or, so says ESPN.com's Jason Whitlock

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=whitlock/040826

-rolleyes-

I don't support a bunch players whose style of play has ruined proefessional basketball in the US. I couldn't give a shit less what race they are.

*adds Whitlock to the dipshit sports columnist list*

So basically he thinks that every american is racist becasue one caller says he can't walk the streets and feel safe. I get so freaking tired of hearing this.

Maybe....just maybe people want to see them lose so they can finally put together a "team" and not a bunch of second hand superstars. What, thats what they are. The real stars declined, except Duncan. I don't include Iverson because he doesn't make anyone else better. Jefferson is ok but we'll see how good he is without Jason Kidd and Kenyon Martin. Everyone else....second hand.

What a dumbass article.

Originally posted by El Scorcho
*adds Whitlock to the dipshit sports columnist list*
Whitlock's been on that list for quite a while. He's near the top with Skip Bayless and Jay Mariotti

Among things I take serious issue with:

* claiming that Phelps, Patterson, and Gatlin are chasing endorsement opportunities and money -- WHAT? Can the general American public name a famous swimmer not named Mark Spitz? A gymnast not named Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comenci? A sprinter not named Carl Lewis? These sports are fly-by-night sports that really only get attention once every 4 years (unrightfully so, too). There's very little $$ to be made here. To claim that Carly Patterson is chasing the bling is fucking absurd.

* Him taking redneck Joe's comment on a radio station and projecting them across the entire viewpoint of the country.

* Claiming that the rest of the world has caught up to the NBA skill level. No, there, Jason.. they have not caught up. The NBA skill level has regressed to match the rest of the world.

A big part of the reason to write a column is to stir up reaction. Even so, this goes over the line. All Whitlock has done is take a serious issue, race, and injected it into the sports topic de jour, the U.S. men's Olympic basketball team, and tried to create a contrversy where none exists.

I'm all for columns that push some buttons and for writers who call attention to race and other issues where they might otherwise go unnoticed, but there's got to be some basis. This is sloppy and irresponsible. Whitlock should be ashamed and so should ESPN.com. They should have higher standards.

Originally posted by cdollaz
What a dumbass article.

I didnt even need to waste my time reading the article to figure that out.

Riiiiiggggghhhhhtttt. I am a big fan of Jason Whitlock but he is being a total moran here.

I guess everyone who rooted for the Celtics and/or against the Lakers in the 80s was a white supremacist. :rolleyes:

While I'm not rooting against the US Men's team, I DO despise the team, and last time I checked, I was a black guy. The problem is not with their skin color, it's that some of these guys have absolutely no business being on an Olympic team. Just like the World's Championship team that got smoked a few years ago, this team has too many players that have never won squat, some of these guys have never experienced a playoff game. Any Olympic team with Marbury, Marion (it's embarrasing to watch him shoot open 7 footers), Odom, and the like is bound to catch my dislike. That they are all black is merely a numbers game based upon the racial breakdown of the NBA. Substitute them with Bob Sura, Ostertag, Dunleavy, and Brad Miller (first 4 US born white guys I thought of) - I'd probably still dislike the team.

I heard some dipshit on a local sportsradio program say the same crap last week. I was glad to hear the host, a guy I generally dislike immensely (the Huge Show for you Michiganders) call him on it and claim it was a bunch of horse hockey. It's so very sad that some coiuld think that....just a steaming pile of shit.

Oh, and someone should tell Mr. Whittock that apparently Reggie Miller is a rabid racist too, because he had some funny things to say last week about the team on the Dan Patrick Show...it was great. He hatest the NBA more than I do :lol:

Originally posted by mgbfan
I'm all for columns that push some buttons and for writers who call attention to race and other issues where they might otherwise go unnoticed, but there's got to be some basis. This is sloppy and irresponsible. Whitlock should be ashamed and so should ESPN.com. They should have higher standards.
But I expect Whitlock will get away with it because (a) he's black, and (b) ESPN/ABC/Disney tows the PC line.

I, for one, don't want Team USA to win. Not because of the color, the tattoos, or the cornrows, as Whitlock claims. No, I want them to lose because of their attitude. They embarass me as an American when they strut and play their "in your face" style, and it makes me want to root against them and for teams who focus more on the game. Substance should always count more than style, and if these professionals understood that, they'd go about their business in a cool contemplative manner rather than act like each slam dunk has to be bigger and badder than the one before. The NBA has wandered too far from substance, and embraces too much style, and Team USA typifies the problem, IMO.

Paul Brown (or George Halas or Curly Lambeau or some other old school coach) once told his players that he didn't want them to act like damn fools when they score. Act like you've been there before, like it's no big deal. That will speak MUCH louder than any yelling or carrying-on would.

As long as our NBA representatives act like idiot children, I'll root for them to get knocked-off.

Whitlock's entire show in KC consists of two elements.

1. The Race Card. (He plays it often)
2. Ass Kissing. (Rips people one day, fawns over them the next)

Read the article before you rip it guys

I did. Hes still a douchebag even after another read.

Allen Iverson is wearing our jersey -- our red, white and blue -- and playing the game the way we taught him to play it.

This is the funniest damn thing I have heard. I really doubt Iverson is playing the way Larry Brown tried to teach him to play.

On another note, I don't foresee a national panic like Canada 1972 if the US doesn't win the gold. For one, many expected the US not to win, and two, basketball is not the national pastime. In fact, if the US should not win, there will be less of a concern (not panic) than after the '88 loss.

What if I root for Angola instead? :)

Seriously though, the article mixes in some legit points but is clouded by the race card. Just because I'm American doesn't mean I blindly support all Americans in every sport. It's possible a particular American athlete is a jackass, meanwhile there's an incredible foriegn athlete worth rooting for. It is not only possible, but it happens. One doesn't have to limit who you root for by geographical boundaries.

Now in the case of the U.S. team, I personally would like to see them win. I have my reasons. From that article it appears I'm in the minority. But I can think of many reasons to root against the U.S. And many legit reasons. It would be a severe wake-up call to the sham of a selection committee for one. Not to mention this team should win. Yeah, they're not a real team. But individually they are so dominant it's not funny. The comparison to hockey doesn't quite work yet. Other countires are littered with NHLers. In basketball, most countires have 1-2 NBA guys. Most of the time they have just medicore NBA guys. The U.S. goes 12 deep of borderline all-star players. They're quicker. They're more athletic. They're way deeper than any team. They should win.

Originally posted by Jericho
The comparison to hockey doesn't quite work yet. Other countires are littered with NHLers. In basketball, most countires have 1-2 NBA guys. Most of the time they have just medicore NBA guys. The U.S. goes 12 deep of borderline all-star players. They're quicker. They're more athletic. They're way deeper than any team. They should win.


The comparison sort of works when you are comparing to hockey in 1972 when the all the best players in the world were thought to be Canadian.

Originally posted by cleaver
Read the article before you rip it guys

I agree, there is more to the article than just what is discussed here (and he does hit some valid points) i still don't buy the "root against the US team because they are black" accusation. If you hate this team because they are black, then I suppose it would follow that you hate the NBA in general, and would hate an Olympic team of NBA stars no matter what color the 12 players were.

No comments on his bullshit claim that Carly and others are chasing endorsements? I thought it was the biggest piece of bullshit in the entire article!

Paging Stephen A. Smith. We have found your long lost twin.

Originally posted by Red Dog
Riiiiiggggghhhhhtttt. I am a big fan of Jason Whitlock but he is being a total moran here.

I guess everyone who rooted for the Celtics and/or against the Lakers in the 80s was a white supremacist. :rolleyes:

I got to know Jason a little when he worked for the Ann Arbor News. I do usually like his stuff a lot. I don't always agree (like today) but as Jim Rome would say "I see you working it"

Not to go off topic here, but it's funny you should mention the Lakers/Celtic rivalry. While I know you are being sarcastic when you talk about white supremacist, for many of us growing up around that time - who you liked in that rivalry WAS largely based upon race. All my black friends at school HATED the Celtics, and my white friends HATED the Lakers. Despite having guys like Parrish and DJ and Carr, the Celtics were seen as a white team because of Bird, McHale and Ainge. Now of course this was not 100%, but for a lot of people who had no hometown allegiance to either team - who they rooted for (even if they wouldn't admit it) was based upon what color they were. For me, I could not stand Larry Bird. Hated him. Yet now I regret the fact i didn't appreciate him more in his prime. When I got to college, a guy on my hall was from Boston and was a huge Bird fan, he had a bunch of Larry Bird tapes he'd make us watch. It was through him that I started to appreciate the Bird of the early to mid 80's - he was truly an incredible player.

Originally posted by Daryl
I got to know Jason a little when he worked for the Ann Arbor News. I do usually like his stuff a lot. I don't always agree (like today) but as Jim Rome would say "I see you working it"

Not to go off topic here, but it's funny you should mention the Lakers/Celtic rivalry. While I know you are being sarcastic when you talk about white supremacist, for many of us growing up around that time - who you liked in that rivalry WAS largely based upon race. All my black friends at school HATED the Celtics, and my white friends HATED the Lakers. Despite having guys like Parrish and DJ and Carr, the Celtics were seen as a white team because of Bird, McHale and Ainge. Now of course this was not 100%, but for a lot of people who had no hometown allegiance to either team - who they rooted for (even if they wouldn't admit it) was based upon what color they were. For me, I could not stand Larry Bird. Hated him. Yet now I regret the fact i didn't appreciate him more in his prime. When I got to college, a guy on my hall was from Boston and was a huge Bird fan, he had a bunch of Larry Bird tapes he'd make us watch. It was through him that I started to appreciate the Bird of the early to mid 80's - he was truly an incredible player.


White guy (well, sort of an off-white ;) ) here who loved the Lakers - as much as my local teams in other sports. I loved Kareem (and Magic of course) and I had a pretty mean skyhook - whenever my friends and I would play 1-on-1 or 2-on-2, I was very effective with it.

Originally posted by Red Dog
whenever my friends and I would play 1-on-1 or 2-on-2, I was very effective with it.

I had no idea you were a mentor for the Special Olympics basketball team! :up:

You're a kind soul.

Originally posted by Red Dog
White guy (well, sort of an off-white ;) ) here who loved the Lakers - as much as my local teams in other sports. I loved Kareem (and Magic of course) and I had a pretty mean skyhook - whenever my friends and I would play 1-on-1 or 2-on-2, I was very effective with it.

I was a huge Kareem fan in the 80's. All my friends loved the young guys like Isiah or Magic, so they'd all make fun of me for liking Jabbar (who I guess was "old" at 33 or 34 years old). They'd ask me if the poster I had of him was a poster of my grandfather, etc.

Originally posted by Daryl
I was a huge Kareem fan in the 80's. All my friends loved the young guys like Isiah or Magic, so they'd all make fun of me for liking Jabbar (who I guess was "old" at 33 or 34 years old). They'd ask me if the poster I had of him was a poster of my grandfather, etc.


It also helped that he had an Oscar-worthy performance in Airplane. ;)

Originally posted by Red Dog
It also helped that he had an Oscar-worthy performance in Airplane. ;)

"Huh!"

i am a huge critic of the current nba (and admit was laughing when i saw them get smoked by PR), but then i thought about it........ i will defend this squad only in saying that i respect them for showing up.......others turned the invite down, but these guys at least agreed to represent their country, risk their safety, and risk embarassment....i do have respect for that....for that reason i am still rooting for them to win the gold.

So, for doing exactly what every other player on every other team is doing (representing their country, risking their safety, risking embarassment), the Americans deserve gold?

Originally posted by Red Dog
The comparison sort of works when you are comparing to hockey in 1972 when the all the best players in the world were thought to be Canadian.

I still don't think it works. All the best players were thought to be Canadian, because that's where the NHL was and that's who played in it. Yeah, you had a few Americans, but the league was largely dominated by Canadians. All the European countries, the Swedes, the Finns, the Czechs, and the Russians weren't really around.

To be fair, even today the Canadians have way more depth and top end talent than any nation. But the talent level was there in other countires in 1972 for hockey, it just wasn't playing in the NHL. Ignorance from the truth (Canadians blindly believing they were the best) is different than what's happening in basketball. The U.S. still easily outclasses any country in basketball player for player.

Originally posted by Jericho
The U.S. still easily outclasses any country in basketball player for player.


I disagree assuming you are talking about basketball and not what they play in the NBA.

Originally posted by Red Dog
I disagree assuming you are talking about basketball and not what they play in the NBA.

So you're saying Ruben Wolkowyski, Luis Alberto Scola, Fabricio Oberto, Alejandro Ariel Montecchia, and Juan Ignacio Sanchez are even remotely comparable to LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Shawn Marion, Emeka Okafur, and Dwayne Wade?

The U.S. still easily outclasses any country in basketball player for player.

A very true statement. Try finding a player even remotely comparable to a Kobe Bryant/T-Mac/KG in Europe or Asia.

Regarding the article, some of you people are denying the truth. The fact that many people do hate the black culture. They consider it brash, uncultured, etc. There is a bias, especially amongst conservative Americans, against the stereotypical Black society, rap music, clothes, etc. I'm not Entirely agreeing with Whitlock, but he makes a REAL point.

1. The Race Card. (He plays it often)

Yeah, it's always the Race Card issue, isn't it... I hear a ton of people ripping Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and they do deserve some of the criticsm. But they do some good work as well, and I rarely hear about those from the naysayers. There is a reason why a lot of black folks hate people like Rush Limbaugh. Not necessarily because he's rascist(not saying he isn't) but because he shows an enormous amount of insensitivity with brash comments. No Rush, not every single Black liberal in the US brings up the Race Card simply because they can.

Now, most of you bring up legitimate, thoughtful points about how todays NBA players lack fundamental, etc.

But I expect Whitlock will get away with it because (a) he's black, and (b) ESPN/ABC/Disney tows the PC line.

So you're basically implying Blacks get away with a lot more than whites? Bring this topic up and I bet I can give you plenty more examples of whitecollared Whites getting away with tons more. Plus, what exactly did Whitlock do that he can 'get away with?' For being rascist? Then you can call me rascist too.

No, I want them to lose because of their attitude. They embarass me as an American when they strut and play their "in your face" style, and it makes me want to root against them and for teams who focus more on the game. Substance should always count more than style, and if these professionals understood that, they'd go about their business in a cool contemplative manner rather than act like each slam dunk has to be bigger and badder than the one before. The NBA has wandered too far from substance, and embraces too much style, and Team USA typifies the problem, IMO.

Attitude? Substance? I hear people emphasizing defense, then I heard those same people calling the NBA finals boring BECAUSE the Pistons played defense. And as far as I can tell, these European players have as much of this maligned 'style' with their soccer-like flair, no look passes, little bucket shots. And as for attitude, who exactly has 'attitude' on this team? Everyone has been playing their hearts out, and if you don't like empathic slam dunks, you must get offended aplenty. And what if the US medals? They suck SO badly yet they can win games. Add a little style, it's all good. As far as I can tell, this US team has been ALL CLASS. Even when they lose, they've been gracious. It's one thing to rip their fundamentals, but when you start ripping these guys for dunking too hard... (If you ask me, that game between Greece and Argentina last night was an absolute nightmare to watch, with players clanking shot after shot. Those guys lack some serious hops. Maybe they should work harder in the weight room building their leg muscles.)

"Some" of the posts here bring up legitimate points. I just brought up another. Peace.

Oh, and one more thing:

I guess everyone who rooted for the Celtics and/or against the Lakers in the 80s was a white supremacist. Yes. Well, maybe not all, but many. Same with Blacks who were anti-Celts. Take some US history lessons.

Originally posted by Jericho
So you're saying Ruben Wolkowyski, Luis Alberto Scola, Fabricio Oberto, Alejandro Ariel Montecchia, and Juan Ignacio Sanchez are even remotely comparable to LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Shawn Marion, Emeka Okafur, and Dwayne Wade?


I don't know who those players are, but all I know is that I saw 2 teams of foreign beat those players in the game of basketball. Now if you are asking whether they can entertain NBA-style like those guys, hell no. If you are asking if one-on-one matchups were played who would win, I would say those Americans. The point is that 'easily outclassed' is an exagerration.

"Player for player" Not "team for team"

And yeah, the best US players "easily outclasses" the best foreign players. And we're not talking Lamar Odom or Shawn Marion.

Originally posted by willpos
"Player for player" Not "team for team"


Basketball is not a one-on-one game. It is 5 on 5. The best basketball players know how to play within the team concept.

Originally posted by El Scorcho
*adds Whitlock to the dipshit sports columnist list*

I trust El Scorcho's thoughts on the matter. Now I feel kinda dirty.

Originally posted by willpos
Attitude? Substance? I hear people emphasizing defense, then I heard those same people calling the NBA finals boring BECAUSE the Pistons played defense. And as far as I can tell, these European players have as much of this maligned 'style' with their soccer-like flair, no look passes, little bucket shots. And as for attitude, who exactly has 'attitude' on this team? Everyone has been playing their hearts out, and if you don't like empathic slam dunks, you must get offended aplenty. And what if the US medals? They suck SO badly yet they can win games. Add a little style, it's all good. As far as I can tell, this US team has been ALL CLASS. Even when they lose, they've been gracious. It's one thing to rip their fundamentals, but when you start ripping these guys for dunking too hard... (If you ask me, that game between Greece and Argentina last night was an absolute nightmare to watch, with players clanking shot after shot. Those guys lack some serious hops. Maybe they should work harder in the weight room building their leg muscles.)


You call with the US team has done to this point playing with heart? Is playing with heart half assing it on defense, transition or otherwise? Is playing with heart, attempting a fancy pass when a simple one will do? Is playing with heart showing up late to team meetings when you are the co-captain? Is playing with heart bitching and moaning over PT? That last one sounds like a lot of attitude to me. How about having more turnovers than made baskets in 1 half (1st half of PR game)? They have been a very lazy team. That is not heart. Their lack of defensive effort: not jumping out on the pick and roll, letting Arroyo blow by the American point guards over and over, watching the other team get out in transition, while most of the US team is standing around watching after clanging another outside shot, has been well documented from the media and even the coaches and players on this team. They were freely admitting that they didn't play like a team after the PR loss. How is playing 1 on 1 basketball playing with heart?

Oh Carmelo and Amare have had some attitude problems, especially with not buying into Brown's system and with playing time. Again this has been well documented. I would also call 3 people being late to a meeting, including your co-captain, to be an attitude problem. I would hardly say this team has some class, much less ALL CLASS.

Last time I checked, basketball was not a game about dunking. If it was Vince Carter and Richard Jefferson, and Stoudamire, etc would be the best players in the world, hands down. Basketball is a team game, and like any other game, requires some sort of fundamentals, of which dunking is not one of them. I have no problem with dunking, but as we have already seen having a bunch of guys that can dunk doesn't translate into winning ball games. I don't think people are ripping them for dunking, rather they cannot do much more than dunk on any sort of consistent basis.

As for them winning, maybe they will, maybe they won't. But you also have to take into account, the setup. No other major sport has a set up where you can lose twice in the tournament/finals/whatever you want to call it, and still win it all. They aren't playing a best of x series against 1 team, but a loss doesn't eliminate them like it would in the NCAA basketball tourney, of the NFL playoffs. Its a different format, but it allows them to win. The problem is they shouldn't lose any games considering what they have. Even with their deficiencies, I felt that they could adjust and still beat anyone, if they just played like a team.

Rewatch the games, doof. You don't stop a hot hand from outside the arc. Being demoralized and being half-assed are two different things. You're accusing the US of doing what EVERY SINGLE TEAM does. And yeah, you are making the dunk seem like a sin. Last time I checked, a dunk is better than a blocked layup. You're being moronic. Team basketball works when you've been playing together for some time. If you've even seen the games, you would've realized that this team HAS been playing CONSISTENTLY BETTER EACH TIME OUT. And yeah, being late to every single meeting is an attitude problem, but guess what? It was the first freaking meeting and to top if all off, they apologized. Yeah, that's some kind of attitude, isn't it.

ast time I checked, basketball was not a game about dunking. If it was Vince Carter and Richard Jefferson, and Stoudamire, etc would be the best players in the world, hands down

READ MY POST! I DIDN'T SAY BASKETBALL WAS A GAME ABOUT DUNKING! HOWEVER, A DUNK IS BETTER THAN A BLOCKED LAYUP. YOU ARE MAKING IT SOUND LIKE DUNKS ARE A SIN. Anyhow, you're statement is false, anyhow. MJ = Great dunker Kobe = Great Dunker T-Mac = Great Dunker Shaq = Great dunker
Catching on???

As for them winning, maybe they will, maybe they won't.

What? So this team with no fundamentals can win it all? I'm shocked!

Basketball is not a one-on-one game. It is 5 on 5. The best basketball players know how to play within the team concept.

No, I meant that Jericho said US players were better talents, not necessarily teams.

wow, look at the new guy in here all scrappy and stuff. :lol:

Me scrappy? More like feisty.

wow.. they are dropping like flies now

Originally posted by willpo1
Me scrappy? More like feisty.
More like banned.

Originally posted by cleaver
Read the article before you rip it guys

I agree. The article had some semi-valid points until he threw the race card in at the end of the article.

Also, why did Wilpo get banned? If it's cuz of posts in this thread, I didn't think that any were too offensive.

Originally posted by Dabaomb


Also, why did Wilpo get banned? If it's cuz of posts in this thread, I didn't think that any were too offensive.

My best guess, returning member that was previously banned.

Originally posted by willpos
Rewatch the games, doof. You don't stop a hot hand from outside the arc. Being demoralized and being half-assed are two different things. You're accusing the US of doing what EVERY SINGLE TEAM does. And yeah, you are making the dunk seem like a sin. Last time I checked, a dunk is better than a blocked layup. You're being moronic. Team basketball works when you've been playing together for some time. If you've even seen the games, you would've realized that this team HAS been playing CONSISTENTLY BETTER EACH TIME OUT. And yeah, being late to every single meeting is an attitude problem, but guess what? It was the first freaking meeting and to top if all off, they apologized. Yeah, that's some kind of attitude, isn't it.

I have watched all the games except Spain. They still didn't play good defense outside of Angola, hot hand or not. Since the US has such great athletes, you would think they could shut down guys who can't dunk because they don't have to respect the other team blowing by them on a shot fake because all their layups get blocked anyway because they have no hops because they don't spend enough time in the gym working on their leg muscles. And since all the US players have great legs so they have great hops to dunk, they should be able to block/challenge every shot the other team puts up because we can outjump any of those other guys. Sounds pretty easy to me. And you would think that if someone who has never played organized basketball outside of intramurals in college could figure it out, then a bunch of guys who have been playing, for on average 15 years, could figure it out. It seems pretty hard to hit shots when you have to put an extra 3 feet of arc on every shot secondary to our amazing ability to jump, thus we should be able to negate any "hot hand." I don't see every outside shot being contested. Again it has been well documented and well watched that the US has not given a very strong defensive effort overall.

I would hardly call their effort consistently better each time out. Yes overall they have shown some improvement now. But after they won some exhibitions they looked WORSE against PR, then a little better against Greece, then worse again against Lithuiana. Not very consisetent, imo, but that may be your definition of consistency. Yes missing 1 team meeting by 3 players is an attitude problem. AI has always had an attitude problem, and he is the co-captain. Again like I have probably said in 10 other posts, great example for the youngsters. An apology doesn't just make it ok. Again this is nothing new for Iverson. This is a pattern of continuous behavior that he has demonstrated throughout his years in the NBA. I don't know about his pre-NBA days. Do I really need to remind you of the practice rant? Remember they are professionals. I don't think it is too much to ask of them to show up on time and give some real effort. I am sure your boss expects that much of you. I know my boss expects that of me. Plus I would call Anthony's and Stoudamire's unwillingness to buy into the system/gripe about playing time an attitude problem. What would you call it? Class?

I understand how team basketball works, but it still doesn't mean that the US is playing any of it. I still am having trouble believing that professional basketball players are having this much trouble adjusting to playing together. Remeber when these guys were in high school they were playing with new players every year in these summer camps (AAU, Nike, Adidas, etc). They may play several tournaments/camps a summer, with a new set of teammates, but they somehow adjust to that don't they? You know why? Because most of them are selfish, individualistic players, who are trying to do their own thing. Its clearly evident that it doesn't work. Regardless of all that, adjusting to your teammates has almost nothing to do with piss poor fundamentals. They should still be able to pass the ball, box out, rebound, play defense, shoot an open jumper, regardless of the "newness" of their teammates. Running the floor in transition requires the same spacing whether it Iverson is running it with Eric Snow and Aaron Mckier or he is running it with Lebron James and Lamar Odom.

READ MY POST! I DIDN'T SAY BASKETBALL WAS A GAME ABOUT DUNKING! HOWEVER, A DUNK IS BETTER THAN A BLOCKED LAYUP. YOU ARE MAKING IT SOUND LIKE DUNKS ARE A SIN. Anyhow, you're statement is false, anyhow. MJ = Great dunker Kobe = Great Dunker T-Mac = Great Dunker Shaq = Great dunker
Catching on???

Yes MJ was the greatest player in the NBA because he was the best dunker :rolleyes:. If you really really believe that, I would recommend you watch some games from the 80s and 90s of the Bulls. Its pretty ignorant to say that these guys are great players because they are great dunkers. To discount their plethora of other skills would be incredibly niave. MJ also had one of the greatest turn around jumpers in the history of the league. Oh and he was 1 of the greatest defenders ever too. I never said dunking was a sin. I just don't think there needs to be excessive screaming and yelling and all the other hoopla that goes on with their dunks, espeically when they are laying bricks every time they aren't able to dunk. Its also helps not to turn the ball over in transition so they can have some opportunities to dunk. Have some freiking respect for the other team. Act like professionals. They have Tim Duncan, the guy in the NBA I have the most respect for/and probably one of the most respected guys in terms of his professionalism, on that team, but you don't see all the other guys modeling after his behavior, do you?

Oh yeah here are some other great dunkers: Harold Miner, Kenny "Sky" Walker, Darius Miles. Great Dunkers do not equal great players.

Originally posted by Jericho
So you're saying Ruben Wolkowyski, Luis Alberto Scola, Fabricio Oberto, Alejandro Ariel Montecchia, and Juan Ignacio Sanchez are even remotely comparable to LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Shawn Marion, Emeka Okafur, and Dwayne Wade?

Looks like they did okay to me ;)

:lol:

you know, I just figured it out....Walter Herrmann? They are NAZIS!!!! Racist Argentinian Nazis!!!!!!!

Originally posted by brizz
Looks like they did okay to me ;)
:lol:

Stern's plan of using the Olympics to showcase the young players in his league blew up in his face.

As far as the US "outclassing" other countries in basketball players, we out class them in terms of athletes not basketball players. If the Olympics were played under the NBA format, where athletic ability is more important then basketball skill, the US would win by 40 each game.

Hopefully the term "Dream Team" will die now

Originally posted by Deftones, Esq
wow, look at the new guy in here all banned and stuff. :lol:

fixed.

Oh, and nice loss guys.

One more thing, there was and will only be one Dream Team.

Originally posted by MrX

As far as the US "outclassing" other countries in basketball players, we out class them in terms of athletes not basketball players. If the Olympics were played under the NBA format, where athletic ability is more important then basketball skill, the US would win by 40 each game.



I agree 100%.

Originally posted by Red Dog
I agree 100%.
I can just picture fantasy basketball drafts this fall with people taking Ginobili in the 1st or 2nd round based on the Olympics and then wondering why he's just a decent player in the NBA:lol:

Originally posted by MrX
:lol:

Stern's plan of using the Olympics to showcase the young players in his league blew up in his face.

As far as the US "outclassing" other countries in basketball players, we out class them in terms of athletes not basketball players. If the Olympics were played under the NBA format, where athletic ability is more important then basketball skill, the US would win by 40 each game.

Hopefully the term "Dream Team" will die now

I don't think it matters what style or format the game is played in, if the better US players had played, they would have won this thing hands down - this team wasn't even the B-team it, it was more like the D-team. You could put together a "dream team" of non-US born players, and they'd still get smoked by the best 12 US players, regardless of format.

Originally posted by Daryl
I don't think it matters what style or format the game is played in, if the better US players had played, they would have won this thing hands down - this team wasn't even the B-team it, it was more like the D-team. You could put together a "dream team" of non-US born players, and they'd still get smoked by the best 12 US players, regardless of format.


I certainly would not make that assumption. Everyone seems to forget that the US almost lost in the semis in 2000 to Lithuania. I don't recall people saying that was the B-team or whatever.

You know...if I were working the selection committee, I'd want to draft a team...say Sacramento or San Antonio and their coaching staff.

Then I'd give them the option of requesting 4 or 5 players to fill out the roster and replace players who can't make it.

It takes NBA teams 50 or 60 games to gel...these olympic constructions will never have a shot at that...

Originally posted by gettinbranded
You know...if I were working the selection committee, I'd want to draft a team...say Sacramento or San Antonio and their coaching staff.

Then I'd give them the option of requesting 4 or 5 players to fill out the roster and replace players who can't make it.



NBA owners would never agree to that.

Originally posted by Daryl
I don't think it matters what style or format the game is played in, if the better US players had played, they would have won this thing hands down - this team wasn't even the B-team it, it was more like the D-team. You could put together a "dream team" of non-US born players, and they'd still get smoked by the best 12 US players, regardless of format.

I think a foreign "dream team" would do very well against the elite US players. I'm not saying they'd win, but it'd be a good game.

Looks like they're going to get Lithuania in the bronze medal game. Italy up 10 in the 4th

Originally posted by MrX
Looks like they're going to get Lithuania in the bronze medal game. Italy up 10 in the 4th


That's surprising. LTU was favored by 9.5.

Originally posted by Red Dog
I certainly would not make that assumption. Everyone seems to forget that the US almost lost in the semis in 2000 to Lithuania. I don't recall people saying that was the B-team or whatever.

While it had a couple of players I'd say were elite NBA players (Garnett and Kidd) any team that has Vin Baker (Vin Baker!!!!) and Allan Houston is B-team ;) (although, I bet you they'd loved to have had Houston this year!)

Their's a intersting article in this weeks Sporting News about the future of team USA by Sean Deveney. He talks about in the future making the team up of half superstars(Duncan, Lebron, etc) and the otehr half of guys like Avery Johnson, Mark Jackson, Steve Kerr, Kendall Gill, Malone, and Horace Grant. Basically guys that are recently retired or on the verge of retirement who understand team basketball. Also having one or two Americans who star in the Euro leagues, Tyus Edny and Maceo Baston were two team he mentioned, since they are familiar with the game and the players.

I thought it was a good idea.

If Ginobili wins the gold I will at least have something to be happy about in all of this.

As far as what to do about Team USA? I really don't know. With so few star players willing to do it the past four or five years it might be time to go back to using college players.

Originally posted by MrX
Their's a intersting article in this weeks Sporting News about the future of team USA by Sean Deveney. He talks about in the future making the team up of half superstars(Duncan, Lebron, etc) and the otehr half of guys like Avery Johnson, Mark Jackson, Steve Kerr, Kendall Gill, Malone, and Horace Grant. Basically guys that are recently retired or on the verge of retirement who understand team basketball. Also having one or two Americans who star in the Euro leagues, Tyus Edny and Maceo Baston were two team he mentioned, since they are familiar with the game and the players.

I thought it was a good idea.

I didn't see that - I'll go read it right now. I always thought that half NBA, half college guys would be good, but this is probably a better idea.

The US would never medal again if they went back to college players, then again they might not medal again if they keep sending teams like they sent this time.

quick question: was Webber ever asked to be on this team? I'm just asking cuz it seems like Boozer is the only true "muscle" they have, they could use a rebounding machine like CheatWebb who could also bring some nastyness to the team. Although they'd have to live with the his bad defense, not wanting the ball in crunchtime, lazily running up and down the court, 12 foot free throws, etc.

Originally posted by Daryl
quick question: was Webber ever asked to be on this team? I'm just asking cuz it seems like Boozer is the only true "muscle" they have, they could use a rebounding machine like CheatWebb who could also bring some nastyness to the team. Although they'd have to live with the his bad defense, not wanting the ball in crunchtime, lazily running up and down the court, 12 foot free throws, etc.

That would also give them someone to blame for the end of the game against Spain.

Originally posted by Jeremy517
That would also give them someone to blame for the end of the game against Spain.

It took me a few seconds.... Very nice rotfl

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=5240622#post5240553

a patriot is glad they lost because they are thugs

Originally posted by Daryl
quick question: was Webber ever asked to be on this team?
nope

These guys turned down the chance to go there; Kobe, Shaq, Elton Brand, Kenyon Martin, Kevin Garnett, Richard Hamilton, Ray Allen, Ben Wallace, Jason Kidd, Mike Bibby, Karl Malone, Reggie Miller and Jermaine O'Neal

Plus could you imagine if Webber and Odom were roommates. It'd be like a Cheech and Chong movie.

gonna go out on a big limb here, and guess that there is no point to this thread anymore....

Originally posted by MrX
Plus could you imagine if Webber and Odom were roommates. It'd be like a Cheech and Chong movie.

Probably about 75% of players in the NBA indulge in the reefer. They just do a much better job of being discrete.

Originally posted by MrX
The US would never medal again if they went back to college players, then again they might not medal again if they keep sending teams like they sent this time.

Still, it would be a great incentive for College players and a great positive thing for the US.

We love underdogs and would route like hell for team USA instead of hating them. (I routed like hell for the guys we sent this year though, but I realize the average person hated them)

The half college, half pro idea is good too. Whatever we do we need to get the team prepared well in advance of the games. No way that is possible with NBA players. We might have a better chance of putting together a real "team" with college players.

it's not a problem with pro players vs college players.

herb brooks said that he wasn't looking for the best players, he was looking for the right ones.

the nba players are out there that could fit together to form one hell of a international team.

but they don't select the team based on who'd fit the international model the best, they just take the best players they can.

Originally posted by MrX
nope

These guys turned down the chance to go there; Kobe, Shaq, Elton Brand, Kenyon Martin, Kevin Garnett, Richard Hamilton, Ray Allen, Ben Wallace, Jason Kidd, Mike Bibby, Karl Malone, Reggie Miller and Jermaine O'Neal

Plus could you imagine if Webber and Odom were roommates. It'd be like a Cheech and Chong movie.

A lot of these guys wouldn't have made a difference.

Shaq may be the most dominating player in the NBA when he's healthy, but with the wide key in international basketball, he wouldn't be anywhere near the scorer he is in the NBA, and his defense would become even more of a liability since he would have to defend someone out on the three point line.

Neither Elton Brand or Kenyon Martin would have been much different than Carlos Boozer, they would rebound well but still wouldn't help defend the three pointer or score against the zone.

Jason Kidd wouldn't have made a difference, with the foreign experience playing zone, it doesn't matter that he can beat his man 1 on 1, he can't shoot.

Jermaine O'Neil is better than Carmelo Anthoney and Lebron James at this point, but wouldn't have been much more effective than they were. They just don't have a style that fits the international game.

Ben Wallace would have been a big help on defense, and would have allowed Tim Duncan to play power forward stay out of foul trouble. He would probably have been the most helpful of the players that declined.

Hamilton has a good midrange game, and with the shorter 3 point line might have helped score, his defense definately would have helped.

Kobe, Garnett, Allen and Miller all would have helped on offense since they can score from the outside. Garnett and Kobe also would have helped defend the 3 on defense.

Originally posted by slappypete
A lot of these guys wouldn't have made a difference.

Shaq may be the most dominating player in the NBA when he's healthy, but with the wide key in international basketball, he wouldn't be anywhere near the scorer he is in the NBA, and his defense would become even more of a liability since he would have to defend someone out on the three point line.

Neither Elton Brand or Kenyon Martin would have been much different than Carlos Boozer, they would rebound well but still wouldn't help defend the three pointer or score against the zone.

Jason Kidd wouldn't have made a difference, with the foreign experience playing zone, it doesn't matter that he can beat his man 1 on 1, he can't shoot.

Jermaine O'Neil is better than Carmelo Anthoney and Lebron James at this point, but wouldn't have been much more effective than they were. They just don't have a style that fits the international game.

Ben Wallace would have been a big help on defense, and would have allowed Tim Duncan to play power forward stay out of foul trouble. He would probably have been the most helpful of the players that declined.

Hamilton has a good midrange game, and with the shorter 3 point line might have helped score, his defense definately would have helped.

Kobe, Garnett, Allen and Miller all would have helped on offense since they can score from the outside. Garnett and Kobe also would have helped defend the 3 on defense.
I agree with that with the exception of Kidd. I think he would have made a big difference considering none of the pgs on this team look to distribte the ball.

Originally posted by Red Dog
I don't know who those players are, but all I know is that I saw 2 teams of foreign beat those players in the game of basketball. Now if you are asking whether they can entertain NBA-style like those guys, hell no. If you are asking if one-on-one matchups were played who would win, I would say those Americans. The point is that 'easily outclassed' is an exagerration.

That wasn't my point though. I said the USA still easily outclasses any country player for player. I just named you the heart of Argentina's team minus NBAers Ginobili and Delfino. I compared them to the U.S. bench players. I have no doubt other teams play better "team" ball, but the point is this talent is easily there to make the U.S. a dominant basketball force again.

From the Olypics post, I think this team would easily win the gold:

Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Jason Kidd
Mike Bibby
Shaquille O'Neal
Kobe Bryant
Tracy McGrady
Ben Wallace
Paul Pierce
Richard Hamilton
Ron Artest
Jermaine O'Neal

What I never understand about the U.S. team is they fail to utilize two huge advantages:

1) Quickness - there's no way any of these teams are remotely as quick. The U.S. should be a dominant defensive team. Now I realize some of the guys on this team aren't good defensive players, but players like Iverson, Marion, James, Odom can be very good if they just try.

2) Depth - The U.S. goes 12 deep. Use it. How about old Arkansas basketball -- 40 minutes of hell. Just exhaust the other team. Most of them have 1-2 stars, so run them ragged. The U.S. can just reload off the bench.

Originally posted by Jericho
That wasn't my point though. I said the USA still easily outclasses any country player for player. I just named you the heart of Argentina's team minus NBAers Ginobili and Delfino. I compared them to the U.S. bench players. I have no doubt other teams play better "team" ball, but the point is this talent is easily there to make the U.S. a dominant basketball force again.


You are basing talent on athleticism alone. Read the Wilbon article I posted in the other thread.

You can put together any 12 Americans you want. Unless the NBA is changed in a way that more closely resembles the game of basketball, then there is no way I would declare that team a lock to win a competition such as this.

Originally posted by Red Dog
You are basing talent on athleticism alone. Read the Wilbon article I posted in the other thread.

You can put together any 12 Americans you want. Unless the NBA is changed in a way that more closely resembles the game of basketball, then there is no way I would declare that team a lock to win a competition such as this.

If you don't think the 12 I posted would be a lock to win gold, then you don't know basketball IMO.

Originally posted by Quake1028
If you don't think the 12 I posted would be a lock to win gold, then you don't know basketball IMO.


Right - I don't know basketball. I only watch about 200 college games a year. I only watched hundreds of NBA games in the 1980s. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Red Dog
You are basing talent on athleticism alone. Read the Wilbon article I posted in the other thread.

You can put together any 12 Americans you want. Unless the NBA is changed in a way that more closely resembles the game of basketball, then there is no way I would declare that team a lock to win a competition such as this.

It's not just athleticism. The U.S. has a plethora of basketball players. People whine about the NBA game, fine. But there are NBA players who can shoot and play defense and do all the things these international players do. They're just not on this squad. I agree that the general style of play of the U.S. is different. But there are plenty of U.S. born players that can play the international game too. What about Michael Redd, Shane Battier, etc...

And don't forget that the U.S. looked very good in qualifying for these games. The problem isn't the style of play, it's mainly the choice of players.

Originally posted by Red Dog
Right - I don't know basketball. I only watch about 200 college games a year. I only watched hundreds of NBA games in the 1980s. :rolleyes:

So you don't think those 12 players would be a lock for gold? Please explain why. That team solves every deficiency this team had in spades.

Originally posted by Quake1028
So you don't think those 12 players would be a lock for gold? Please explain why. That team solves every deficiency this team had in spades.

No it doesn't. The world plays a different game of basketball. Could we win the gold. Absolutely. Is it a lock. Of course not.

Originally posted by Quake1028
That team solves every deficiency this team had in spades.
Still no consistent 3 pt shooter

Originally posted by slappypete
Jason Kidd wouldn't have made a difference, with the foreign experience playing zone, it doesn't matter that he can beat his man 1 on 1, he can't shoot.

I am not sure he is any worse than Starbury or Iverson in regards to shooting. But one thing for sure he is a hell of a lot better passer and point guard then either of those two. I think the fact that he would have turned the ball over less and is a much better decision makers would have cut down transition buckets for other teams and thus we wouldnt have seen as much half assing on defensive transition.


Ben Wallace would have been a big help on defense, and would have allowed Tim Duncan to play power forward stay out of foul trouble. He would probably have been the most helpful of the players that declined.

I agree that his weak side defense and rebounding would have been a huge asset. Plus like you said keeping TD out of foul trouble.

Hamilton has a good midrange game, and with the shorter 3 point line might have helped score, his defense definately would have helped.

I think his midrange game would have been huge. Especially all the times Marbury/Iverson penetrated in a little only to find a midrange jumper open that neither him or anyone else on that team could make. His off the ball movement would have been really helpful too.

Originally posted by Deftones, Esq
No it doesn't. The world plays a different game of basketball. Could we win the gold. Absolutely. Is it a lock. Of course not.

Uh, yes, it does. That team has defenders, better ball handlers, and shooters. Replace one of them with Allen or Redd if you want a 3 point ace and I think that team is perfect.

Originally posted by Quake1028
Uh, yes, it does. That team has defenders, better ball handlers, and shooters. Replace one of them with Allen or Redd if you want a 3 point ace and I think that team is perfect.

:lol:

If you say so. Apparently you haven't seen where the rest of th world has caught up with us.

Originally posted by Deftones, Esq
:lol:

If you say so. Apparently you haven't seen where the rest of th world has caught up with us.

Appartently you weren't watching the tournament. The US lost because they couldn't shoot from the outside and they couldn't defend the perimeter. Obviously you are just taking whatever everyone else says as gospel. Myself, I'm pretty happy that the US B team is still good enough to win the bronze in this competition.

Originally posted by Quake1028
Appartently you weren't watching the tournament. The US lost because they couldn't shoot from the outside and they couldn't defend the perimeter. Obviously you are just taking whatever everyone else says as gospel. Myself, I'm pretty happy that the US B team is still good enough to win the bronze in this competition.

When the USA team starts caring more about team than individual stats, maybe what you say will have some credence.

Originally posted by Deftones, Esq
When the USA team starts caring more about team than individual stats, maybe what you say will have some credence.

True enough for this team, but the other team posted would go a long way towards solving this simply because of Jason Kidd. This team had no one to distribute the ball and play an actual point guard like Kidd can. Look, this team wasn't the best there, everyone knows it, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking they were anywhere near the team that could have been sent. And they still won bronze.

Originally posted by Jericho
What I never understand about the U.S. team is they fail to utilize two huge advantages:

1) Quickness - there's no way any of these teams are remotely as quick. The U.S. should be a dominant defensive team. Now I realize some of the guys on this team aren't good defensive players, but players like Iverson, Marion, James, Odom can be very good if they just try.

2) Depth - The U.S. goes 12 deep. Use it. How about old Arkansas basketball -- 40 minutes of hell. Just exhaust the other team. Most of them have 1-2 stars, so run them ragged. The U.S. can just reload off the bench.

I agree. That's a pretty interesting tought on 40 minutes of hell. I guess the only problem is getting the players to buy into it, which actually is a really big problem.

I also think that putting 12 athletic NBA guys out there could almost lock wins/medals. The problem is are the guys committed. Like you said, with that kind of athleticism, the potential is huge. If they could just play dogged defense and were unselfish, they would have so many transition buckets, and they could fly around and do their shit that worrying about hitting open 3's wouldnt be as big of an issue. They still need some guys with fundamentals, but it would be interesting to see a team that actually played to their potential.

Originally posted by Quake1028
True enough for this team, but the other team posted would go a long way towards solving this simply because of Jason Kidd. This team had no one to distribute the ball and play an actual point guard like Kidd can. Look, this team wasn't the best there, everyone knows it, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking they were anywhere near the team that could have been sent. And they still won bronze.

Of course it isn't the best team that's out there. But to blindly say that such and such team could steam roll the rest of the world when they've so obviously caught up with our skill is a little premature.

Originally posted by Deftones, Esq
Of course it isn't the best team that's out there. But to blindly say that such and such team could steam roll the rest of the world when they've so obviously caught up with our skill is a little premature.

That's my exact point. Have they really caught up with our skill? Could the best five players from any other country beat the best five from the US? They have caught up to the point where we can't just send any team over there and win. However, when you take into consideration that 4 of the generally accepted 5 best players in the world were missing from this team, I don't think we will know the true answer to this question for a few more years.

Originally posted by Quake1028
That's my exact point. Have they really caught up with our skill? Could the best five players from any other country beat the best five from the US? They have caught up to the point where we can't just send any team over there and win. However, when you take into consideration that 4 of the generally accepted 5 best players in the world were missing from this team, I don't think we will know the true answer to this question for a few more years.

Yes, the world has caught up. Look at how many foreign players there are in the NBA as compared to 5 - 10 years ago.

Originally posted by Deftones, Esq
Yes, the world has caught up. Look at how many foreign players there are in the NBA as compared to 5 - 10 years ago.

Right, they have caught up in that sense. But IMO they have not caught up in the sense that any other team would beat our best squad.

Originally posted by Quake1028
Right, they have caught up in that sense. But IMO they have not caught up in the sense that any other team would beat our best squad.

I don't follow the NBA enough to know, but I'd imagine there are a few countries who have at least 5-8 NBA players right now, that could probably compete extremely well with us, provided they all played.

Originally posted by Deftones, Esq
I don't follow the NBA enough to know, but I'd imagine there are a few countries who have at least 5-8 NBA players right now, that could probably compete extremely well with us, provided they all played.

There may be some country out there with 5-8 NBA players but would they be anywhere near the level of the top 5-8 guys from the US?

Originally posted by Quake1028
Appartently you weren't watching the tournament. The US lost because they couldn't shoot from the outside and they couldn't defend the perimeter. Obviously you are just taking whatever everyone else says as gospel. Myself, I'm pretty happy that the US B team is still good enough to win the bronze in this competition.

You're twelve still doesn't address the outside shooting problem, and perimeter defense is still weak. You can't just add on the ball defenders and say the team will be great on defense, the international players don't use the dribble to create open looks, they use passing, cutting, and screens. The only strong defenders on your team, in an Olympic game, would be Hamilton, Wallace, Duncan and Garnett, and only Hamilton would help on the Perimeter.

Shaq would hurt on defense, and wouldn't help as much on offense as you think he would. If he tried playing the same way he does in the NBA, he would either be called for a 3 second violation or an offensive foul nearly every time he touched the ball.

Tracy McGrady is a streaky shooter, just like the shooters they have on the team now, and he isn't a great defender. He's a one on one player, and if you've watched any of the Olympics, you would have seen that one on one players aren't enough.

You need at least 2 outside shooters on the floor at all times, there are NBA players who could make 3 pointers like they were layups with the international line, those are the players they need, and there are none on the lineup that you made up.

Originally posted by slappypete
You're twelve still doesn't address the outside shooting problem, and perimeter defense is still weak. You can't just add on the ball defenders and say the team will be great on defense, the international players don't use the dribble to create open looks, they use passing, cutting, and screens. The only strong defenders on your team, in an Olympic game, would be Hamilton, Wallace, Duncan and Garnett, and only Hamilton would help on the Perimeter.

Shaq would hurt on defense, and wouldn't help as much on offense as you think he would. If he tried playing the same way he does in the NBA, he would either be called for a 3 second violation or an offensive foul nearly every time he touched the ball.

Tracy McGrady is a streaky shooter, just like the shooters they have on the team now, and he isn't a great defender. He's a one on one player, and if you've watched any of the Olympics, you would have seen that one on one players aren't enough.

You need at least 2 outside shooters on the floor at all times, there are NBA players who could make 3 pointers like they were layups with the international line, those are the players they need, and there are none on the lineup that you made up.

Like I said, add Allen or Redd if you want a sniper. Pierce is a good shooter, as is Bibby. And Kobe is not a great defender? In what universe?

Originally posted by Quake1028
Like I said, add Allen or Redd if you want a sniper. Pierce is a good shooter, as is Bibby. And Kobe is not a great defender? In what universe?

Kobe isn't a great defender in any universe where he has to follow his man through cuts and screens without the ball. There aren't many players in any league that could take Kobe off the dribble, but that isn't how international teams run their offense.

Originally posted by Quake1028
There may be some country out there with 5-8 NBA players but would they be anywhere near the level of the top 5-8 guys from the US?


Nope.

Let me propose this. Take a team of the twelve best European players, maybe even add in one or two from South American. Then take a team of the twelve best US players. Give them both a month to train together. Then play a 10 or 12 game series, half of the games by international rules, half by NBA rules. Who wins?

I don't think there is any question.

You couldn't play full court defense the way Arkansas did for 40 minutes just becasue of the way the game is called.

Originally posted by Pharoh
Nope.

Let me propose this. Take a team of the twelve best European players, maybe even add in one or two from South American. Then take a team of the twelve best US players. Give them both a month to train together. Then play a 10 or 12 game series, half of the games by international rules, half by NBA rules. Who wins?

I don't think there is any question.

Exactly, that is why I don't buy the "rest of the world has caught up" theory. It's more like "the rest of the world has caught up to the average NBA player" but to imply that the rest of the world could consistently beat the best the US has to offer is stretching it more than just a little bit, no matter what rules they'd play under. Basketball is basketball.

Originally posted by Daryl
Exactly, that is why I don't buy the "rest of the world has caught up" theory. It's more like "the rest of the world has caught up to the average NBA player" but to imply that the rest of the world could consistently beat the best the US has to offer is stretching it more than just a little bit, no matter what rules they'd play under. Basketball is basketball.

:up::up:

Originally posted by Daryl
Exactly, that is why I don't buy the "rest of the world has caught up" theory. It's more like "the rest of the world has caught up to the average NBA player" but to imply that the rest of the world could consistently beat the best the US has to offer is stretching it more than just a little bit, no matter what rules they'd play under. Basketball is basketball.

I'd agree with this as well. To blindly say the rest of the world has caught up makes no sense to me. Most countires have 1-2 NBA guys. And most of those NBA guys aren't even all-star caliber. I realize the NBA style of play is different than International ball. But look at Spain. They dominated the Olympics, and they have one NBA guy, Pau Gasol. Gasol's good, but also flawed. He's not great on defense either. To say Spain has caught up because it has one good player doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by MrX
You couldn't play full court defense the way Arkansas did for 40 minutes just becasue of the way the game is called.

Why not? I didn't see all the basketball from these Olympics, but how is the game called that would prevent this?

Originally posted by nchhabra
I agree. That's a pretty interesting tought on 40 minutes of hell. I guess the only problem is getting the players to buy into it, which actually is a really big problem.

I also think that putting 12 athletic NBA guys out there could almost lock wins/medals. The problem is are the guys committed. Like you said, with that kind of athleticism, the potential is huge. If they could just play dogged defense and were unselfish, they would have so many transition buckets, and they could fly around and do their shit that worrying about hitting open 3's wouldnt be as big of an issue. They still need some guys with fundamentals, but it would be interesting to see a team that actually played to their potential.

Obviously they would have to choose the team carefully. But I think NBAers would buy into it since the Olympics is only 8 games long and they'd only have to play 20-25 a game. That's not too much effort to ask.

Originally posted by Jericho
Why not? I didn't see all the basketball from these Olympics, but how is the game called that would prevent this?

Not sure what he meant but the announcers pointed out that Duncan got one foul every 7 minutes and last season with the Spurs he got one foul every 15 minutes or something like that.

Originally posted by Quake1028
Not sure what he meant but the announcers pointed out that Duncan got one foul every 7 minutes and last season with the Spurs he got one foul every 15 minutes or something like that.

True, but that's the inside game which is different. I did see some questionable officiating though, so I don't know so much if its how the games are called or the quality of the referees. Obviously they don't give the ticky tack fouls like some NBA refs do which is good, but they don't seem to be horribly consistent in their calls either.

Originally posted by Jericho
Why not? I didn't see all the basketball from these Olympics, but how is the game called that would prevent this?
Because both officials watch the ball handler at all times and will call just about any contact.

Iverson rips Athens no-shows

By Barry Svrluga
Updated: 11:32 a.m. ET Aug. 29, 2004

ATHENS - Guard Allen Iverson of the Philadelphia 76ers launched some not-so-subtle criticisms of other NBA players who chose not to compete in the Olympics.

Speaking after the U.S. men's basketball team's 89-81 semifinal loss to Argentina on Friday, Iverson said he felt honored to be chosen to participate and couldn't understand why others didn't feel the same way.

"Any person that's selected to a team like this, it shouldn't be a question in your mind," Iverson said. "It shouldn't even be something to think about. You're honored to get a chance to represent your country, and what's better than that?"

Iverson was one of just three holdovers on the U.S. team who participated in a qualifying tournament last summer just for the right to reach the Olympics. Immensely disappointed when he wasn't selected for the 2000 Olympics, he has since watched 14 players turn down the offer to play here, some because of injury, others for personal reasons, and some for fears about security in Greece.

Iverson, who didn't name names, said NBA players should be more grateful to the game that makes nearly all of them millionaires.

"Anybody that grew up in the U.S. and is able to be a basketball player in the NBA, you understand what that country has done for you and your family," Iverson said. "It gave you an opportunity to support your family and be recognized as a household name. I mean, it's just an honor to be able to do something like that, and I would advise anybody that's selected to a team like this to take that honor and cherish it."

Before the game, NBA Commissioner David Stern pleaded with reporters to stop talking about the players who didn't come to the Olympics, even though the list included such stars as Shaquille O'Neal, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, Karl Malone, Jason Kidd, Ray Allen, and Mike Bibby.

"This is not about saying some players should have been here or not," Stern said.

Stern went on to say that this team was "great," and that any of the 30 NBA teams would trade its roster for this one.

"We have a great, great team here," Stern said. "I shouldn't say that. We have 12 great basketball players."

By Iverson's evaluation, the United States should have had greater basketball players, if only some of those great players had taken advantage of the opportunity.

"You need to understand that first and foremost, it's an honor to be selected to this team," he said. "It's something you should cherish for the rest of your life. And honestly, it's something that I will cherish, even without winning the gold medal. I feel good about being part of something like this. I feel like a special basketball player to be selected to a team like this."

:up: to AI.

Originally posted by Quake1028
:up: to AI.
eh, he's saying the right things but not at the right time, he shoulda said that before the games if he really wanted to come out with it...

Seems more like damage control and diversion from not getting the gold to me.

Originally posted by The Cow
eh, he's saying the right things but not at the right time, he shoulda said that before the games if he really wanted to come out with it...

Seems more like damage control and diversion from not getting the gold to me.

Yeah he is saying the right things, but they sound really empty coming from him. I don't really get it. Seems like he is out to rip anybody these days. First Malone and Payton, now these guys. What's up with him.

"We have a great, great team here," Stern said. "I shouldn't say that. We have 12 great basketball players."does this mean Stern sees the difference between one great team and 12 great athletes?

Nah I hate black people for other reasons ;)




seriously what a stupid load of BS

Originally posted by Pharoh
Nope.

Let me propose this. Take a team of the twelve best European players, maybe even add in one or two from South American. Then take a team of the twelve best US players. Give them both a month to train together. Then play a 10 or 12 game series, half of the games by international rules, half by NBA rules. Who wins?

I don't think there is any question.


That's all well and good, but what our 'lock'smiths seem to forget is the format of the Olympic tournament. Once you're in the medal round, it is one and done. Even the ideal US team could get beaten on a given night in the medal round by hot-shooting opponent. That's it - game over.

Heck, look at the Dream Team. Grant Hill was on PTI last week talking about how he and his college All-Star team 'sparred' with the Dream Team in '92. They handily beat the Dream Team in their first practice game. Then they got schooled in every game after that.

I think the foreign players are better than what some in here are saying. However, even if I'm wrong and there is such a great disparity in basketball skill btwn the top-10 players of LTU, ARG, ITA, etc and the top-10 of the USA, you still can't say it will be a lock for the USA given the format of the tournament. I've seen many basketball teams with a huge talent advantage lose single basketball games. If you still say it is a lock, then I would expect you to put down, say, $1000, to win $100 on Team USA the next time around.



Also, playing by NBA rules is a joke.

Originally posted by Red Dog
Heck, look at the Dream Team. Grant Hill was on PTI last week talking about how he and his college All-Star team 'sparred' with the Dream Team in '92. They handily beat the Dream Team in their first practice game. Then they got schooled in every game after that.

Yeah, but that college team would have won a medal at the games that year themselves: G. Hill, Webber, Mashburn, Bobby Hurley in his prime (I remember the stories of Hurley destroying Stockton in that first game so badly, they had to put Jordan on him), Penny Hardaway (back when he was good), Allan Houston, Rodney Rogers and Eric Montross. OK, maybe those last two were a stretch ;) but this team wasn't exactly the same as if you were to put a college all star team together these days. This was back in the "olden days" of the early 90's when you still had great players actually playing college ball.

Originally posted by Red Dog
Also, playing by NBA rules is a joke.

Truer words were never spoken.

Originally posted by Daryl
Yeah, but that college team would have won a medal at the games that year themselves: G. Hill, Webber, Mashburn, Bobby Hurley in his prime (I remember the stories of Hurley destroying Stockton in that first game so badly, they had to put Jordan on him), Penny Hardaway (back when he was good), Allan Houston, Rodney Rogers and Eric Montross. OK, maybe those last two were a stretch ;) but this team wasn't exactly the same as if you were to put a college all star team together these days. This was back in the "olden days" of the early 90's when you still had great players actually playing college ball.


The point is that even the Dream Team could be beaten, albeit in a scrimmage.

Originally posted by Quake1028
Pierce is a good shooter

He is????

Pretty damn sad when a 43% career shooter is considered good.

Originally posted by The Cow
eh, he's saying the right things but not at the right time, he shoulda said that before the games if he really wanted to come out with it...

Seems more like damage control and diversion from not getting the gold to me.

:down: to AI.

That's exactly what he's doing... damage control. If the US takes the Gold, he doesn't say anything because they leave happy. Like i've said before, just about all the guys mentioned in that article, (Shaquille O'Neal, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, Karl Malone, Jason Kidd, Ray Allen, and Mike Bibby) have either been there before or have injuries.

But its ok, because Iverson has heart!

well, it's true. i don't care if all those guys have a gold medal already... is that the reason to go? or is it to represent your country?

i give my respect to all the guys who went and played... even AI.

more than Hamm who takes a gold even though he lost.

Originally posted by young
well, it's true. i don't care if all those guys have a gold medal already... is that the reason to go? or is it to represent your country?

That's the point though... many of them have represented their country. AI is in no position to criticize them when guys like Shaq and Kidd have been to the Olympics already.

Screw that little bitch talkin Iverson. Shove your heart up your ass.

Originally posted by young


more than Hamm who takes a gold even though he lost.

Do your research. It has been well documented now that the judges screwed up on some scoring that actually benefitted the South Korean and if they had scored everything correctly, the South Korean still wouldn't have won the gold.

Originally posted by young
well, it's true. i don't care if all those guys have a gold medal already... is that the reason to go? or is it to represent your country?

i give my respect to all the guys who went and played... even AI.

more than Hamm who takes a gold even though he lost.

I would be ok if I felt that all of these guys were representing our country. Some of them have done a great job, while others havent. AI, imo, is one of the ones that hasn't done a great job representing the US. I am ok with guys turning down invites because they feel they can't give 100% (not saying this is the only reason all those guys turned it down) when they are over there. I would rather it be like that and have 12 guys go that will give their best effort and represent the US. I don't know why we can't expect this US men's basketball team, or maybe more correctly why the keep letting me and others down in this regard. We expect it from our other teams : womens basketball, womens soccer, women's softball, men's and women's track and swimming relay, etc, etc. So bottom line, I respect some of the guys, Tim Duncan, but no respect for AI and Anthony and Stoudamire, and Marbury, etc, for I feel you didn't truly represent your country other than having USA across your chest.

Originally posted by cdollaz
Do your research. It has been well documented now that the judges screwed up on some scoring that actually benefitted the South Korean and if they had scored everything correctly, the South Korean still wouldn't have won the gold.

... or even the bronze.

Originally posted by MJKTool
Screw that little bitch talkin Iverson. Shove your heart up your ass.

:rolleyes: I dare you to find me a tougher player in the NBA. That man has played through every injury imaginable and uses (or abuses) his body in such a manner that would make guys 6 inches taller and 60 lbs. heavier cry themselves to sleep every night.

Originally posted by Fokker's Feint
:rolleyes: I dare you to find me a tougher player in the NBA. That man has played through every injury imaginable and uses (or abuses) his body in such a manner that would make guys 6 inches taller and 60 lbs. heavier cry themselves to sleep every night.

Doesn't matter. He's still a dipshit.

And he can't shoot worth crap.

Originally posted by cdollaz
Doesn't matter. He's still a dipshit.

And he can't shoot worth crap.

Wow, very enlightening.

Plus, I never said he could shoot. Neither can 3/4 of the league for that matter.

Originally posted by cdollaz
Doesn't matter. He's still a dipshit.

And he can't shoot worth crap. :up: He was on during a post game interview a few days ago and had a cap on will the bill to the side :rolleyes:talk about an unprofessional look

Originally posted by Fokker's Feint


Plus, I never said he could shoot.

And the poster you replied to never said that he didn't have heart. He just said that he could shove his heart up his ass.

Originally posted by Fokker's Feint
:rolleyes: I dare you to find me a tougher player in the NBA. That man has played through every injury imaginable and uses (or abuses) his body in such a manner that would make guys 6 inches taller and 60 lbs. heavier cry themselves to sleep every night.

Doesn't change the fact that he comes off as a selfish prick in real life. He can complain about other players not representing their country, but he's still a player who doesn't always practice and refused to come off the bench because he's a superstar.

Hard to take Iverson bitching about selfishness. Isn't this the guy that parks in handicap spots because "he can afford to pay the tickets." That is the definition of selfishness.

Ah, AI. I for one will never forget his gem of a response to Craig Sager about the poor outside shooting by the US vs Puerto Rico......

"We don't want to shoot from the outside."


Classic.

Originally posted by cdollaz
And the poster you replied to never said that he didn't have heart. He just said that he could shove his heart up his ass.

And what a great idea that is. Screw that, I'll take a hard as nails baller who may not fit the right public image any day over some clean cut softie that afraid of driving into the lane.

Originally posted by Canadian Bacon
:up: He was on during a post game interview a few days ago and had a cap on will the bill to the side :rolleyes:talk about an unprofessional look

Oh please!!! Unprofessional? This guy isn't negotiating a multi-billion dollar merger, he's playing basketball for chrissakes!!!!

Originally posted by Fokker's Feint
And what a great idea that is. Screw that, I'll take a hard as nails baller who may not fit the right public image any day over some clean cut softie that afraid of driving into the lane.

And I'll take an unselfish guy who carries himself well in public, PRACTICES, and shoots a decent percentage.

Originally posted by Fokker's Feint
Oh please!!! Unprofessional? This guy isn't negotiating a multi-billion dollar merger, he's playing basketball for chrissakes!!!!

So are you saying that professionalism is not a characteristic that should apply to sports?

Originally posted by cdollaz
And I'll take an unselfish guy who carries himself well in public, PRACTICES, and shoots a decent percentage.

Why does the player's public image matter at all? What does that have to do with what he does on the court?

Originally posted by cdollaz
So are you saying that professionalism is not a characteristic that should apply to sports?

Certainly not in the case of a post-game interview. On the court is a different story of course, and in that vein when have you seen Iverson either attack another player, coach or ref?

Originally posted by Fokker's Feint
Why does the player's public image matter at all? What does that have to do with what he does on the court?

I guess you are one of those with the attitude "I don't care what they are like off the court or how much of a criminal/asshole they are, as long as they perform on the court"

You are free to have that view, but my opinion is that is what is ruining sports. Athletes act horribly and suffer no repurcussions.

Originally posted by Fokker's Feint
Certainly not in the case of a post-game interview. On the court is a different story of course, and in that vein when have you seen Iverson either attack another player, coach or ref?

The fact that he hasn't attacked another player does not mean he acts professional. I guess you've never heard the famous "practice" sound-bite. You should check it out, it's hilarious. Listen to it and then we can talk about Iverson being a professional.

Originally posted by Fokker's Feint
And what a great idea that is.

You damn right its a great idea. Fuck "AI" and all his tampax whining.

Originally posted by cdollaz
I guess you are one of those with the attitude "I don't care what they are like off the court or how much of a criminal/asshole they are, as long as they perform on the court"

You are free to have that view, but my opinion is that is what is ruining sports. Athletes act horribly and suffer no repurcussions.

Hold on a second. There is a big difference b/w being a criminal and being an asshole. If an athlete commits a criminal ac