basketball accomplishment.

To be honest, I didn't really know what you meant when you said "Webber is a loser" because that's a very broad, open-ended statement. If you don't think Webber is a clutch player, just say that. I'm not gonna dispute that. I don't think that makes him a "loser" though.


----------



## Wiggum (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> As for his stats, sure, they look great, but the dude has only made the All-NBA 1st team ONCE, and the best he's ever done in MVP voting is FOURTH. And I don't think that making the "All Interview Team" is a major accomplishment, do you?


You're forgetting why I brought up Webber's stats in the first place. The best he's ever done is 4th in MVP voting, so he's a loser? That makes no sense. The best Patrick Ewing ever did in MVP voting was 4th (1992-1993). Is he a loser, too?

I'm not saying the guy's the best player ever, I'm just saying he's not a loser.


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

Loser and 'choker' are two different things. Webber is undeniably one of the least reliable crunch time stars EVER (although KG, if he keeps it up, could pass him). I cringe whenever I see Webber with the ball in the waning minutes of a close game (although he was markedly better last year during the regular season). However, Chris Webber is not a loser. Look at some of his team accomplishments:

NCAA:
2x Final Four 

NBA:
50 Win season in his rookie year with GS
4 straight winning seasons with Sac, 2 straight 50+ win seasons

Those winning seasons with Sacramento are a much bigger deal than anyone thinks. Before Webber came to Sac, the Kings were arguably the worst franchise in the L (the Clips at least had a couple years with Larry Brown where they were respectable). 0 winning seasons in Sac (plus, at one point, a 43(!) game road losing streak). Any player who can be the primary thrust behind the turnaround of an entire franchise, taking the NBA's worst to the #2 point of prestige in the L is NOT a loser. 

Also, before criticising Web for not stepping up in Game 7, remember that Kobe Bryant had 0 FG in the 4th quarter and OT of that game (plus he missed a huge FT late). Every player was tight in that game, not just Webber.


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> 
> 
> RangerC, keep in mind that I am the dude around here who just a couple of weeks ago was arguing that a player's prime is between the ages of 23-28 (rather than between the ages of 28-32, which is conventional wisdom), that when a guy turns 30, IT'S ALL DOWNHILL. Some people agreed with me, some people didn't.
> ...


One problem; even if you subscribe to your theory that players are out of their prime at 28 (one which I agree with in general, but individual players need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis), the Kings are still better off than the Lakers and Spurs and Mavs in terms of overall youth. The average age of the Kings top 10 players is just 27. The Mavs are at 27.8, Lakers at 27.9, and Spurs at 29.7 all are older teams. (If you just use starting lineups (going with the last lineup used by each team), the order is Mavs, Kings, Lakers, Spurs)). It's also a huge assumption that Vlade is going to break down when 1) he's coming off one of his best overall seasons 2) he never relied on athletic ability to begin with 3) he can play 24-28 mpg (he only averaged 30 mpg last year) without hurting the team to keep from being worn down 4) he's never been injury prone. Christie is also coming off one of his best overall seasons ever and appears to still have most of his athletic ability left. 

I think it's safe to say that players like Mutumbo or Robinson who are over 30 and coming off career-worst seasons are done, but at this point there's been no indication that the Kings' older players still can't perform at a high level just because of their age.

Oh, and Vlade was 4TH on the Kings in assists. The whole team can pass (7 players w/ 2 apg or better). Losing Vlade would hurt the passing game, but considering the Kings' success without an even better passer in Webber, they could do without Vlade just fine when it comes to distribution


----------

