Carlisle: Nowitzki is "Top 10 Player in NBA History"

[wwharton]

Re: Carlisle: Nowitzki is "Top 10 Player in NBA History"

no, because you're forgetting guys who went straight from high school. kobe, moses, lebron and kg to name a few. nor that they're all assuredly ahead of him (though kobe and moses are), but that's a whole contingent your statement neglects.

Oh, I'm not asking anyone if he is.

Somebody said that in the WCF Thread so I posted it here.

Now he and Drazen Petrovic might be the best European Players EVER to not play College Ball, that I would agree with.

You took that out of context, PPM. If you go back a few posts over there it'll make more sense. What he meant was the best non-American who didn't play in college bc someone was arguing that the Dream would be above him, and he said he didn't count the Dream bc he went to college.

Sabonis would definitely be above him too, and Drazen's in the talk but I think I'd go with Dirk... either way, that's what that was meant as.

[wwharton]

Re: Carlisle: Nowitzki is "Top 10 Player in NBA History"

Sabonis is above Dirk???

No question about it, and no offense but you don't know much about your history if you think it's laughable... even if you are a homer.

[wwharton]

Re: Carlisle: Nowitzki is "Top 10 Player in NBA History"

I thought rankings were based on actual achievements instead of potential?

Assuming this is in reference to the Sabonis talk, do you know anything about him before he got to the NBA? When he finally came to the NBA he was basically like Jordan when he went played for the Wizards.

[wwharton]

Re: Carlisle: Nowitzki is "Top 10 Player in NBA History"

...

We are ranking NBA players. Therefore, we should rank players primarily on their time in the NBA.

We actually aren't ranking anybody. Sabonis came up in a discussion about the best non-American who didn't go to college to play in the NBA. You hopped in that discussion with a laugh and are now trying to set the rules for the discussion we were already having.

In terms of the thread topic, Dirk is hands down ahead of Sabonis, but that's not what we were talking about.

[SuperBowlNachos]

Re: Carlisle: Nowitzki is "Top 10 Player in NBA History"

Dirk's 48 in game 1 was his 6th 40 point playoff performance in just 115 playoff games and at the beginning of the playoffs had 38 30+ performances. I'm not saying he is top 10 by any means, just throwing out numbers for some of the other debates out there.

[gravity62]

Re: Carlisle: Nowitzki is "Top 10 Player in NBA History"

Too many posts to read, but ummm.. Why can't Nowitsky be named the best player in the league right now, not top ten of the best players of all-time? Is he not athletic enough, or is it that he's not the Michael Jordan type of player? Why is it that Lebron James was named 'the King' while still in highschool? Was it because he slashes sorta like Jordan, passes sorta like Magic, and trys to shoot like Bird? I wanna know what you guys think about this question I brought into the discussion. Any good, worth while answers I would appreciate. I'm not saying he'll win a championship this year but still... I think he's Top 3 in the league right now definately.

[brahmagoul]

Re: Carlisle: Nowitzki is "Top 10 Player in NBA History"

Nowitzki must win a ring to be even considered all-time top 10 just because I don't know who I'd rank higher between him and Barkley, and Barkley is not in the top 10. A ring would probably push Nowitzki ahead of him, at least.

[Scott812313]

Re: Carlisle: Nowitzki is "Top 10 Player in NBA History"

Nowitzki must win a ring to be even considered all-time top 10 just because I don't know who I'd rank higher between him and Barkley, and Barkley is not in the top 10. A ring would probably push Nowitzki ahead of him, at least.

No way in hell is Dirk better than Sir Charles. People forget how dominant he was it seems.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Carlisle: Nowitzki is "Top 10 Player in NBA History"

No way in hell is Dirk better than Sir Charles. People forget how dominant he was it seems.

Barkley dominant? Please. He only dominated when he felt like it (which was rare). His offensive game was to back his way down into the post which stagnated the team's offense. He was capable of playing great defense but he was too lazy to do it consistently. The best part of his game was his rebounding (which was terrific). Finally, Charles was a lockeroom cancer who hurt team chemistry.

[Scottdau]

Re: Carlisle: Nowitzki is "Top 10 Player in NBA History"

Barkley dominant? Please. He only dominated when he felt like it (which was rare). His offensive game was too back his way down into the post which stagnated the team's offense. He was capable of playing great defense but he was too lazy to do it consistently. The best part of his game was his rebounding (which was terrific). Finally, Charles was a lockeroom cancer who hurt team chemistry.

Did you ever watch him live? And where you older than 5 when you did. Because I was in my late teens when Charles was playing and he was a beast!!

[Scott812313]

Re: Carlisle: Nowitzki is "Top 10 Player in NBA History"

Barkley dominant? Please. He only dominated when he felt like it (which was rare). His offensive game was too back his way down into the post which stagnated the team's offense. He was capable of playing great defense but he was too lazy to do it consistently. The best part of his game was his rebounding (which was terrific). Finally, Charles was a lockeroom cancer who hurt team chemistry.

Dude averaged 22 pts, 12 boards, 4 dimes, 1.5 steals, almost a block (at 6'4") and shot 54% from the floor. What more do you want from a guy?

[Scott812313]

Re: Carlisle: Nowitzki is "Top 10 Player in NBA History"

Did you ever watch him live? And where you older than 5 when you did. Because I was in my late teens when Charles was playing and he was a beast!!

Exactly. He was a monster and if you remember right, he almost beat MJ to win the title in 93. Those guys battled it out that series and Sir Charles stood toe to toe with MJ.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Carlisle: Nowitzki is "Top 10 Player in NBA History"

Dude averaged 22 pts, 12 boards, 4 dimes, 1.5 steals, almost a block (at 6'4") and shot 54% from the floor. What more do you want from a guy?

I never took issue with his ability to fill up his own statline. His ball hogging style did nothing to complement his teammates. He was constantly in and out of playing shape. Charles totally killed team chemistry in Houston.

Did you ever watch him live? And where you older than 5 when you did. Because I was in my late teens when Charles was playing and he was a beast!!

Absolutely. I was fortunate enough to watch many of his games. If the game is simply about compiling numbers then yes he was a beast. For me though, its more than that.

Damn man, you love to nitpick.

Its just an objective account of his game. While he was a very good player he did have some nasty flaws.

[PrettyT11]

Re: Carlisle: Nowitzki is "Top 10 Player in NBA History"

Barkley dominant? Please. He only dominated when he felt like it (which was rare). His offensive game was to back his way down into the post which stagnated the team's offense. He was capable of playing great defense but he was too lazy to do it consistently. The best part of his game was his rebounding (which was terrific). Finally, Charles was a lockeroom cancer who hurt team chemistry.

Come on man Barkley's offensive game was far more than just trying to back people down. He had a very good mid range game, had a nice handle, attack the basket with a fury, and was one of if not the best PF in transition in the NBA. There was numerous times when Barkley would get the rebound go coast to coast beating everybody down court and finish with a monster two hand dunk.

I never took issue with his ability to fill up his own statline. His ball hogging style did nothing to complement his teammates. He was constantly in and out of playing shape. Charles totally killed team chemistry in Houston.

How exactly did he kill team chemistry in Houston?? He took less shots and focused on working the glass. The only problem he had in Houston was injuries which is something the team suffered with each year he was there. That's what happens when you have an older and aging team. In 97 Dexler missed 20 games with injury and nobody but Matt Maloney played every game. In 98 Hakeem missed half the season and Drexler was no longer there. In 99 the lockout year they was healthy but just lost to a better and younger Lakers. His last year 2000 when he retired Hakeem again missed half the year and the team was in major transition. So again how did Barkley kill their chemistry??

[AlexBrady]

Re: Carlisle: Nowitzki is "Top 10 Player in NBA History"

Come on man Barkley's offensive game was far more than just trying to back people down. He had a very good mid range game, had a nice handle, attack the basket with a fury, and was one of if not the best PF in transition in the NBA. There was numerous times when Barkley would get the rebound go coast to coast beating everybody down court and finish with a monster two hand dunk.



How exactly did he kill team chemistry in Houston?? He took less shots and focused on working the glass. The only problem he had in Houston was injuries which is something the team suffered with each year he was there. That's what happens when you have an older and aging team. In 97 Dexler missed 20 games with injury and nobody but Matt Maloney played every game. In 98 Hakeem missed half the season and Drexler was no longer there. In 99 the lockout year they was healthy but just lost to a better and younger Lakers. His last year 2000 when he retired Hakeem again missed half the year and the team was in major transition. So again how did Barkley kill their chemistry??

It really wasn't a very diverse offensive arsenal for Barkley. He either shot from mid range or backed down. He wasn't a runner since he was usually out of shape. He averaged 4 assists to 3 turnovers which isn't great.

He came to training camp overweight then accused teammates of not being serious about the Title. Hypocritical. Not to mention his dislike of practice and his authoritarian personality.