# Arenas calls out Wade



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

http://washingtontimes.com/sports/20041001-123044-4758r.htm


" "Dwyane Wade proved that he couldn't shoot in the Olympics," Arenas said about the first-team all-rookie selection. "They've also got Eddie Jones, but let's be honest: Combined, the two of them are not Kobe. Shaq is going to find out that they don't have the role players or the bench that the Lakers had, so it's not going to be the same.

"With Shaq, looking at his past, he's going to miss at least 15 games," Arenas said. "Same thing with Eddie Jones. And then you have Dwayne Wade by himself, and I don't think he can carry a team."

""Of course, you have to worry about Shaq because no one can stop him. But since you can't stop him, it's not about Shaq. You're not building your team to stop him. But you can't just give them the division championship."

The Wizards play the Heat on Nov 6th. Arenas is a one cocky mofo. Although I think Arenas and Wade should naturally be rivals since their both 22 year old combo guards in the same division, I think this might of just jumpstarted a feud.


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

Cocky, yes. Untrue, no.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HeinzGuderian</b>!
> Cocky, yes. Untrue, no.



Really Arenas was just saying stuff that fans on message boards say about the Heat. 

I'm going to that game vs the Heat, I think Shaq is going to drop like 50, but I'm looking forward to Arenas vs Wade.


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

Like the confidence, but he's going to have to back it up.


----------



## Ghiman (May 19, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> They've also got Eddie Jones, but let's be honest: Combined, the two of them are not Kobe. Shaq is going to find out that they don't have the role players or the bench that the Lakers had, so it's not going to be the same.


 Oh oh.....you're opening up a can of worms with this one.

All Kobe & Laker haters please rise...


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Arenas calls out Wade*



> Originally posted by <b>ghiman</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh oh.....you're opening up a can of worms with this one.
> ...



Arenas said that, not me.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

Nice find Shanghai.

I think when Arenas matures, his competitive nature should benefit him. I like it that he's offended by the fact that everyone is handing the division over to the Heat. Having said that, I think Miami will win it handedly.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

I don't think Heat fans should take offense to the comments though. Arenas is just trying to instill some confidence into his team, he's Charles Barkely like with his trash talking.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

If shaq is injured, I think Wizard have a shot. Otherwise Miami should win it.

I like Arenas, loved the guy when he was with golden state, wished he stayed.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

I think Heat fans should take offense and so what I think the Wizards have a shot at beating them. The teams are gonna have to play the game anyway no matter what anyone says.

Wade can't shoot, I think everyone accepts that by now. EJ nor Wade is Kobe everyone basically accepts that also. Shaq might miss 15 games. 

I think Arenas isn't trying to trash talk merely stating what he believes is the truth. 

I think Arenas believes in his team thats all.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

wade could shoot. He cant make 3's, but he had a very reliable mid range game last year, and hes good at getting to the foul line. Shooting aint his strength, but he could make them. He would of shot 48% as a rookie if he couldnt. (arenas on the other had and his 39% could "shoot":no: )

the wade of the olympics and the wade of the playoffs and end of last season were 2 very different things. Wade is much more effective in the nba game, and should be judged by his olympic performance. 

I dont take offense to the comments, but Arenas is gonna have a hard time backing them up. His wizards WILL finish about 10 games back of us, and i will be laughing


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

wuts even funnier is arenas made a similair playoff guarentee when he signed with the wiz last year

we see how that worked out. Arenas sure knows what he talkin bout:laugh:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Arenas' comments are fairly well-reasoned and it's refreshing to hear a non-sanitized soundbite that's not just stupid woofing.

I would still favour the Heat because they have the single most dominating force in the game at any given time.

But Arenas is right that the Heat shouldn't just be handed the division crown...the Heat have issues. Whether those issues are enough to cancel the O'Neal factor? Probably not. But it remains to be seen.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Gilbert is cocky. We're talking about the same guy who came to Washington and guaranteed the Wizards would make the playoffs, and the Wiz barely chased the 8th spot. They really weren't in playoffs contention all year long. He's cocky, but I like his confidence. We need someone in DC to step forward and talk the talk, will GA shows he can walk the walk..... we'll see.


----------



## Redbled (Sep 3, 2004)

Whether his comments are true or not, I could care less. Just know you sound pretty stupid to call out another player or another team when you've accomplished next to nothing in the NBA yourself.


----------



## Captain Obvious (Jun 15, 2003)

For someone who has accomplished next to nothing in his career Arenas runs his mouth a lot. Cockiness is okay when you can back it up but he hasn't shown that ability as of yet.


----------



## CP26 (May 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>wadeshaqeddie</b>!
> wuts even funnier is arenas made a similair playoff guarentee when he signed with the wiz last year
> 
> we see how that worked out. Arenas sure knows what he talkin bout:laugh:


Injuries.......Injuries........and more injuries.....:|


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>CP26</b>!
> 
> Injuries.......Injuries........and more injuries.....:|


and that brings up another funny part of this article. He mentions shaq missing his regular 15 games. Does he realize that he himself missed 27 last year.:laugh: . Yea, Gil, talk about Shaq injuries, but fail to mention your own

He's making guarentees he cant back up. The Wiz havent made the playoffs in ten or so years, and only one since forever it seems. The Heat make a lot in a row, rebuild for 2 years, make the playoffs, and now we are a top 3 team at least in the east again. Rebuilding dont take 10 years. It only does for the Wiz, the Hawks, and the Clips. Yes, the Wiz are in this wonderful category. Made a guanentee last year, couldnt cash in on it, not even close. So now he disses Wade who has accomplished more in his one year than Gils 3, and promises to beat a Shaq led team. He cant backup these promises.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>wadeshaqeddie</b>!
> 
> 
> and that brings up another funny part of this article. He mentions shaq missing his regular 15 games. Does he realize that he himself missed 27 last year.:laugh: . Yea, Gil, talk about Shaq injuries, but fail to mention your own
> ...


That's why they play the games right? Their are no foregone conclusions in the NBA.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

They play against each other November 6th and November 9th, it should be interesting. 

I like gutsy call outs like this, but obviously they have to be backed up. Arenas and Wade are the same calibur player, similar age, similar abilities. They are pretty similar on the court, so it should be a good matchup when the play, especially with this extra beef piled on top now.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> That's why they play the games right? Their are no foregone conclusions in the NBA.


your right. But why is this year different than any other for the Wiz. Lots of scorers, but no unity (too many scorers, people who need the ball), bad coaching, and no defense?

[edit] I think you could fight for the 8th seed, ive been saying that. But a top team in the east. Top of the division. Very unlikely, and almost impossible


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

The funny thing about Wizards fans using injuries as an excuse for last season is that Dwyane Wade got injured too, only the Heat managed to make the playoffs anyway.

The Wizards were 16-38 in games when Arenas was healthy, and 9-19 in games when he was hurt. After he game back, the Wizards still sucked.

The Heat were 34-27 with Wade, and 8-13 without him. After he came back, the Heat were one of the best teams in the NBA. Guess which one of them is a real difference-maker?

There's nothing more pathetic than a guy who runs his mouth when he hasn't won a thing in his entire career. The Wizards will never make the playoffs as long as he's their starting point guard, because he's a LO-SER!


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Arenas has no class.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>wadeshaqeddie</b>!
> 
> 
> your right. But why is this year different than any other for the Wiz. Lots of scorers, but no unity (too many scorers, people who need the ball), bad coaching, and no defense?
> ...


Eddie Jordan is supposed to be a good coach, but what I'm saying is that it might be a 95% chance that Miami wins the division, but it's never 100% in the NBA, so let them play the games. Arenas never says that Washington is going to finish better than Miami, and I would never say that either.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> The funny thing about Wizards fans using injuries as an excuse for last season is that Dwyane Wade got injured too, only the Heat managed to make the playoffs anyway.
> 
> The Wizards were 16-38 in games when Arenas was healthy, and 9-19 in games when he was hurt. After he game back, the Wizards still sucked.
> ...


Arenas is showing leadership here IMO, he's trying to instill a winning attitude into the rest of the team, trying to get them to think that they can beat anybody. The Wizards are full of happy-go lucky guys, Arenas is one of the only ones who is cocky enough to say stuff like this. I don't see how you can take this as being a 'loser'. Gary Payton used to do this very same thing, same with Charles Barkley. Arenas has the talent to back it up too, it's up to the rest of the team to step up to the challenge.

Hmm...how should I explain this to you. 

Heat miss Wade- make playoffs.

Wizards miss Arenas, Hughes, and Stackhouse- miss playoffs.

The Wizards weren't just missing Arenas, they were missing their 3 BEST PLAYERS. Please take Odom/Wade/Jones off Miami for 100 games and see if they make the playoffs. When Arenas came back Hughes got injured and Jarvis Hayes had hit the rookie wall hard. Stack reduced himself to be a bench role before deciding to sit out the rest of the season. Give Arenas Odom/Butler/Jones last season and things might of been different.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Captain Obvious</b>!
> For someone who has accomplished next to nothing in his career Arenas runs his mouth a lot.


Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, HEY!

He did win Most improved player a year ago, get it straight buddy :bsmile:

J/K


----------



## sweet_constipation (Jul 3, 2004)

Call it a double standard or whatever, but certain players don't have enough clout to say such things.
Just my opinion.

Not saying what he said is false though.


----------



## Keith Closs (May 13, 2003)

this coming from a stat whore whos never won anything and is just youre typical 2 guard in a one guards body the type of player u usualyl dont win with if hes youre decision maker whos a volume shooter and is a poor decision maker..


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> The funny thing about Wizards fans using injuries as an excuse for last season is that Dwyane Wade got injured too, only the Heat managed to make the playoffs anyway.
> 
> The Wizards were 16-38 in games when Arenas was healthy, and 9-19 in games when he was hurt. After he game back, the Wizards still sucked.
> ...


:yes: 

Maybe if Arenas played any defense, didn't turn the ball over left and right, and wasn't busy fighting with teammates about shot distribution the Wizards could've competed with the Heat _last_ season. Honestly, it's not like the Heat didn't have their fair of injuries(Wade, Butler) or that the Wizards couldn't match them in talent. Now I'm supposed to think that Arenas is magically going to change his ways and actually _help_ his team win games? I don't think so.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> :yes:
> ...


The Wizards really couldn't match them in talent. Not with Stackhouse sitting out the season and Larry Hughes missing games.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Keith Closs</b>!
> this coming from a stat whore whos never won anything and is just youre typical 2 guard in a one guards body the type of player u usualyl dont win with


The Bulls and Lakers won with Ron Harper. :whoknows:


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> The Wizards really couldn't match them in talent. Not with Stackhouse sitting out the season and Larry Hughes missing games.


Dwyane Wade missed 21 games and Caron Butler missed 14 games(and should've missed a lot more because he came back when he was still injured and hurt the team). Convienient of you to use Stackhouse missing games with injuries as an excuse for not winning games when you have called him a cancer *many* times. Which way is it, you can't have it both ways depending on when it's convienient for your argument.


----------



## BallBiologist (Mar 29, 2003)

Who names their child Gilbert anyways? j/k...its a unique name. I probably only heard about 2 other people who have that name...if not that.


----------



## -33- (Aug 6, 2002)

It's hilarious that Arenas makes these comments about Wade...

what has he done?

Arenas had 1 good year at Arizona, then a good rookie season...and really isn't that good compared to the rest of the league...

Can't wait to watch Miami destroy them...


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Areanas is right. Too bad he isn't good enough to back up any of this smack talk.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> Dwyane Wade missed 21 games and Caron Butler missed 14 games(and should've missed a lot more because he came back when he was still injured and hurt the team). Convienient of you to use Stackhouse missing games with injuries as an excuse for not winning games when you have called him a cancer *many* times. Which way is it, you can't have it both ways depending on when it's convienient for your argument.


He was a cancer BECAUSE he sat out the season with injuries and the team lost all respect for him. Before the season started he was not looked at as a cancer on the Wizards, and if he would of played during the year and not send mixed signals to management things would of been different.


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>courtside</b>!
> Who names their child Gilbert anyways? j/k...its a unique name. I probably only heard about 2 other people who have that name...if not that.


really? I know several people named gilbert :angel:


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shaq_Diesel</b>!
> It's hilarious that Arenas makes these comments about Wade...
> 
> what has he done?
> ...



I want to know which league you watch. It must be better than the NBA if Arenas isn't that good compared to the rest of the players.

When is 19 5 4 not good? Keep in mind he is the same age as Dwayne Wade.


----------



## Keith Closs (May 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> The Bulls and Lakers won with Ron Harper. :whoknows:


ron harper was a role player for those teams arenas is one of the main guys on the team..

Today u win with big man.. u shouldnt build youre team arond hybrid pg's /sg..the last player in that mold to win a title was isiah and none of these hybrid gaurds out today are anywhere near isiahs level..


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> I want to know which league you watch. It must be better than the NBA if Arenas isn't that good compared to the rest of the players.
> 
> When is 19 5 4 not good? Keep in mind he is the same age as Dwayne Wade.


Weren't you the same guy who the other day was saying that Elton Brand's stats meant nothing because his teams are in the lottery every year?

Arenas is the same. Of course he puts up big numbers, he's a stat padder, that's what stat padders do. That doesn't mean he's a special player.


----------



## Ron Mexico (Feb 14, 2004)

we all know if Arenas was on Team USA instead of Dwayne Wade we would of done much better. (SARCASM)


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>sboydell</b>!
> we all know if Arenas was on Team USA instead of Dwayne Wade we would of done much better. (SARCASM)


Team USA would have better off wilth Gilbert especially since Arenas is a much better 3 point shooter. He shot 38% last year from downtown compared to Wade who only shot 30%.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> 
> 
> Weren't you the same guy who the other day was saying that Elton Brand's stats meant nothing because his teams are in the lottery every year?
> ...


If Arenas doesn't make the playoffs when he's 25 than you can call him a stat padder. But not making the playoffs when your 22 on a rebulding team missing it's best players and having no veterans, I don't think that qualifies.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Arenas' comments are fairly well-reasoned and it's refreshing to hear a *non-sanitized soundbite that's not just stupid woofing*.


Damn!! 

*PauloCatarino tries Dictionary.com's translator*

Double Damn!!

You, Minstrel, what exactly are you saying here?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


19-5-4 is not good when your team sucks, they play just as well if not better without you, you're turning the ball over more than 4 times a game, you're not playing defense, or you're arguing with your teammates about ball-hogging and shot distribution. Arenas fits every one of those categories.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> 19-5-4 is not good when your team sucks, they play just as well if not better without you, you're turning the ball over more than 4 times a game, you're not playing defense, or you're arguing with your teammates about ball-hogging and shot distribution. Arenas fits every one of those categories.


So what is good when you are on a bad team? I guess T Mac's stats last season weren't worth squat either?



> Weren't you the same guy who the other day was saying that Elton Brand's stats meant nothing because his teams are in the lottery every year?
> 
> Arenas is the same. Of course he puts up big numbers, he's a stat padder, that's what stat padders do. That doesn't mean he's a special player.


There is a big difference between not being good and being overrated. Elton Brand is overrated...period but he is a good player. Arenas is a good player.

Now if you want to say Elton Brand and Gilbert Arenas are on the same level as players, I can agree with that.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Redbled</b>!
> Whether his comments are true or not, I could care less. Just know you sound pretty stupid to call out another player or another team when you've accomplished next to nothing in the NBA yourself.


lol...

The guy is making $10 million a year...

Please let us know when YOU accomplish that...


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> 
> 
> So what is good when you are on a bad team? I guess T Mac's stats last season weren't worth squat either?


You can say that, but that really doesn't do anything to hurt him considering it was one of his worst seasons since joining the Magic. He's proven he can put up the numbers AND lead his (talentless) team to the playoffs. 





> There is a big difference between not being good and being overrated. Elton Brand is overrated...period but he is a good player. Arenas is a good player.


I don't think that's the case. Arenas is not a guy I'd want on my team under any circumstances. It'd be nearly impossible for the coach to get him to take a smaller role particularly offensively, and try to get him to play like a point guard. I certainly wouldn't want him as my number one option either. As talented as Gilbert may be, I wouldn't want him on my team until he proves he can play point guard without turning the ball over so much, he can shoot a reasonable percentage from the floor, be at least somewhat consistent, he can play defense, and he shows that he can make a team better. Until then, I don't want him. I can do without his 25-12-12 on lights out shooting one night, and his 4 points on 1-17 shooting with 8 turnovers and getting lit up on the other end the next night followed by an argument with teammates over his shot selection.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> Elton Brand is overrated


Its impossible to be overrated when people dismiss you based on your teams success. Overrated means people think a player is better than he is, and most people hold the mindstate that "if he was good, his team would be good, so therefore, he isnt good"

So you can think he is this good or that good, but he isnt overrated, simply because people refuse to believe that great players can exist on bad teams.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> Its impossible to be overrated when people dismiss you based on your teams success. Overrated means people think a player is better than he is, and most people hold the mindstate that "if he was good, his team would be good, so therefore, he isnt good"
> ...


heh heh! You can't call Elton Brand overrated while Johnny's in the house...

But for the record i agree with Johnny Mac: Elton Brand is one of the most underrated players in the league...


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> heh heh! You can't call Elton Brand overrated while Johnny's in the house...
> 
> But for the record i agree with Johnny Mac: Elton Brand is one of the most underrated players in the league...


WORD!


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> heh heh! You can't call Elton Brand overrated while Johnny's in the house...
> ...


How can Elton Brand be underrated? He is considered a top 3-5 PF and a top 15-20 player. Now if you are saying he is underratted he must be on KG and Duncan's level. It is funny, guys like Stackhouse get ripped on this board but he atleast has led his team to the playoffs. Elton Brand doesn't even have the resume of Antoine Walker but people consider him a much better player and a much better *TEAM* player at that.

2004-05 is show and tell for a lot of young players in the NBA. I will sponsor the Elton Brand watch this year as he puts up numbers in meaningless game after meaningless game.

Well at least you can post he has never choked in the playoffs!:laugh:


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> 19-5-4 is not good when your team sucks, they play just as well if not better without you, you're turning the ball over more than 4 times a game, you're not playing defense, or you're arguing with your teammates about ball-hogging and shot distribution. Arenas fits every one of those categories.


Do you realize that, ironically, Steve Francis also nearly fits that description to a tee? He didn't make the playoffs until Yao showed up. Arenas has never had a solid inside presence.

Arenas is far too maligned on this board. With some of the comments said in this thread alone, I can only wonder how many of you guys have ever even, with a little consistency, seen Arenas play. Most of you probably don't watch very many Wizards games, and in the past, Warriors games.

Can't really say I blame you though.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Spriggan, sign your team up on the Yahoo league buddy.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you realize that, ironically, Steve Francis also nearly fits that description to a tee? He didn't make the playoffs until Yao showed up. Arenas has never had a solid inside presence.


You're completely wrong here because you're missing two huge things --

1. Steve Francis and the Rockets won 45 games before Yao Ming came, they just got unlucky and didn't make the playoffs. I believe someone on this site said that they set the record that year for most wins without making the playoffs.

2. Steve Francis has proven how valuable he is to the team. The year he had his persisting migraine problems the Rockets sucked. That's how they ended up with Yao Ming in the first place, because Francis wasn't 100% for most of the season.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> You're completely wrong here because you're missing two huge things --
> ...


Now see this I can agree with, Steve Francis is actually one of the most underrated players in the league. I expect him to put Orlando back in the playoffs.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> You, Minstrel, what exactly are you saying here?


A soundbite that's not just a generic comment like, "Should be a great race, we're going to try our hardest."


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> 
> 
> Now see this I can agree with, Steve Francis is actually one of the most underrated players in the league. I expect him to put Orlando back in the playoffs.


underrated in the media, no, on this board, yes.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

Joe the Hobo,

Didn't you see what you said about Arenas? It contains many of the same exact complaints people have about Francis:



> Arenas is not a guy I'd want on my team under any circumstances. It'd be nearly impossible for the coach to get him to take a smaller role particularly offensively, and try to get him to play like a point guard. I certainly wouldn't want him as my number one option either. As talented as Gilbert may be, I wouldn't want him on my team until he proves he can play point guard without turning the ball over so much, he can shoot a reasonable percentage from the floor, be at least somewhat consistent, he can play defense, and he shows that he can make a team better.


And what, exactly, makes you think that Arenas isn't valuable to a team?


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> You can say that, but that really doesn't do anything to hurt him considering it was one of his worst seasons since joining the Magic. He's proven he can put up the numbers AND lead his (talentless) team to the playoffs.
> ...


The funny thing is that Francis has turned the ball around 4 times a game his whole career. He's never gotten better at the PG posistion. His stats from his second year in the league are his career best stats. Since then his assists go down every year and his TO's stay the same. Arenas has never taken as many shots as Francis did in 01-02, 02-03. And you don't think their was complaints on the Rockets about Francis's shot selection? You don't think the coach wanted Francis to get the ball more to Yao? 


I've never seen Arenas shoot 1-17, please point me to that game.

Here's something funny. In 02-03, Arenas at the age of 21 turned the ball over less than Francis has 4 out of 5 years in his career. It looks like maybe you should be looking at Francis when it comes to turnovers and questioning your own PG.

Now here's the funny thing, Arenas started out THIS season as a pass first PG. The coach had to SIT him down in a room and tell him to shoot more. So much for Gilbert being uncoachable and willing to take a lesser role right?

From NBA.com-

"During last season's playoffs, Eddie Jordan took Gilbert Arenas to New Jersey to watch and study the Nets guard's game. With a year under his belt on Jordan's watch, Arenas is poised to take his point guard play to another level. And as Richard Jefferson and Kenyon Martin will attest, Washington's forwards should be ready to run, and ready to attack, as part of the Wizards' forward-thinking attack."

Arenas went with the coach to the New Jersey playoff game to study Jason Kidd? Who does this uncoachable ******* think he is? Trying to better himself at the PG posistion? Man I hate when players show a committment to getting better at their posistion, it really irks me.

Mark my words, Arenas will prove the doubters wrong this season. It's sort of ridiculas for anyone to have a lasting impression of a 22 year old, but Arenas is all about proving people wrong, and he'll do it this year.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
> Joe the Hobo,
> 
> Didn't you see what you said about Arenas? It contains many of the same exact complaints people have about Francis:
> ...


RP McMurphy addressed that earlier:


> The funny thing about Wizards fans using injuries as an excuse for last season is that Dwyane Wade got injured too, only the Heat managed to make the playoffs anyway.
> 
> *The Wizards were 16-38 in games when Arenas was healthy, and 9-19 in games when he was hurt. After he game back, the Wizards still sucked.*
> 
> ...


I realize that Francis certainly does apply in many of the areas as Arenas, except the one big one: helping the team win. The stats back it up, as does whatever that season was when Francis had the migraine problems. He's also a very underrated defender. He turns the ball over a lot and he shoots a lot of ill-advised shots, yes. 





> The funny thing is that Francis has turned the ball around 4 times a game his whole career. He's never gotten better at the PG posistion. His stats from his second year in the league are his career best stats. Since then his assists go down every year and his TO's stay the same. Arenas has never taken as many shots as Francis did in 01-02, 02-03. And you don't think their was complaints on the Rockets about Francis's shot selection? You don't think the coach wanted Francis to get the ball more to Yao?


First off, Francis hasn't turned the ball over 4+ times per game once in his entire career. Secondly, Francis' shots were not a problem in his first three seasons because he was the best player on the team. He and Mobley had to carry the team offensively, and they did. Last season when Yao really started to become a star, Francis responded taking the fewest shots in his career. Sure it was an adjustment for him, but you didn't hear a huge stink about it from him.




> I've never seen Arenas shoot 1-17, please point me to that game.


I'm not going to look for one, but you get my point. He's extremely inconsistent, and he's horrible in games quite often just like he's on fire a lot. 



> Here's something funny. In 02-03, Arenas at the age of 21 turned the ball over less than Francis has 4 out of 5 years in his career. It looks like maybe you should be looking at Francis when it comes to turnovers and questioning your own PG.


Funny that he only played 35 mpg whereas Steve has never played that few in his career, and he's played at least 40 per in each of the past three seasons. Nice try. 



> Now here's the funny thing, Arenas started out THIS season as a pass first PG. The coach had to SIT him down in a room and tell him to shoot more. So much for Gilbert being uncoachable and willing to take a lesser role right?


When did I say he was uncoachable? Would he be willing to take a lesser role? I doubt it. The coach was asking him to shoot more and by golley he did. What's your point? Wow, he listened to the coach when he told him to shoot more. He loves to shoot, of course he's going to listen. 



> Mark my words, Arenas will prove the doubters wrong this season. It's sort of ridiculas for anyone to have a lasting impression of a 22 year old, but Arenas is all about proving people wrong, and he'll do it this year.


Are you trying to get in my sig again?

I don't know when this argument started to involve Francis...


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

kghgaweg


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!RP McMurphy addressed that earlier:
> 
> 
> I realize that Francis certainly does apply in many of the areas as Arenas, except the one big one: helping the team win. The stats back it up, as does whatever that season was when Francis had the migraine problems. He's also a very underrated defender. He turns the ball over a lot and he shoots a lot of ill-advised shots, yes. :


Arenas wasn't healthy the WHOLE season after he got injured. He came back and played hurt and his game really hurt the team. He basically became a jump shooter instead of a slasher. I'm not surprised that he couldn't help the team win when he came back. Did you see the team he had when he came back? Larry Hughes went down, and he had a starting line up of guys like Juan Dixon/Jared Jeffries/Haywood, nobody could make that team better. With all the injuries, that team was going to lose, and lose, and lose no matter what. 

When Arenas was first healthy, Kwame was terrible and he still had them at 5-7. The team won some games without Arenas behind 30-40 point outings from Hughes and Kwame having the best month of his career.

Trust me when I say that the team was much worse without Arenas. The team was 5-7 when Arenas went down. They went on to lose 20 out of their next 25 games. They looked like a playoff team before Gil got hurt and any Wizard fan can tell you that. 









> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!First off, Francis hasn't turned the ball over 4+ times per game once in his entire career. Secondly, Francis' shots were not a problem in his first three seasons because he was the best player on the team. He and Mobley had to carry the team offensively, and they did. Last season when Yao really started to become a star, Francis responded taking the fewest shots in his career. Sure it was an adjustment for him, but you didn't hear a huge stink about it from him.:


Francis averages 3.7 TO'S on his CAREER. That's around 4 TOs is it not? And that's with him playing with guys he plays with every year, Mobley/Cato/Taylor, he STILL is never able to turn the ball over less. His assists GO DOWN every year and you can't deny it. Francis's entire game suffered when he 'took less shots'. How is that when you take less shots your fg% drops dramatically? 

Francis was criticised by every single media outlet in the world about taking too many shots. Even last season, he still was criticised for over dribbling and running out the shotclock. Your blind if you think Francis doesn't overdribble. 

The question is, can Francis ever take a lesser role? Cause when he started taking lesser shots his whole game went down. His fg%, his 3ptfg%, his assists, his rebounds, would Francis ever be effective as a roleplayer? No, probalby not.

You shouldn't be so critical of Arenas when he has a shot to be a much better PG than Francis has been. It's probably too late for Francis at 27 to become a decent point guard. And now with new teammates and his own team free to run wild I would expect a career high in TOs', and maybe some of the highest turnover numbers in recent NBA history. 








> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!I'm not going to look for one, but you get my point. He's extremely inconsistent, and he's horrible in games quite often just like he's on fire a lot.
> 
> 
> Funny that he only played 35 mpg whereas Steve has never played that few in his career, and he's played at least 40 per in each of the past three seasons. Nice try. :


Haha, wrong again. Francis averaged 36 minutes per game in his first year and still averaged 4 TOs a game. Unless one minute makes that much of a difference to you, it certainly seems like Arenas would definetly be a dissapointment if he went down the Stevie Francis path of trying to be a point guard. Francis is the side on the opposite end of the spectrum teaching a tutorial on how not to improve yourself into a decent point guard.





> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!When did I say he was uncoachable? Would he be willing to take a lesser role? I doubt it. The coach was asking him to shoot more and by golley he did. What's your point? Wow, he listened to the coach when he told him to shoot more. He loves to shoot, of course he's going to listen.
> 
> 
> Are you trying to get in my sig again?


Are you ignoring logic? If Arenas came into the year as a pass first point guard, doesn't that mean he was willing to take a lesser role? If the coach didn't tell him to take more shots he would of kept passing and not scoring to his capabilities. 

Put this in your sig, Arenas will average less turnovers than Francis for the rest of his career, and he'll also average more assists than Francis for the rest of his career. 

With Grant Hill seemingly healthy, it would only make sense for Francis who helps his team win to take his team to the playoffs while Arenas who doesn't sits at home right? Well It's probably already in your sig, but here it is in different wording, Arenas will take his team to a better record than Francis will despite Francis having a better supporting cast.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Is Arenas the new Van Exel? Cocky shoot-first second round point guard?


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
> 
> 
> He failed to address that the Wizards were also dealing with injuries to both Stackhouse and Hughes throughout the season.
> ...


Exactly. Alot of people would hate to have Francis on their team, you know why? Because he's in his PRIME and he's still a horrible PG. If Arenas is that bad of a PG when he's 27 than I'll say he's had a dissapointing career. But for a 22 year old whose been on a rebuilding team to be labeled anything is pretty much a joke. Arenas didn't have the team last year to win games, this year he does, and watch as he will.

Hobo is down on Arenas because he's a Magic fan, and their going to compete with the Wizards for 2nd place in the division, and Hobo thinks that the Wizards are going to suck and well just read his sig. Obviously someone with that stuff in his sig isn't going to have anything contstructive to say about Arenas, although his starting PG is what most Wizards fan hope Arenas doesn't become. 

And nither Hobo or RF like to bring up Arenas being the best player on a team that had a 17 game turnaround from the year before as they went 19-11 against the East. Or that even Jason Kidd had a year early in his career where he averaged 4 TOs a game. It's how you improve on it that matters, which Francis has not, and which Arenas will show this season.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> The funny thing about Wizards fans using injuries as an excuse for last season is that Dwyane Wade got injured too, only the Heat managed to make the playoffs anyway.
> 
> The Wizards were 16-38 in games when Arenas was healthy, and 9-19 in games when he was hurt. After he game back, the Wizards still sucked.
> ...


Yeah, what a loser. He's been unable to take perennial powerhouses the Warriors and the Wizards to the playoffs in his long and illustrious 3 year career.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> RP McMurphy addressed that earlier:


He failed to address that the Wizards were also dealing with injuries to both Stackhouse and Hughes throughout the season, along with a rookie head coach. Oh, and Stack was a major headcase throughout it all as well.

How can you possibly put that all on Arenas? The guy played through several games with a severly strained stomach muscle. At one point, he was even sidelined "indefinitely".

In fact, if memory serves, Arenas actually re-injured himself twice for attempting to return too early. He's a gamer. How can you call someone like that a loser?

The very last person that should be blamed for the Wizards' woes last season is Gilbert Arenas.



> I realize that Francis certainly does apply in many of the areas as Arenas, except the one big one: helping the team win. The stats back it up, as does whatever that season was when Francis had the migraine problems. He's also a very underrated defender. He turns the ball over a lot and he shoots a lot of ill-advised shots, yes.


Many people believe Francis is actually ultimately detrimental to his team, with his generally poor decision-making at a position where that cannot be afforded. I personally think he has bundles of skill and athleticism, but not necessarily the highest basketball IQ. But I like the guy (he impressed me a lot with Maryland, and his rookie year in the league), and I'm hoping he can prove me and others wrong this season in Orlando.

Regardless, I think it's far too early to stamp a "loser" tab on Arenas. The guy's only played three seasons, and with two of the poorest franchises in sports. Give the guy some room to grow, along with the Wizards. He's shown a ridiculous amount of potential, along with the obvious abundance of talent he's already presented.

I, along with others on this board, believe Arenas could one day be the premier point in the league. I don't expect you to feel that way, but why are you so down on him?


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, what a loser. He's been unable to take perennial powerhouses the Warriors and the Wizards to the playoffs in his long and illustrious 3 year career.


And he wasn't even a starter his rookie year. RP Murphy probably hasn't even seen him play. If he knew the injury situation the Wizards had he would know that their was no way for ANY one player to make the team a winner last season. I don't know how somebody like Arenas who puts it all out on the floor, plays with more passion than half the guys in the league, is very clutch, and trys to motivate his teammates is a 'loser'. Dressing up in his warmups when he's on the IR just to support his team. So into the game that he gets a technical foul while on the bench. Takes a cold shower in his uniform during halftime. Arenas HATES to lose. He's one of the only players on the Wizards who has a burning desire to win.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

Gah.. how did that happen? I previewed my earlier post, I didn't post it.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
> 
> 
> He failed to address that the Wizards were also dealing with injuries to both Stackhouse and Hughes throughout the season.


But Stackhouse is a cancer, remember? 




> Many people believe Francis to actually be detrimental to his team, with his generally poor decision-making. I personally think he has bundles of skill and athleticism, but not necessarily the highest basketball IQ. But I like the guy (he impressed me a lot with Maryland, and his rookie year in the league), and I'm hoping he can prove me and others wrong this season in Orlando.


So it's a coincidence then, that the Rockets sucked when Francis had his migraine problems? Everyone knows he's not the smartest player in the world, I'd be an idiot to try and say he was. 



> Regardless, I think it's far too early to stamp a "loser" tab on Arenas. The guy's only played three seasons, and with two of the poorest franchises in sports. Give the guy some room to grow. He's shown a ridiculous amount of potential.


He's shown the potential, but he hasn't shown the attitude or the determination to win. He's certainly showed he can explode for a triple-double on any given night, but with his good comes a lot of bad. In my opinion, the bad way outways the good he brings. That'll answer your next question too about why I'm so down on him. 



> I, along with others on this board, believe Arenas could one day be the premier point in the league. Why are you so down on him?





> When Arenas was first healthy, Kwame was terrible and he still had them at 5-7. The team won some games without Arenas behind 30-40 point outings from Hughes and Kwame having the best month of his career.
> 
> Trust me when I say that the team was much worse without Arenas. The team was 5-7 when Arenas went down. They went on to lose 20 out of their next 25 games. They looked like a playoff team before Gil got hurt and any Wizard fan can tell you that.


You just answered your own questions there, Shanghai. It's not a coincidence that Kwame and Hughes played so well without Arenas, he's the reason they weren't playing as well as they could when he was healthy. 




> Francis averages 3.7 TO'S on his CAREER. That's around 4 TOs is it not? And that's with him playing with guys he plays with every year, Mobley/Cato/Taylor, he STILL is never able to turn the ball over less. His assists GO DOWN every year and you can't deny it. Francis's entire game suffered when he 'took less shots'. How is that when you take less shots your fg% drops dramatically?


But not once has he turned the ball over 4 times a game like Arenas did last season, you don't just say well, he's averaged at least 3.5 every year so we'll round up. Arenas was over the 4 mark, period. Francis is not a role player, you're correct. He's not now, and he's never going to be. 



> Francis was criticised by every single media outlet in the world about taking too many shots. Even last season, he still was criticised for over dribbling and running out the shotclock. Your blind if you think Francis doesn't overdribble.


And every media outlet would've criticized Arenas if anyone had paid enough attention to give a **** about the Wizards or Gilbert. Seriously. 



> The question is, can Francis ever take a lesser role? Cause when he started taking lesser shots his whole game went down. His fg%, his 3ptfg%, his assists, his rebounds, would Francis ever be effective as a roleplayer? No, probalby not.


You're correct here. 



> You shouldn't be so critical of Arenas when he has a shot to be a much better PG than Francis has been. It's probably too late for Francis at 27 to become a decent point guard. And now with new teammates and his own team free to run wild I would expect a career high in TOs', and maybe some of the highest turnover numbers in recent NBA history.


Why shouldn't I be so critical of Arenas? Because I'm a fan of the Magic, therefore my opinion must reflect their players or their abilities? You're not making any sense. Sure, Arenas could be a better point guard than Francis, I don't see it happening though. Stats wise? Sure. But he won't ever be a good point guard.




> Put this in your sig, Arenas will average less turnovers than Francis for the rest of his career, and he'll also average more assists than Francis for the rest of his career.
> 
> With Grant Hill seemingly healthy, it would only make sense for Francis who helps his team win to take his team to the playoffs while Arenas who doesn't sits at home right? Well It's probably already in your sig, but here it is in different wording, Arenas will take his team to a better record than Francis will despite Francis having a better supporting cast.


:bsmile:


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

man is arenas true or what


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
> I, along with others on this board, believe Arenas could one day be the premier point in the league.


:yes: 

I felt that way going back to his rookie year, he has the talent, and is ultra competitive. This whole situation how the stigma of a loser can be tabbed on someone extremely early in their career, three years isn't enough time to call someone a loser, but it is enough to call someone a stat padder.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> So it's a coincidence then, that the Rockets sucked when Francis had his migraine problems? Everyone knows he's not the smartest player in the world, I'd be an idiot to try and say he was.


It's possibly a coincidence. Who knows? The Sonics had success at the beginning of last season with Flip Murray starting in the place of Ray Allen, but only a fool would claim Flip is on Ray's level. There are several things that can come into play in situations like that.



> He's shown the potential, but he hasn't shown the attitude or the determination to win. He's certainly showed he can explode for a triple-double on any given night, but with his good comes a lot of bad. In my opinion, the bad way outways the good he brings. That'll answer your next question too about why I'm so down on him.


Check my previous post. It's essentially a double post but I added stuff to the beginning. I don't know how that first post got through.

Arenas has certainly shown a winning mentality. It's not his fault he's had some terrible luck thus far, both with injuries and the teams he's been on.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Exactly. Alot of people would hate to have Francis on their team, you know why? Because he's in his PRIME and he's still a horrible PG. If Arenas is that bad of a PG when he's 27 than I'll say he's had a dissapointing career. But for a 22 year old whose been on a rebuilding team to be labeled anything is pretty much a joke. Arenas didn't have the team last year to win games, this year he does, and watch as he will.
> ...


Great points, except something's wrong with all of them. 

1. Jason Kidd averaged 4 turnovers a game, true, except he averaged 9.7 assists per game that year. Arenas averaged more turnovers last year than Kidd did that year(4.11 to 4.05) and barely half the assists(5.0 to 9.7). Not even close, man.

2. Arenas sure is improving isn't he?
02-03: 35.0 mpg, 18.3 ppg, 43.1% FG, 4.7 rpg, 6.3 apg, 3.54 TO, 1.5 spg
03-04: 37.6 mpg, 19.6 ppg, 39.2% FG, 4.6 rpg, 5.0 apg, 4.11 TO, 1.9 spg

3. Arenas wasn't the best player on the team that had a 17 game turnaround. First off, Jamison was better, secondly the teams improvement had a good deal to do with Musselman. Finally, Arenas played worse last season, you act like because it's 22 it's a fact he's going to get better.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
> 
> 
> It's possibly a coincidence. Who knows? The Sonics had success at the beginning of last season with Flip Murray starting in the place of Ray Allen, but only a fool would claim Flip is on Ray's level. There are several things that can come into play in situations like that.


Flip was on fire at the beginning of the season, and playing well over his abilities. Later on in the season, he was hurting the team with his play. The biggest factor though was Brent Barry going down with an injury, which is when the Sonics really started to suck. 





> Check my previous post. It's essentially a double post but I added stuff to the beginning. I don't know how that first post got through.
> 
> Arenas has certainly shown a winning mentality. It's not his fault he's had some terrible luck thus far, both with injuries and the teams he's been on.


It is his fault that he gets into arguments with teammates. Is that a winners mentality? Arguing over shots? It is his fault he doesn't play defense, and he can't hang onto the ball, and he didn't shoot for almost an entire game to make a point. He cares about winning so much that he let his argument with Kwame get in the way of his play on the court.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> Great points, except something's wrong with all of them.
> ...


INJURIES, guy, INJURIES. Arenas averaged 20/6/5 before getting hurt, and when he came back early he had a string of terrible games that really hurt him. That may end up being Arenas's worst year of his career, and he still was 2nd in the league in tripple doubles, 6th in the league in steals, and shot over 42% from behind the arc after January. Ask any Golden State fan and they'll say that Arenas was much better and had more of an impact than Jamison did. Most 22 year olds do get better, so I think it's a safe assumption to make. I can guarantee that Arenas will improve on his assists/turnovers next season, and his fg% now that he has a legit 20ppg scorer on the floor with him. And I'm betting he shoots over 40% from 3-point land which is pretty insane for a 22 year old slasher to have a jumper like that.

Gilbert calling out Miami in the media is him trying to show leadership, trying to say that "the Wiz won't back down". He's trying to instill some confidence into the rest of his team. It's up to his teammates to step up and follow his lead. Arenas is a competitor, the coach has said Arenas is the most competitive player on the team. Anyone who watches the game can see how much Arenas cares about winning. All those techincal fouls he gets are for a reason.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> It is his fault that he gets into arguments with teammates. Is that a winners mentality? Arguing over shots? It is his fault he doesn't play defense, and he can't hang onto the ball, and he didn't shoot for almost an entire game to make a point. He cares about winning so much that he let his argument with Kwame get in the way of his play on the court.


Let's take Francis out of this. I'm the one who brought him into this thread and I probably shouldn't have. He gets ripped enough as it is.

Anyway, Arenas isn't as bad a defender as you make him out to me. I don't know where you got that idea. He was a ballhawk at Arizona, and he's still young and learning the NBA game. I believe his defense will improve, along with everything else, with time. Besides, the guy hasn't exactly been on great defensive teams, to say the least.

As for your other point, well hey, it happens. Teammates argue. Teammates squabble. Particularly when it's two young, talented guys that are the cornerstone for a mediocre franchise. I'm sure there have been similar arguments between players that were never leaked to the media. Arenas let it get to the court, and that was a mistake. But you can't crucify the guy for one mistake, especially when he's only 22.

Remember Kobe not shooting for an entire half? Does he not have a winner's mentality? What about Melo refusing to re-enter the game? Does he have a loser's mentality?

It just happens. People make mistakes. You don't have a loser's mentality when you're willing to play with a severely bruised abdomen muscle, something I'm certain can't feel very good.

I mean come on hobo, the guy actually returned to the court too early *twice*, both times re-aggravating the injury, because he wanted to play. How can you *possibly* stick a loser label on a guy like that? Most guys in the league would have happily sat out as long as it took while they chilled out at home, collecting their paychecks.

Arenas and Brown have settled their differences, regardless, and apparently become quite close.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> INJURIES, guy, INJURIES. Arenas averaged 20/6/5 before getting hurt, and when he came back early he had a string of terrible games that really hurt him. That may end up being Arenas's worst year of his career, and he still was 2nd in the league in tripple doubles, 6th in the league in steals, and shot over 42% from behind the arc after January. Ask any Golden State fan and they'll say that Arenas was much better and had more of an impact than Jamison did. Most 22 year olds do get better, so I think it's a safe assumption to make. I can guarantee that Arenas will improve on his assists/turnovers next season, and his fg% now that he has a legit 20ppg scorer on the floor with him. And I'm betting he shoots over 40% from 3-point land which is pretty insane for a 22 year old slasher to have a jumper like that.


It'd be damn near impossible for Arenas to have any worse of an Assist/Turnover ratio than he had last season. I can't think of a single point guard who has _ever_ had as bad of an Assist/Turnover ratio as Arenas did. 5.0 assists and 4.11 turnovers is atrocious. I'm also willing to bet Arenas won't shoot over 40% from 3-point range this season, come on, he didn't even shoot 40% from the floor last season.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> It'd be damn near impossible for Arenas to have any worse of an Assist/Turnover ratio than he had last season. I can't think of a single point guard who has _ever_ had as bad of an Assist/Turnover ratio as Arenas did. 5.0 assists and 4.11 turnovers is atrocious. I'm also willing to bet Arenas won't shoot over 40% from 3-point range this season, come on, he didn't even shoot 40% from the floor last season.


He shot 42% from 3 from January on. He'll get many more open looks with Jamison and Kwame in the post, I'll bet he shoots over 40% this year from downtown.


----------



## byrondarnell66 (Jul 18, 2004)

A 100% Arenas will shood better than 40 percent from the floor this year and passing the ball to Antawn instead of Kwame and "BUTTERFINGERS" Haywood will certianly help bring his turnovers down a little.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> He shot 42% from 3 from January on. He'll get many more open looks with Jamison and Kwame in the post, I'll bet he shoots over 40% this year from downtown.


No, actually from January on he was still under 40% from behind the arc. Starting in January, he shot 95 for 239 from 3-point land for the rest of the season. Even during his hot streak, he still didn't hit that 40% mark you think he'll keep up for an entire season. Stop fabricating stats and look at what actually happened. It may help you to see things more objectively.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

At age 22, after three seasons (two as a major player) on two perenially bad teams long before he joined, Arenas has already proven he's a loser and will never help a team win. That's fascinating.

Stephon Marbury was branded such around age 23 or 24 by a certain crowd after playing on two otherwise untalented teams. Therefore, the science of telling these things has advanced.

Soon the foremost judges of the "winning/losing" skill will refine their science to tell us in a player's rookie season whether he'll be a winner or a loser for the rest of his career.

I hope to be alive when we can know that about a player while they're still in high school, or maybe even in junior high. Then NBA teams can be careful not to draft them, no matter how talented otherwise they are.

Fortunately, we're out of the dark ages, when the "winner/loser" skill judges would make errors in their primitive science and dub a 24 year old Michael Jordan a "loser" and a "stat hound" who played for his numbers and couldn't take his team to a championship like winners such as Magic Johnson or Larry Bird.

We know so much more about that elusive skill of winning today, that kind of mistake would never again be made.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> No, actually from January on he was still under 40% from behind the arc. Starting in January, he shot 95 for 239 from 3-point land for the rest of the season. Even during his hot streak, he still didn't hit that 40% mark you think he'll keep up for an entire season. Stop fabricating stats and look at what actually happened. It may help you to see things more objectively.


Actually your right, in started in February. I read the gamelog wrong before, In Feb, he shot 43%, in March he shot 38% and in April he shot 42%. The actual numbers are 87 of 215. What does that come out to?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually your right, in started in February. I read the gamelog wrong before, In Feb, he shot 43%, in March he shot 38% and in April he shot 42%. The actual numbers are 87 of 215. What does that come out to?


A tad over 40%.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> A tad over 40%.


Well I think with more open looks and better shot selection he can definetly do it for a whole season.


----------



## quick (Feb 13, 2004)

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=80520&highlight=gilbert+arenas+the+crybaby


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>quick</b>!
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=80520&highlight=gilbert+arenas+the+crybaby


From that thread:



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Hmm. I recall a young Michael Jordan defying head coach Doug Collins by barely taking any part in the offense when Collins ordered him to stop dominating the ball so much.
> 
> Was Jordan a whiny baby? Maybe. But obviously some athletes have a streak of domineering attitude to them...if you want to show them up, by calling them out in the media, they'll show you up by proving how desperately you need them in order to compete. In Jordan's case, it worked...Doug Collins was broken and pretty much became Jordan's pet.
> ...


You're so unoriginal Minstrel .

Also, anyone notice the scrumtious irony in RP McMurphy aka *Artest* Fan berating Arenas for his attitude?

Artest... Fan. Berating another player. For his attitude.

You just can't make this stuff up, people.


----------



## Captain Obvious (Jun 15, 2003)

Just a quick point on Francis, I think it's pretty obvious that his numbers went down across the board because he was playing in a halfcourt offense most of the time with Van Gundy as his coach. He didn't get nearly as many open court opportunities as he had in previous years (or he will this year) so that's why the shooting percentage and assists were down. I'd expect that with the uptempo, high-scoring team the Magic plan to have Francis should get his 20/6/6 on about 43% shooting.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> At age 22, after three seasons (two as a major player) on two perenially bad teams long before he joined, Arenas has already proven he's a loser and will never help a team win. That's fascinating.
> 
> Stephon Marbury was branded such around age 23 or 24 by a certain crowd after playing on two otherwise untalented teams. Therefore, the science of telling these things has advanced.
> ...


Great post.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Captain Obvious</b>!
> Just a quick point on Francis, I think it's pretty obvious that his numbers went down across the board because he was playing in a halfcourt offense most of the time with Van Gundy as his coach. He didn't get nearly as many open court opportunities as he had in previous years (or he will this year) so that's why the shooting percentage and assists were down. I'd expect that with the uptempo, high-scoring team the Magic plan to have Francis should get his 20/6/6 on about 43% shooting.


That's a good point. Francis excells in an uptempo game unlike the one Van Gundy runs in Houston. Orlando have the necessary personnel this year to finally run the fast break they've wanted to run for so long, but haven't been able to due to having no point guard and no rebounders. Paul Westhead was brought in as an assistant coach to teach the fast break and get the Magic to run it.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Spriggan, your avatar is friggin hilarious.


----------



## walkon4 (Mar 28, 2003)

where was gilbert in the playoffs last season?

when he talks about shooting, nobodys sure if he is talking about on or off the court, if you get my jist.

the heat will man handle the wizards


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
> 
> 
> From that thread:
> ...


I plagarized myself, with no credit given. 

It's just nice that Jordan stands as a good example of a guy that A. wasn't considered a winner, B. was considered selfish, C. eventually positioned himself as one of the great winners of all-time.

Nobody is Jordan, necessarily, but things can change and dramatically. Making grand, far-too-encompassing statements about players may be satisfying but doesn't possess much perspective or understanding.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I plagarized myself, with no credit given.
> 
> It's just nice that Jordan stands as a good example of a guy that A. wasn't considered a winner, B. was considered selfish, C. eventually positioned himself as one of the great winners of all-time.
> ...


Of course, its important to mention that not every player who has a losing history would be a loser in another situation, but some players who have consistently lost over their career have a style of play that plays a big part in their teams lack of success. Guys like Jordan, Garnett, etc are guys who were great players but people labeled them losers, but there *are* some players who would need a near perfect situation just to have team success because of their style of play. There is a difference there, I think its worth pointing out.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

So do you guys think Arenas would've had success already in his career had he been in a better situation? If so, how much better would it have to be? What if the Wizards don't make the playoffs this year, with all their fans saying this is the year, they have all the talent to make it? What if they suck again?


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> So do you guys think Arenas would've had success already in his career had he been in a better situation? If so, how much better would it have to be? What if the Wizards don't make the playoffs this year, with all their fans saying this is the year, they have all the talent to make it? What if they suck again?


Arenas isn't a franchise player. You can't blame arenas if the team fails. With that being said, their team has a whole lot of talent and shouldn't have any trouble making the playoffs. If they don't, it's got to be something with the atmosphere of losing, the coaching, the franchise as a whole. There's just no way they can't do it based on that talent without some major factor overriding the talent level.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> So do you guys think Arenas would've had success already in his career had he been in a better situation? If so, how much better would it have to be? What if the Wizards don't make the playoffs this year, with all their fans saying this is the year, they have all the talent to make it? What if they suck again?


Yes, it's all about the situation. If Kirk Hinrich doesn't make the playoffs this year can he be looked at as a loser?Nobody will say that, because Chicago is still a rebuilding team. Corey Magettie, loser? Odom before he went to the Heat, loser? I don't buy a player being a 'loser' unless they build up a big history of perennial losing. Maybe Shareef-Abdul-Rahim just because he has at least once had a really solid supporting cast and still couldn't even compete for the playoffs. I think Arenas and Jamison were in the process of turning Golden State into a legit playoff contending team. Maybe they could of made the playoffs last year if Gilbert didn't leave and they didn't trade Jamison. Last season you were basically telling Gilbert Arenas to take a team to the playoffs that Micheal Jordan couldn't. Too many injuries, too many young unexpierenced players, it was the definition of a rebuilding teams going to through more downs than ups. 



If the Wizards stay relatively healthy and still don't make the playoffs, than maybe the losing atmosphere is just too big to overcome. This year, the rebuilding is over. Everybody in the starting line-up has at least 3 years of expierence. I think the coaching will have to be really bad for the Wizards to not even compete for the playoffs. The Wizards always have talent, and they still never win, maybe it's a curse, bad management, whatever the reason, nobody outside the fans really ever expect the Wizards to win. If Arenas gets a team that has made the playoffs once in 10 years, and hasn't won a playoff game 20 years into the postseason, that will be a hell of an accomplishment. Considering all the criticism he's getting now, he better get some respect along with Jamison when they do make the playoffs. 

Even now with whatever talent the Wiz have, not many people expect them to make the playoffs. The truth is, they have more talent now than they have had in the last 10 years. That's why it'll be sweeter if they do. If they don't, than it's coaching, the curse, or just too much of a losing atmosphere. I will seriously lose hope for the Wizards to ever make the playoffs if they can't do it this season.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, it's all about the situation. If Kirk Hinrich doesn't make the playoffs this year can he be looked at as a loser?Nobody will say that, because Chicago is still a rebuilding team. Corey Magettie, loser? Odom before he went to the Heat, loser? I don't buy a player being a 'loser' unless they build up a big history of perennial losing. Maybe Shareef-Abdul-Rahim just because he has at least once had a really solid supporting cast and still couldn't even compete for the playoffs. I think Arenas and Jamison were in the process of turning Golden State into a legit playoff contending team. Maybe they could of made the playoffs last year if Gilbert didn't leave and they didn't trade Jamison. Last season you were basically telling Gilbert Arenas to take a team to the playoffs that Micheal Jordan couldn't. Too many injuries, too many young unexpierenced players, it was the definition of a rebuilding teams going to through more downs than ups.


No, Hinrich doesn't whine, turn the ball over every other possession, jack up ill-advised shots all the time or play poor defense. You don't seem to get what I'm saying. Arenas isn't a loser because he hasn't brought his team to the playoffs, he's a loser because of the way he plays the game and his attitude surrounding it. 



> If the Wizards stay relatively healthy and still don't make the playoffs, than maybe the losing atmosphere is just too big to overcome. This year, the rebuilding is over. Everybody in the starting line-up has at least 3 years of expierence. I think the coaching will have to be really bad for the Wizards to not even compete for the playoffs. The Wizards always have talent, and they still never win, maybe it's a curse, bad management, whatever the reason, nobody outside the fans really ever expect the Wizards to win. If Arenas gets a team that has made the playoffs once in 10 years, and hasn't won a playoff game 20 years into the postseason, that will be a hell of an accomplishment. Considering all the criticism he's getting now, he better get some respect along with Jamison when they do make the playoffs.


I still had confidence in the Wizards and Arenas last year. I predicted they would make the playoffs as the 8 seed, and they disappointed big time. And it wasn't just the injuries. I don't see how trading a Top 5 pick and Stackhouse for Jamison somehow makes them any better off, much less a playoff team or a Top 5 team in the East. They had plenty of talent last year, and really didn't show any signs of coming together as a team at all. It's not the franchise, it's the players. Arenas takes a good deal of that blame. 



> Even now with whatever talent the Wiz have, not many people expect them to make the playoffs. The truth is, they have more talent now than they have had in the last 10 years. That's why it'll be sweeter if they do. If they don't, than it's coaching, the curse, or just too much of a losing atmosphere. I will seriously lose hope for the Wizards to ever make the playoffs if they can't do it this season.


Why would people expect it? They had talent last year. They're not significantly improved talentwise at all. It's not the organization or the losing atmosphere, or the injuries, it's the loser players.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> No, Hinrich doesn't whine, turn the ball over every other possession, jack up ill-advised shots all the time or play poor defense. You don't seem to get what I'm saying. Arenas isn't a loser because he hasn't brought his team to the playoffs, he's a loser because of the way he plays the game and his attitude surrounding it.
> 
> ...


They had YOUNG talent. Teams with all young inexpierenced players and no veterans usually don't win alot of games. Jarvis Hayes/Steve Blake/Jared Jeffries were all pretty much rookies who were asked to contribute more than they could. Kwame didn't start breaking out until January. Haywood didn't start being consistent until Febuary. Eddie Jordan did a great job improving the play of the big men as the year went on. Arenas and Hughes took turns having to carry the scoring load as they got injured at different times of the year.

It's not just adding Jamison. It's adding a healthy Arenas, and a healthy Hughes. It's adding veterans in Peeler/Walker/Ruffin/Jamison who are coming from winnin situations. It's Jarvis Hayes bulking up over the summer and looking dominant in the summer league. It's Jared Jeffries actually being able to work on his game this summer instead of rehabbing all summer last year. It's improvement from Blake, improvement from all the big guys Kwame/Etan/Haywood. The Wizards players have been at MCI Center all summer trying to build chemistry. Just about everybody on the Wizards should be better than they were last season. 

And despite you trying to negate the significance of injuries, that was a HUGE factor. The Wizards had 27 different starting lineups and their 3 best players missed over 100 games. When your trying to learn a new offense and keep having injuries, theirs no way to build any chemistry.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> No, Hinrich doesn't whine, turn the ball over every other possession, jack up ill-advised shots all the time or play poor defense. You don't seem to get what I'm saying. Arenas isn't a loser because he hasn't brought his team to the playoffs, he's a loser because of the way he plays the game and his attitude surrounding it.


He's 22. It's a bit absurd calling him a "loser" before seeing whether he will mature as he gets older and more experience. The things you've said about Arenas could have been said about Kobe Bryant early on. The whining and jacking up ill-advised shots could still be said.

Is Kobe Bryant a loser?

And noting that Bryant played better defense or made fewer bad plays more quickly than Arenas isn't a good response. Bryant is more talented; I think everyone would agree with that. The point is not the precise speed of the growth curve but the fact that maturity and more controlled play can definitely change with time.

And even if the maturity doesn't come, hooking on with good talent and playing very well such that you win something will also cause that "loser" tag to disappear.

So it doesn't make a lot of sense, in my opinion, to call Arenas a loser two starter-seasons into his career. Not liking him is fine...many people didn't like Bryant and still don't, even.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

Wow! I go out of town for a day, and when I come back, I discover that I've never seen Gilbert Arenas play, and that because I like Ron Artest, I'm never allowed to criticize another player for being immature!



> Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
> Also, anyone notice the scrumtious irony in RP McMurphy aka *Artest* Fan berating Arenas for his attitude?
> 
> Artest... Fan. Berating another player. For his attitude.
> ...


You got me. And next time you criticize a player's defense, I'll be sure to point out that you're a hypocrite because your favorite player can't play defense either.

Have you even considered that I wish Artest sometimes had a better attitude too, but I like him as a player anyway? Or is that too complex a point for you to understand? I guess in your world, swince he's my favorite player, that must mean I like everything he does. Next thing you know you'll be accusing *me* of smashing a television camera.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> Wow! I go out of town for a day, and when I come back, I discover that I've never seen Gilbert Arenas play, and that because I like Ron Artest, I'm never allowed to criticize another player for being immature!
> 
> 
> ...


Sort of like how Steve Francis got involved in this thread somehow. Because I like the Magic and Francis is on the Magic and he plays similarly to Arenas, I can't criticize Arenas, I should be making threads criticizing Francis. That's basically what I've been told in this thread.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> He's 22. It's a bit absurd calling him a "loser" before seeing whether he will mature as he gets older and more experience. The things you've said about Arenas could have been said about Kobe Bryant early on. The whining and jacking up ill-advised shots could still be said.
> ...


About the only argument anyone has put forth for Arenas in this thread is that he's only 22 and he'll mature. Newsflash -- Not everyone grows up, and it's not a good sign when you're 22 and immature no matter what way you look at it. Kobe Bryant doesn't fit into the category as Arenas for several reasons. First off, when Kobe first got the chance to play consistent minutes, he did somethings any young player would do, yes, but not like Arenas. Arenas literally fits every single bad trait for a player. Selfish, turnover prone, poor defense, etc. Besides the fact that when Kobe was always on a winning team. Now obviously he'd fit under the category of being in a much better situation, but you can't call someone a loser if they don't lose, regardless of the situation. And while we're on the topic of Kobe, I don't think he's really matured much as a player since he was 22. He's still selfish at times.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> About the only argument anyone has put forth for Arenas in this thread is that he's only 22 and he'll mature. Newsflash -- Not everyone grows up, and it's not a good sign when you're 22 and immature no matter what way you look at it.


Why? Lost of players are pretty immature at 22. And the fact that "not everyone matures" means that Arenas is clearly a loser type?



> Besides the fact that when Kobe was always on a winning team. Now obviously he'd fit under the category of being in a much better situation, but you can't call someone a loser if they don't lose, regardless of the situation.


Okay, then "loser" is fairly meaningless, if quality of team absolves a player. Kobe Bryant, regardless of how erratic or selfish he was, couldn't be a loser because he had Shaquille O'Neal and various other good players on his team.

Arenas, despite playing for the Warriors and Wizards, two perennial losers that were that way long before he joined them, is a loser. But...if he had been drafted by the Spurs, he wouldn't be one. Because "you can't call someone a loser if they don't lose, regardless of the situation."

Not terribly meaningful, then, if a different team drafting you would change you from a "loser" to a "winner" or, at least, "not a loser."

I won't argue it further, then. I thought this was a designation that was purely-player driven, not at all team-driven. This type of "loser" tag doesn't interest me as it didn't interest me when people applied it to Tracy McGrady last season.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Why? Lost of players are pretty immature at 22. And the fact that "not everyone matures" means that Arenas is clearly a loser type?
> ...


Agreed, I won't argue in this thread anymore either. I'll simply let the upcoming season speak for itself.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Okay, then "loser" is fairly meaningless, if quality of team absolves a player. Kobe Bryant, regardless of how erratic or selfish he was, couldn't be a loser because he had Shaquille O'Neal and various other good players on his team.


I agree with this, actually. It rarely happens that a loser is the franchise player on a good team. But it happens all the time that a loser is a role player on a good team. If a team has enough great players around a guy, they'll be good no matter what. I mean, the Pistons were one of the best teams in the East with Jerry Stackhouse one year, and Stackhouse is pretty much the epitome of a loser. Elden Campbell has been a loser his entire career, and he's won a couple of championships. I could think of a lot more examples if I thought about it for awhile.

Being a loser just means you have a style of play that is not conducive to team success. I don't understand why you don't accept that there are players who do that, since just the other day in Johnny Mac's forum you were explaining why it's okay for players to hurt their teams by being selfish.


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> I still had confidence in the Wizards and Arenas last year. I predicted they would make the playoffs as the 8 seed, and they disappointed big time. And it wasn't just the injuries. I don't see how trading a Top 5 pick and Stackhouse for Jamison somehow makes them any better off, much less a playoff team or a Top 5 team in the East. They had plenty of talent last year, and really didn't show any signs of coming together as a team at all. It's not the franchise, it's the players. Arenas takes a good deal of that blame.


So you are basically writing off the Wizards since you predicted them to make the playoffs last year.  

I think the most important thing about this team is that they were inexperienced before and now they are a year older (like Arenas, Hayes, Brown). The effort is certainly there most nights, it's just putting it together with smart basketball. 

I don't see the Wizards being a top a top 5 team as of yet but I think they can contend for the playoffs.

It is not sacriligious to trash talk about Wade like that, even if Wade is a solid player. He is just giving himself a reason to be motivated. You can't blame a guy for being that competive and giving it his all on the court.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> 
> Being a loser just means you have a style of play that is not conducive to team success. I don't understand why you don't accept that there are players who do that


I didn't say there's no such thing as a style of play that is not conducive to team success. I said it was fairly unreasonable to brand a guy a "loser" when he's only had two seasons as a starter. Plenty of players have become less erratic and more unselfish as they've gotten older.



> since just the other day in Johnny Mac's forum you were explaining why it's okay for players to hurt their teams by being selfish.


You know quite well I didn't say that. I said that it wasn't reasonable to expect a player to cripple his own abilities when his livelihood rides on showcasing his skills. The example I gave was railing at a Stephen Jackson type of player for not "accepting" a 15-minute role as a spot-up shooter and defender when he can do a lot more for another team who has the minutes to give him.

The idea I was arguing against was that certain players should not try to "shine" or show all that they can do if their team wants them to do less. That's fine coming from a fan who just wants to see his team do well, but unfair to ask a player who has a right, like any worker in the US, to be as valuable as possible and earn the most money he can.

But athlete double-standards are common. A player leaving one team for another is a "mercenary" while a programmer leaving one company for more money at another company is being smart.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> You got me. And next time you criticize a player's defense, I'll be sure to point out that you're a hypocrite because your favorite player can't play defense either.


If you're actually trying to compare that to what you're doing, you won't see me saying that a certain player is a flat-out horrible defender because he did a poor defensive job in one single game.

And Ray Allen can't play defense? Goodness gracious great balls of fire.



> Have you even considered that I wish Artest sometimes had a better attitude too, but I like him as a player anyway? Or is that too complex a point for you to understand? I guess in your world, swince he's my favorite player, that must mean I like everything he does. Next thing you know you'll be accusing *me* of smashing a television camera.


When you viciously lambast Arenas and are so quick to label him an immature, childish kid because of a *single* game in which he conveys immaturity, and your favorite player's attitude is so rotten that he literally makes Arenas look like a Sportsmanship award winner... well, it makes you look rather silly. You can criticize, but you've taken it to another level. I mean, really, it was just one game.

It's kind of like a huge Stackhouse fan degrading Antoine Walker by continually pointing out that he's a "team cancer".

And what's with the the weak, baseless generalizations, anyway? Arenas has a single game where he lets off-the-court squabbles get on the court, and he's a childish, immature brat with no hope for change. Arenas hasn't had *team* success, and let's also ignore the fact that he's only played three seasons with two perennial lottery teams, the guy's simply a loser with a loser mentality. I love it. And the latter was coming from a T-Mac/Orlando fan, no less.

You'll have to do better than that. I expect better from you and hobo. This thread has been a bit eye-opening.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
> If you're actually trying to compare that to what you're doing, you won't see me saying that a certain player is a flat-out horrible defender because he did a poor defensive job in one single game.
> 
> And Ray Allen can't play defense? Goodness gracious great balls of fire.
> ...


I think the point people are making is that it's senseless to present a series of ad hominems as defense in an argument.

I agree with your stance that Arenas isn't a loser, and that he'll impress a lot of people this year, but the execution is extremely flawed.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
> When you viciously lambast Arenas and are so quick to label him an immature, childish kid because of a *single* game in which he conveys immaturity, and your favorite player's attitude is so rotten that he literally makes Arenas look like a Sportsmanship award winner... well, it makes you look rather silly. You can criticize, but you've taken it to another level. I mean, really, it was just one game.


You've got it backwards. Artest is the player who has a rotten attitude in one game every now and then. Last year, there were really only two games when he hurt the Pacers by throwing a tantrum: Game 6 of the Eastern Conference Finals, and a regular season game against the Nets in December. Doesn't mean I like it when he hurts the team, but the majority of the time, he's the emotional leader of one of the best teams in the NBA. He's a winner.

Arenas is the player with a bad attitude the majority of the time. If I remember correctly, that stunt where he didn't take a shot until the fourth quarter came near the end of a weeks-long spat with Kwame Brown over shot selection. When Eddie Jordan finally stepped in and took Kwame's side, Arenas had his pout-fest the next game.

You're trivializing the point when you accuse me of basing my opinions off that one game. Arenas has a bad attitude because he's a selfish player who doesn't play within himself and who gets into fights with his teammates over shot selection. You don't see me saying Kevin Garnett has a bad attitude just because he cost his team a game last year by throwing the ball into the stands and getting himself ejected. That's because the vast majority of the time, Garnett is the consummate team player.



> You'll have to do better than that. I expect better from you and hobo. This thread has been a bit eye-opening.


Yeah, and I tend to expect a little more from a moderator than the condescension that's been dripping from your posts in this thread.

When the Wizards are in the lottery again next year, and Arenas is a big reason why, I'll bring up this thread, and hopefully that'll teach you to show a little respect.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I didn't say there's no such thing as a style of play that is not conducive to team success. I said it was fairly unreasonable to brand a guy a "loser" when he's only had two seasons as a starter. Plenty of players have become less erratic and more unselfish as they've gotten older.


Well, you've said in the past that there's no such thing as "winners" and "losers." Yes, there's obviously no such thing as a player who automatically makes a team great (or terrible), but that doesn't mean distinguishing between winners and losers has no merit. Larry Brown always talks about playing the right way. That means sacrificing your individual goals and doing whatever it takes to win. That's what I'm talking about when I use those words.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, you've said in the past that there's no such thing as "winners" and "losers." Yes, there's obviously no such thing as a player who automatically makes a team great (or terrible), but that doesn't mean distinguishing between winners and losers has no merit.


Whenever I've argued you about "winners" and "losers," I've argued your contention that they are proven to be "losers" due to the success (or lack thereof) of the teams they've been on.

That isn't a logical argument, to me. If a player has been on untalented teams, it stands to reason he will be on losing teams...winner or loser.

A player like Jerry Stackhouse I would say is a loser, due to some incredible stunts he has pulled, due to the fact that his numbers are undercut by things like terrible shooting percentage.

If Arenas continues to play like this for years, I can understand a sentiment that he's not a player who helps in team success. But I think he's made a lot of progress for his two years of starter experience and has some time to go before being written off.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PhillyPhanatic</b>!
> 
> 
> I think the point people are making is that it's senseless to present a series of ad hominems as defense in an argument.
> ...


I believe it's relevent to this debate. You have to consider the source in every argument. I never once said RP has no knowledge of the subject and isn't fit to talk about Arenas.

I was merely pointing out that when a person demonizes a player off of a single negative incident in his very short career, and his favorite player is notorious for throwing temper tantrums, it should be noted.

I said he could criticize. However, the manner in which he seemingly loathes Arenas is curious (particularly after having read through that other thread), and I believe it has to be questioned.

Let's say, hypothetically, that I'm arguing that Allen Iverson is a team cancer. I continuously point out that Iverson has had an incident where he cursed out a ref and got himself ejected, costing his team a win (once again, hypothetically). I stick that as my main reason as to why he's a cancer, and continuously refer to it in my arguments. You're arguing against me. My favorite player, which I've made no secret of, happens to be Rasheed Wallace. Wouldn't you mention that?



> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> 
> 
> You've got it backwards. Artest is the player who has a rotten attitude in one game every now and then. Last year, there were really only two games when he hurt the Pacers by throwing a tantrum: Game 6 of the Eastern Conference Finals, and a regular season game against the Nets in December. Doesn't mean I like it when he hurts the team, but the majority of the time, he's the emotional leader of one of the best teams in the NBA. He's a winner.
> ...


Yet, you're still mainly basing Arenas' "selfish and immature" attitude off of a single incident with a teammate that ended with him not shooting the ball for the first 3 quarters, aren't you?

If you're not basing your opinions off that lone game, what else? You haven't mentioned anything else at all. You continously refer back to his hissy fit with Kwame. Is there nothing else? And why does Kwame get a free pass in all this? He's the one who took it to the media.

It's pretty amazing. The guy is only 22 years old, has played three NBA seasons (only 2 as a starter) for two horrible franchises, and he's already a perennial, selfish loser with a horrible attitude who is detrimental to whatever team he's on. In the famous words of the fella in my avatar: "what the deuce?"

I feel the need to point out Minstrel's earlier, effective, sarcastic post on that matter.

You said it yourself: Artest hurt the Pacers in two games last season because of temper tantrums (and what about previous seasons, when he was much worse?), and one was an important ECF game, no less. Arenas, in his lone "temper tantrum", didn't even ultimately hurt his team as they ended up winning that game. A meaningless game. Yet he's a horrible, selfish child with no hope of ever changing.

I honestly don't get your argument.



> Yeah, and I tend to expect a little more from a moderator than the condescension that's been dripping from your posts in this thread.


You've got it all wrong. I'm not try to be condescending, and I apologize if I sound that way. I'm genuinely baffled at some of the arguments presented here on the "Arenas is a loser with a bad attitude" side, particularly since both you and hobojoe are generally very intelligent and respectable posters.



> When the Wizards are in the lottery again next year, and Arenas is a big reason why, I'll bring up this thread, and hopefully that'll teach you to show a little respect.


Why would Arenas be a "big reason" why? Why not Kwame? Why not Hughes? Why not Jamison? Why not Eddie Jordan? Why not the mascot? Why not anyone else?

Why do you feel the need to single out Arenas? Why does he get so much of the blame? He's merely one player.

What about T-Mac? His team won 19 games last season. Demonize him.

As I and others have *consistently* reiterated throughout this entire thread, it's a team game.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Why? Lost of players are pretty immature at 22. And the fact that "not everyone matures" means that Arenas is clearly a loser type?


No, that wasn't my point at all. My point is that you(and others) keep bringing up his age like it automatically discounts for all of his negatives. 




> Okay, then "loser" is fairly meaningless, if quality of team absolves a player. Kobe Bryant, regardless of how erratic or selfish he was, couldn't be a loser because he had Shaquille O'Neal and various other good players on his team.


Wrong. I said he couldn't be a loser because of how the team fared when he became a main player on the team, not when he was on the end of the bench. 



> Arenas, despite playing for the Warriors and Wizards, two perennial losers that were that way long before he joined them, is a loser. But...if he had been drafted by the Spurs, he wouldn't be one. Because "you can't call someone a loser if they don't lose, regardless of the situation."


No. I guarantee the Spurs wouldn't have won the title if they had Arenas instead of Parker. 



> Not terribly meaningful, then, if a different team drafting you would change you from a "loser" to a "winner" or, at least, "not a loser."


It doesn't change you from a loser to a non-loser, it'll just take longer to be exposed as a loser if you get to ride someone like Duncan or Shaq's coattail. After a while though, a guy like Kobe proved he could play and contribute to a team's success, whereas Arenas hasn't proved that and wouldn't have proved it on the Spurs regardless of what they accomplished.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>f22egl</b>!
> 
> 
> So you are basically writing off the Wizards since you predicted them to make the playoffs last year.


Not at all, you're obviously just taking my statement out of context to try and make me look like a hater, which was actually my point in saying that I predicted them to be in the playoffs last season-- I'm not a hater. Arenas really didn't impress me last season though, and I'm skeptical of him as a person and a player, as well as other things such as defense and Kwame/Jamison coexisting. 



> I think the most important thing about this team is that they were inexperienced before and now they are a year older (like Arenas, Hayes, Brown). The effort is certainly there most nights, it's just putting it together with smart basketball.


Again, a year older doesn't mean anything necessarily. How many years have the Bulls got a year older and still sucked? I doubt Jarvis Hayes has as good of a year as he did last season, you can quote me on that. Arenas got worse from age 21 to 22, how is it impossible he doesn't get worse again or just doesn't get better? Brown is injured right now, who knows how he'll recover or how he'll adjust to playing with Jamison.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

From the Washinington Post-

'During the offseason Grunfeld has received reports from MCI Center security personnel that Arenas arrives as late as 10:30 p.m., or as early as 7:30 a.m.,

"I know that other players are out partying while I'm putting in extra time developing my skills," said Arenas, a three-point shooter who has worked on adding a mid-range jump shot to his game. '

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3159-2004Oct2.html

And from NBA.com

Eddie Jordan has targeted a field goal percentage north of .420 for Arenas this season, a mark that if reached will result in more than a few opponents feeling smoked. Arenas will also work on limiting his turnovers this season after finishing second in the league in turnovers per game a year ago. As the Wizards look to place an increased emphasis on team defense this season, Arenas will be instrumental in setting a defensive tone with his pressure and an example with his help defense. With a year under Jordan under his belt, Arenas returns as the floor general of the Wizards, looking to fulfill a talent which nobody doubts.

http://www.nba.com/wizards/news/0405preview_guards.html

- Definetly sounds like a player that's going to get worse. The future especially seems dim for Arenas when you consider that he's actually reconized what his weaknesses are and has been working all summer to improve on them. What a loser.


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> Again, a year older doesn't mean anything necessarily. How many years have the Bulls got a year older and still sucked? I doubt Jarvis Hayes has as good of a year as he did last season, you can quote me on that. Arenas got worse from age 21 to 22, how is it impossible he doesn't get worse again or just doesn't get better? Brown is injured right now, who knows how he'll recover or how he'll adjust to playing with Jamison.


Yes, everyone is a stud their first year and they don't get better. :no: 

Jarvis Hayes looks like he will be good. He a good jump shooter and a tremendous athlete. One question to ask though if he'll follow the Richard Hamilton path. To counter your Arenas argument, Arenas became a better player his 2nd year. 

Areanas did have an off year, but that does not mean he's done. Injuries played a factor as well as learning Eddie Jordan's new offense. He still needs to work hard, most importantly on his pg skill, which he has been doing this entire offseason. 

As for the Bulls, if they held on to their talent, they would at least been a decent team. Look at what they have had the past couple of years: Elton Brand, Brad Miller, Ron Artest, and Trenton Hassell. 

Those are good questions about chemistry between Kwame and Jamison and those should be answered once the season progresses. Still, Jamison may not have to do that much with the interior defense if he plays small forward but then again that remains to be seen.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
> I believe it's relevent to this debate. You have to consider the source in every argument. I never once said RP has no knowledge of the subject and isn't fit to talk about Arenas.
> 
> I was merely pointing out that when a person demonizes a player off of a single negative incident in his very short career, and his favorite player is notorious for throwing temper tantrums, it should be noted.
> ...


The thing about taking such a stance, is assuming that RP McMurphy doesn't think Artest should mature and stop his outbursts. If he was okay with Artest's outbursts, and actually approved of them, while looking down on Arenas' action it'd be a whole different party.

I never got into bringing up other players(or things) into arguments, because that's what my brother always bombarded me with, and it always angered me. All I do is attack the situation at hand.



> Let's say, hypothetically, that I'm arguing that Allen Iverson is a team cancer. I continuously point out that Iverson has had an incident where he cursed out a ref and got himself ejected, costing his team a win (once again, hypothetically). I stick that as my main reason as to why he's a cancer, and continuously refer to it in my arguments. You're arguing against me. My favorite player, which I've made no secret of, happens to be Rasheed Wallace. Wouldn't you mention that?


Well this is tough, because as others can testify, I was *this* close to calling AI a cancer when he sat out that game last season. But since this is a hypothetical, I'll get into a hypothetical character who would get offended in such a situation..

And I still don't think I'd bring up Rasheed, because that's not effective. There's enough proof in the pudding with players to not have to derail a topic. Also, even in his days in Portland I wouldn't call Rasheed a cancer.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>f22egl</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, everyone is a stud their first year and they don't get better. :no:


Not every player gets better after their rookie season, or puts up as big stats. I'm willing to bet Hayes isn't going to put up the stats he did last season, mostly because if Washington's smart they won't play him. He's their 5th best scorer probably, and they aren't going to be needing more points this season, they'll be needing defense.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> No, that wasn't my point at all. My point is that you(and others) keep bringing up his age like it automatically discounts for all of his negatives.


I've never said that. I've been arguing this absurd assertion that two seasons show Arenas will never be a player who leads to team success.



> Wrong. I said he couldn't be a loser because of how the team fared when he became a main player on the team, not when he was on the end of the bench.


Doesn't matter. If team success makes you a non-loser, no matter how you play, it's a meaningless distinction.



> No. I guarantee the Spurs wouldn't have won the title if they had Arenas instead of Parker.


I didn't say they would have. But would the Spurs have been losing team with Arenas? Of course not, not with Duncan, Bowen, etc. So Arenas couldn't have been called a loser. Because he wouldn't have lost. Despite being precisely the same guy. Just shows, again, how meaningless this "loser" label is.



> After a while though, a guy like Kobe proved he could play and contribute to a team's success, whereas Arenas hasn't proved that


After two seasons. Yet he's a "loser." You're the type of person who would have labelled Jordan a loser in 1987, a "glory stat" guy. Why don't you give Arenas that "after a while" that Kobe has used to prove he could be a player that makes a team much better?

Why do you have so much trouble admitting that we don't have enough information on Arenas yet? Do you *really* believe two seasons as a starter, from ages 20-22, tell us all we need to know about a player's overall character?

To re-iterate my stance: I've never said it's a certainty that Arenas will become more consistant and mature. I've been saying that it's *way* too early in his career to know what he's going to be, a tremendous winning team player or a Jerry Stackhouse or something in between. I'm baffled as to why this is such a controversial stand.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PhillyPhanatic</b>!
> 
> 
> The thing about taking such a stance, is assuming that RP McMurphy doesn't think Artest should mature and stop his outbursts. If he was okay with Artest's outbursts, and actually approved of them, while looking down on Arenas' action it'd be a whole different party.


He's said himself he doesn't condone Artest's actions. I have no problem with that. That's not the issue.

What I have a problem with is how he relentlessly badgers Arenas because of his fight with Kwame and it leading to negative on-the-court behavior, and he doesn't seem to want to give Arenas even the *chance* to mature. Arenas is apparently a selfish brat-for-life because he didn't shoot for the first three quarters in one game. When his favorite player has had more than his share of negative on-the-court behavior, his seemingly unflappable low opinion of Arenas is very curious, especially when Arenas is only 22 and has only played three NBA seasons. How can you form such an adamant and unforgiving opinion of a guy in such a short amount of time, when he's barely had any depictions of immaturity? It's baffling. 



> Well this is tough, because as others can testify, I was *this* close to calling AI a cancer when he sat out that game last season. But since this is a hypothetical, I'll get into a hypothetical character who would get offended in such a situation..
> 
> And I still don't think I'd bring up Rasheed, because that's not effective. There's enough proof in the pudding with players to not have to derail a topic. Also, even in his days in Portland I wouldn't call Rasheed a cancer.


It's not really derailing the topic. You're not going off-topic. You're still debating whether or not Iverson is a cancer. You're just considering the source of the argument.

And Rasheed wouldn't be brought up because he's a "cancer" in that particular example, he'd be brought up because of his incidents with refs.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I've never said that. I've been arguing this absurd assertion that two seasons show Arenas will never be a player who leads to team success.


You never flat out said it, but you're implying it. 



> Doesn't matter. If team success makes you a non-loser, no matter how you play, it's a meaningless distinction.


It certainly does matter. Read on...



> I didn't say they would have. But would the Spurs have been losing team with Arenas? Of course not, not with Duncan, Bowen, etc. So Arenas couldn't have been called a loser. Because he wouldn't have lost. Despite being precisely the same guy. Just shows, again, how meaningless this "loser" label is.


No, they wouldn't have been a losing team. I wouldn't have been able to label him as a loser at this point in his career if the Spurs had drafted him, but that doesn't change that he's still a loser. It would've just taken more time for him to have been exposed. At some point or another, whether it be a trade, free agency, a Duncan injury, etc., when Arenas had to be "the man" or lead his team, he would've shown the loser he is. Plain and simple. 



> After two seasons. Yet he's a "loser." You're the type of person who would have labelled Jordan a loser in 1987, a "glory stat" guy. Why don't you give Arenas that "after a while" that Kobe has used to prove he could be a player that makes a team much better?


I would've labelled Jordan a loser? How can you say that. Comparing him to Arenas is ridiculous, even in the context of this argument. He was a completely different player when he was younger. 



> Why do you have so much trouble admitting that we don't have enough information on Arenas yet? Do you *really* believe two seasons as a starter, from ages 20-22, tell us all we need to know about a player's overall character?


Because I think we do have enough information. Come back to me when Arenas has done anything to prove me wrong.



> To re-iterate my stance: I've never said it's a certainty that Arenas will become more consistant and mature. I've been saying that it's *way* too early in his career to know what he's going to be, a tremendous winning team player or a Jerry Stackhouse or something in between. I'm baffled as to why this is such a controversial stand.


To reiterate my stance: Arenas is a loser. Not just because he's immature, selfish, inconsistent, turnover prone, a stat-padder, has a questionable attitude, and has never shown that he has a positive impact on the team in terms of W/L. It's a combination of all of that, which outweighs the good. While opporunity certainly can affect one being labeled as a loser, it doesn't change whether he is one or not. 

Personally, I'm baffled as to why you overrate point guards like Arenas. You've said you think Arenas is a franchise player, you've said you think Marbury is a Top 10 player in the league and the best(or tied with Kidd) point guard in the league. When was the last time Marbury, Arenas, Francis, Baron Davis or anyone like that led their team deep into the playoffs? At one point or another, all of them have had talent around them too. Team's don't win championshipa with their leading scorer playing point guard, it's simply not a recipe for success. Those guys are nice for stats and all, and maybe getting their team to the playoffs, but not for winning titles. Unless Arenas can follow the path of Chauncey Billups and "get it" after a while, he'll always be a loser. But Billups is not the norm, Marbury and Francis are the norm. That's the path I see Arenas going.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> You never flat out said it, but you're implying it.


Certainly not. I don't even believe it, so I would definitely not imply it.



> I would've labelled Jordan a loser? How can you say that.


Because he was also branded selfish and a stat-padder who didn't lead his team anywhere. Sounds pretty similar to your charges against Arenas.

And the fact that Jordan was clearly more talented than Arenas is, is irrelevant to the point.



> Because I think we do have enough information.


After two seasons as a starter. That's fairly ridiculous. After two seasons, Tracy McGrady was viewed as a bust. Two seasons prove exactly nothing.



> When was the last time Marbury, Arenas, Francis, Baron Davis or anyone like that led their team deep into the playoffs?


When was the last time Tracy McGrady did? How can you call him a top-5 player? He's a loser.



> At one point or another, all of them have had talent around them too.


When did Arenas have talent around him? The only time Marbury had some talent around him, he took them into the playoffs and faced the Spurs, who won the championship that year. Marbury is a loser because he couldn't upset the NBA champions? Beyond that, he really *hasn't* had talent.

Usually your views are highly logical, but you seem determined to throw rationality out the window on this one...it's quite obvious that no player's proven to be a loser after only two seasons as a starter, yet you refuse to admit that. It's quite obvious that team accomplishments are not a good measure of individual abilities or attitude and yet you won't admit that (in this argument..in other arguments, you'll freely admit it).


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> Unless Arenas can follow the path of Chauncey Billups and "get it" after a while, he'll always be a loser. But Billups is not the norm, Marbury and Francis are the norm. That's the path I see Arenas going.


Yep. It hardly ever happens that a player is selfish and has a bad attitude early in his career, then becomes a winner later on. Chauncey Billups is a very rare exception.

That's why I don't have a problem with labeling a guy a loser at the age of 22. In general, I think most fans wait *too long* to give up on players. There are still people out there waiting for Tim Thomas to become a star.

Certainty is always elusive, and maybe Gilbert Arenas is one of the rare guys who will change. But I'm not going to refrain from forming an opinion on a player, just because some people believe it's too early to do so.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> 
> 
> Yep. It hardly ever happens that a player is selfish and has a bad attitude early in his career, then becomes a winner later on. Chauncey Billups is a very rare exception.


Kobe Bryant (and if he still counts as a loser, then I'm sure many GMs would like to have some losers with that sort of talent), Chris Webber, Rasheed Wallace, Jason Kidd are some others I can think of off-hand.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> 
> 
> Yep. It hardly ever happens that a player is selfish and has a bad attitude early in his career, then becomes a winner later on. Chauncey Billups is a very rare exception.
> ...


So then, like Minstrel's been saying, you would've been one of the people who labeled MJ a selfish loser in the 80's.

Because you don't want to wait. Isn't that right?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Because he was also branded selfish and a stat-padder who didn't lead his team anywhere. Sounds pretty similar to your charges against Arenas.


Again, it's not _just_ those two things, it's a combination of all his negative attributes. 



> And the fact that Jordan was clearly more talented than Arenas is, is irrelevant to the point.


How so? Being a loser is not merely a mental thing, it has a great deal to do with physical abilities too. Talent certainly does come into the equation.



> After two seasons as a starter. That's fairly ridiculous. After two seasons, Tracy McGrady was viewed as a bust. Two seasons prove exactly nothing.


Nice try, but let's look at Tracy McGrady's first two years as a starter, since that's what we're basing Arenas on. Thanks. 



> When did Arenas have talent around him?


Last year? The year before that? Hughes, Kwame Brown and Stackhouse isn't talent? Or Jamison, Troy Murphy and J-Rich in Golden State? 



> The only time Marbury had some talent around him, he took them into the playoffs and faced the Spurs, who won the championship that year. Marbury is a loser because he couldn't upset the NBA champions? Beyond that, he really *hasn't* had talent.


Kevin Garnett isn't talent? Marbury would still be on the T'Wolves if he weren't so selfish and immature at the time. 



> Usually your views are highly logical, but you seem determined to throw rationality out the window on this one...it's quite obvious that no player's proven to be a loser after only two seasons as a starter, yet you refuse to admit that. It's quite obvious that team accomplishments are not a good measure of individual abilities or attitude and yet you won't admit that (in this argument..in other arguments, you'll freely admit it).


How is it quite obvious? Because you say it is? I'm still not understanding how you find it infathomable for someone to prove that they're a loser after two seasons. I'm not seeing it. I've explained the correlation between team accomplshments and being a loser several times already. Go back and read my last post.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> How so? Being a loser is not merely a mental thing, it has a great deal to do with physical abilities too. Talent certainly does come into the equation.


Physical abilities impact being a "loser"? So now, being under-talented is part (not all) of being a loser? Honestly, this is getting a little bit strange.



> Nice try, but let's look at Tracy McGrady's first two years as a starter, since that's what we're basing Arenas on. Thanks.


All right, fine. Fair point.



> Last year? The year before that? Hughes, Kwame Brown and Stackhouse isn't talent? Or Jamison, Troy Murphy and J-Rich in Golden State?


Really? You honestly considered the Wizards and Warriors "talented" teams last year and the year before? Somehow I highly, highly doubt if a Warriors fan in 2002 or a Wizards fan in 2003 said that their team was a talented one, you'd have agreed wih them.

I think you're taking the position of convenience for this argument here. Very few people considered those two teams "talented" or expected them to be winners.



> Kevin Garnett isn't talent? Marbury would still be on the T'Wolves if he weren't so selfish and immature at the time.


Kevin Garnett at that time was a good, not great, player. And now you're *really* reaching. Nobody considered the Timberwolves, back then, a good or talented team, taking Marbury out (since we're talking about the talent surrounding Marbury).

And it's highly unfair to say Marbury was immature and selfish to leave the Timberwolves. The Timberwolves weren't willing to pay him nearly as much as the Nets. Is every worker who leaves his job to take a much-better paying job a selfish and immature jerk? The free market is for everyone except athletes? That's not reasonable in any fashion.



> How is it quite obvious? Because you say it is? I'm still not understanding how you find it infathomable for someone to prove that they're a loser after two seasons. I'm not seeing it.


No, not because I say it is. Because one's first two seasons as a starter, when one is still developing, are a poor sample of one's entire career. One's prime is a much better sample of one's career.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Physical abilities impact being a "loser"? So now, being under-talented is part (not all) of being a loser? Honestly, this is getting a little bit strange.


So a guy who sucks, but has a great attitude is a winner regardless of much he sucks? I don't think so, you win with talent above all. 



> Really? You honestly considered the Wizards and Warriors "talented" teams last year and the year before? Somehow I highly, highly doubt if a Warriors fan in 2002 or a Wizards fan in 2003 said that their team was a talented one, you'd have agreed wih them.


Yes, I would've actually. I predicted Washington to make the playoffs last season, I obviously thought they were a talented team. 



> I think you're taking the position of convenience for this argument here. Very few people considered those two teams "talented" or expected them to be winners.


The Wizards received some hype after they signed Arenas last season. 



> No, not because I say it is. Because one's first two seasons as a starter, when one is still developing, are a poor sample of one's entire career. One's prime is a much better sample of one's career.


So you're suggesting someone can't be judged at all as a player until they've reached their prime? How does that make any more sense to you than what I'm saying?


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Kobe Bryant (and if he still counts as a loser, then I'm sure many GMs would like to have some losers with that sort of talent), Chris Webber, Rasheed Wallace, Jason Kidd are some others I can think of off-hand.


Kobe Bryant started out as a very selfish player, and he still is one! He's just so damn talented that he can make a team very good anyway.

Chris Webber had such a positive impact early in his career that he carried the Bullets to the playoffs with Juwan Howard on the team! One of the worst franchises in modern history and one of the biggest losers in modern history. That franchise hasn't made the playoffs since. I've called Webber a loser before, but that's because he chokes in the clutch, he's a great regular season player.

Jason Kidd joined a Mavericks team that the season before was one of the worst NBA teams of all time, and he at least made them respectable. He's always been a winner. He was a coach killer, so you could say he had a little bit of a bad attitude, but he still *is* a coach killer, so he hasn't changed.



> Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
> 
> So then, like Minstrel's been saying, you would've been one of the people who labeled MJ a selfish loser in the 80's.
> 
> Because you don't want to wait. Isn't that right?


Possibly. And if so, I would have been wrong. You don't have a point, since I acknowledged that if you judge a player early in his career, you're occasionally going to be wrong.

If someone is arguing that an event -- such as a player losing a bad attitude -- is very rare, one example to the contrary doesn't get you anywhere. But if you want to argue examples, I'll keep it on that level.

Jerry Stackhouse started out as a selfish player that doesn't help a team win as much as he should have with his talent, and he didn't change. Neither did Juwan Howard. Or Isaiah Rider. Or Glenn Robinson. Or Damon Stoudamire. Or Steve Francis. Or Shareef Abdur-Rahim. Or Ron Mercer. Or Tim Thomas. Or Maurice Taylor.

In general, looking at the entire set of NBA players, rather than a cherry-picked example who just happens to be the consensus greatest of all time, most players who are losers early in their career, stay losers. So I'll judge Arenas as I please, and if that lowers your opinion of me as a poster, I don't care. I don't like to wait until a player is 28 before I decide what I think of him.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> So a guy who sucks, but has a great attitude is a winner regardless of much he sucks? I don't think so, you win with talent above all.


I'm really not understanding how you're using "winner" and "loser." I thought "loser" generally referred to attitude, not talent (skill, physical traits).



> Yes, I would've actually. I predicted Washington to make the playoffs last season, I obviously thought they were a talented team.


Well, first, I don't think many would have. But more importantly, Kwame Brown wasn't a major force and Larry Hughes and Jerry Stackhouse were both injured for major portions of the year. Is that Arenas' fault?



> The Wizards received some hype after they signed Arenas last season.


That was before all the injuries. And we're talking about the talent around Arenas, so Arenas is not part of that.



> So you're suggesting someone can't be judged at all as a player until they've reached their prime? How does that make any more sense to you than what I'm saying?


No. I'm saying that their character cannot be nailed down in their first couple of seasons. There's still too much development that *could* happen (note...not guaranteed to happen). Therefore, there's still too much uncertainty at that point in a player's career.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> 
> Possibly. And if so, I would have been wrong. You don't have a point, since I acknowledged that if you judge a player early in his career, you're occasionally going to be wrong.
> 
> ...


You never answered my previous question: what else has Arenas done to deserve being categorized with the group of players you mentioned? You refer constantly to his debacle with Kwame, but not really anything else. And also: what exactly makes him selfish? Because he shoots a lot? He was forced to do so last season.

The players you mentioned weren't judged as cancerous losers their first two seasons in the league, were they?

Also, with the possible exception of Francis, Arenas has much more basketball talent than any of them. And by all accounts, he's actually looking to personally improve and help his team win. 

Did those players you mentioned care enough to play through painful injuries? Arenas played through a severely strained stomach muscle last season, which he twice re-aggravated by returning to the court *too early*. By contrast, Stackhouse refused to even play a lot of the end of last season (until he was pretty much forced to do so by management) because he just didn't feel like it, and that's after he had already missed nearly the entire season.

And this has no bearing on what I think of you as a poster. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> No. I'm saying that their character cannot be nailed down in their first couple of seasons. There's still too much development that *could* happen (note...not guaranteed to happen). Therefore, there's still too much uncertainty at that point in a player's career.


OK, so if you're willing to give me that, why is it still so unfathomable for me to have formed my opinion of Arenas already? Maybe you haven't given up on him, or you think he's going to change, but I don't. Why can't you understand that?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> 
> Kobe Bryant started out as a very selfish player, and he still is one! He's just so damn talented that he can make a team very good anyway.


So you count Kobe Bryant a "loser"? A highly talented one, but still a loser?



> Chris Webber had such a positive impact early in his career that he carried the Bullets to the playoffs with Juwan Howard on the team! One of the worst franchises in modern history and one of the biggest losers in modern history. That franchise hasn't made the playoffs since. I've called Webber a loser before, but that's because he chokes in the clutch, he's a great regular season player.


In his Warriors and Bullets years, he was viewed as a malcontent. There's a reason his incredibly talented *** was traded twice in a league where such talented, powerful, athletic big men are gold. He shed that image in Sacramento...after grousing about trade and saying he'd leave the Kings immediately after the year, he found he gelled with Jason Williams and Vlade Divac, so he became sunny Chris Webber. And the biggest part of highly-successful teams.



> Jason Kidd joined a Mavericks team that the season before was one of the worst NBA teams of all time, and he at least made them respectable. He's always been a winner. He was a coach killer, so you could say he had a little bit of a bad attitude, but he still is a coach killer, so he hasn't changed.


Kidd was also seen as a malcontent with the Mavericks. He clashed with teammates which I don't recall as a problem throughout his career. In fact, his taking Jefferson and Martin under his wing was quite different from his early days in Dallas.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> OK, so if you're willing to give me that, why is it still so unfathomable for me to have formed my opinion of Arenas already? Maybe you haven't given up on him, or you think he's going to change, but I don't. Why can't you understand that?


But that's the thing. Minstrel hasn't formed an opinion. He's simply saying it's too early to tell. You, however, have already completely judged Arenas.

To use a religion analogy, concerning this debate, Minstrel and I are the agnostics while you and RP are the religious zealots.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> OK, so if you're willing to give me that, why is it still so unfathomable for me to have formed my opinion of Arenas already? Maybe you haven't given up on him, or you think he's going to change, but I don't. Why can't you understand that?


I do understand you've given up on him. Just like I understand that many people consider Tracy McGrady an unclutch loser or that many people thought Rasheed Wallace was a loser.

I just think those are illogical stances. In my opinion. That's different from not understanding your opinion.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Hobo, put this in your sig-

"Gilbert Arenas will prove me wrong this year".


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> From the Washinington Post-
> 
> 'During the offseason Grunfeld has received reports from MCI Center security personnel that Arenas arrives as late as 10:30 p.m., or as early as 7:30 a.m.,
> ...


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> But that's the thing. Minstrel hasn't formed an opinion. He's simply saying it's too early to tell. You, however, have already completely judged Arenas.


You don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that my opinion is that it's never to early to form an opinion, whereas Minstrel was saying you have to wait until a guy is in his prime to form one. That's where we disagree.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> You don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that my opinion is that it's never to early to form an opinion, whereas Minstrel was saying you have to wait until a guy is in his prime to form one. That's where we disagree.


I see. Well then, it's simply a difference of opinion.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

...I'm stunned. Are you really telling me that Arenas is a loser because he can't lead a team consisting of Larry Hughes, Jarvis Hayes, Kwame Brown and Brandon Haywood to a winning record? I'm sorry, but put any point guard last year with the exception of Kidd, in that same situation, and you would get the same results.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Maybe next year champ.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

The Wiz's defense was just horrible, I give Wade alot of props, he had a monster game. I think when we get some interior defense back Wade won't have such an easy time.

Arenas didn't have a bad game, he had 20 second half points and 12 straight points in the 4th quarter. For some odd reason he didn't look to score in the first half.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> The Wiz's defense was just horrible, I give Wade alot of props, he had a monster game. I think when we get some interior defense back Wade won't have such an easy time.
> 
> Arenas didn't have a bad game, he had 20 second half points and 12 straight points in the 4th quarter. For some odd reason he didn't look to score in the first half.


but according to him all the heat got is shaq.....  

yet Wade and EJ are the ones that lit them up, while shaq was on the bench a lot of the game. Haslem took some big charges, got some big rebounds, and Doleac and Rasual each hit some big shots, some early in the game, and some later one.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>wadeshaqeddie</b>!
> 
> 
> but according to him all the heat got is shaq.....
> ...


I'm more impressed with the Heat now, but the Wiz's defense will be much better when we have Kwame/Haywood/Etan. I mean we had Jared Jeffries guarding Shaq in the last few minutes. I'm still encouraged by the Wiz, it was anybodys game in the last 2 minutes before Eddie Jones hit a backbreaker.


----------



## DaBigTicketKG21 (Apr 27, 2003)

Arenas got schooled. Actions speak louder than words. Arenas:laugh:


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm more impressed with the Heat now, but the Wiz's defense will be much better when we have Kwame/Haywood/Etan. I mean we had Jared Jeffries guarding Shaq in the last few minutes. I'm still encouraged by the Wiz, it was anybodys game in the last 2 minutes before Eddie Jones hit a backbreaker.


dont get me wrong, the wiz definately impressed me tonight. Even though shaq was ineffective a lot of the game because of foul troubles and hammy. You played tough, put on an offensive show, and could have stolen a game from us. The wiz looked good out there

but its time to laugh at arenas' comments. All the heat have is shaq:laugh: 

do it with me now:laugh: 

:laugh:

We have another star in wade, a really good player in jones, and the perfect role players around him. I think its safe to say Gil is never going to be a gm


----------



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>wadeshaqeddie</b>!
> We have another star in wade, a really good player in jones, and the perfect role players around him. I think its safe to say Gil is never going to be a gm


Yep!
Miami actually has some young athletic role players instead of the old and slow role players the Lakers had the last 2 years.


----------



## Half-aMAziNg (Oct 16, 2004)

Wade >>> Arenas


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Chi§e³</b>!
> Wade >>> Arenas


Exactly, 2 different class of player


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>wadeshaqeddie</b>!
> 
> 
> dont get me wrong, the wiz definately impressed me tonight. Even though shaq was ineffective a lot of the game because of foul troubles and hammy. You played tough, put on an offensive show, and could have stolen a game from us. The wiz looked good out there
> ...


Yeah Wade is becoming a legit star. He's been putting up Kobe numbers the last 3 games.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

You can say whatever, but Wade went for 37 and 12 dimes. That's a thorough *** kicking if I have ever seen one. 

And they rolled up 118 points. Jeez.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> You can say whatever, but Wade went for 37 and 12 dimes. That's a thorough *** kicking if I have ever seen one.
> 
> And they rolled up 118 points. Jeez.


Wiz defense= :no:


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Not to mention 11-16 from the field, which is amazing efficiency, and 14-16 from the free throw which just shows me nobody could guard him and had to foul him. Wade seems to respond well to these challenges without ever even acknowledging them. I like that.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Wiz defense= :no:


Well I told you in the off-season that the Wiz are going to have the worst defense in the NBA, because of their style of play and their main guys are not defensive stoppers. 



> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> Not to mention 11-16 from the field, which is amazing efficiency, and 14-16 from the free throw which just shows me nobody could guard him and had to foul him. Wade seems to respond well to these challenges without ever even acknowledging them. I like that.


Hinrich still going to be better than Wade.  Hinrich was great last night though.

But, I think we can see Wade is on a different level.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Well I told you in the off-season that the Wiz are going to have the worst defense in the NBA, because of their style of play and their main guys are not defensive stoppers.
> ...


No, it's because we're missing Kwame/Haywood/Etan, those 3 are our best defenders. They defend the post and provide help defense. When those guys get back our defense is going to be much improved.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Hinrich still going to be better than Wade.  Hinrich was great last night though.
> 
> But, I think we can see Wade is on a different level.


Ahh, why does everyone have to bring up Hinrich. My thoughts on the matter are still the same.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> No, it's because we're missing Kwame/Haywood/Etan, those 3 are our best defenders. They defend the post and provide help defense. When those guys get back our defense is going to be much improved.


No, your team still will be the worst defensive team in the NBA. Jamison, Hughes, Hayes, Arenas are not great defenders, but they will all play the bulk of the minutes on the perimeter.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> Ahh, why does everyone have to bring up Hinrich. My thoughts on the matter are still the same.


If you say so.


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

What Arenas said was dumb. Shaq doesn't need Kobe (Kobe needs Shaq!) and Dwayne Wade is a solid player, and Haslem, Jones, and Butlers are solid role players.

However, the Wizards were without their 3 best big men, Kwame Brown, Brendan Haywood, and Etan Thomas. Their defense will improve once they are back.


----------



## CP26 (May 8, 2003)

There really is no excuse for this game but lousy defense. Showed we didn't extremely need a big man downlow to guard Shaq, it was no one could stop Wade or Eddie.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

Arenas got owned... :laugh: 

This is what I like about Wade though. He doesn't talk smack, he just goes out there and owns the guy talking smack.


----------



## CrossOver (May 19, 2003)

*Shaq on Arenas:* 



> "Proven nobodies should not be allowed to make statements about proven somebodies," O'Neal said. "I don't listen to nobodies. ... Guys obviously are going to talk, but I only listen to [somebodies]." ...


*Arenas on last night:* 



> "Wade attacked the basket and that is his game," Arenas said. "I was passive. I didn't want to go one on one with him. I didn't want to make the match-up a personal go back and forth."


I thought he had already made it personal when he called out Wade and EJ. Specifically saying Wade can't shoot and both him and EJ aren't worth Kobe.

*Eddie Jones on Wade* 



> ''I don't know, did you watch the game?'' Jones said. ``Dwyane looked great to me out there. He looked like he could shoot, he looked like he could do everything. I don't think that was the same guy I saw in the Olympics.''


*Wade on Arenas:*



> ``At the time it was [upsetting] because I know Gilbert from the summertime and from playing against him, and I really thought that was uncharacteristic for him to say that.


Rest of the Miami article

Rest of the Wizards article


----------



## sweet_constipation (Jul 3, 2004)

> *Wade's response: ``At the time it was [upsetting] because I know Gilbert from the summertime and from playing against him, and I really thought that was uncharacteristic for him to say that.
> 
> ``Since then, of course, you talk about it as a team and stuff like that, but I don't really look at it because I know the way I could play. I really don't care what anybody says about me.
> 
> ``When you're still learning a system and still trying to get in with teammates, I would be wrong to come in and try to make it a personal endeavor between him.''*



Owned by a gentleman.
:grinning:


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

In all honesty, Arenas was uncharacteristically passive the whole first half. He didn't try to get to the hoop even once and took 3 shos. I hope he's more aggressive on Tuesday night.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> In all honesty, Arenas was uncharacteristically passive the whole first half. He didn't try to get to the hoop even once and took 3 shos. I hope he's more aggressive on Tuesday night.


At least you can admit, he got his *** kicked out there.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> At least you can admit, he got his *** kicked out there.


Well damn, I'm not a homer, I watched the game. Wade is the truth, he can get to the hoop at will and against our defense that means your going to have a huge night. Wade was clearly doing whatever he wanted out there. The perimeter defense as you know is garbage and we didn't have any interior defense to stop Wade from getting all the And 1's. It was very similar to when T-Mac got 62 on us last year. Gilbert took 3 shots in the first half and didn't drive to the hoop not once. In the second half it was a little bit more even. Arenas got to the hoop at will against Wade and had 13 points in the 4th quarter to bring the Wiz close before Eddie Jones sealed it. He also helped force Wade into a few crucial TOs late in the game. Gil had 7 points in the first half, and 20 in the second, Wade won the match-up but I don't think it was any kind of domination by any stretch. If Gilbert would of been more aggressive in the first half they both would of had 35-40, it wasn't anything Miami did to stop Gil.

I'm more interested in the season series than just one game. I think the defense on Wade will be much better when we have some interior presence and I expect Gilbert to come out more aggressive on Tuesday. He should be more motivated at least with Shaq dissing him hard. It'll be tough to win in Miami though.


----------



## -33- (Aug 6, 2002)

I think Shaq is gonna play a hell of alot better Tuesday than he did last night...


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shaq_Diesel</b>!
> I think Shaq is gonna play a hell of alot better Tuesday than he did last night...


If he's healthy nobody can stop him. The Wiz will at least have more fouls to give on Tuesday. We had friggin Jared Jeffries guarding him in the last few minues of the game.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

School me once...


----------



## -33- (Aug 6, 2002)

Thank you to Gilbert Arenas...

your comments about Dwyane and our role players made it great to beat you 2 times in less than a week...

Keep up the good work


----------

