Is it possible to come out of this draft overloaded with Talent PG - Francis SG - Mobley SF - ODOM/LEWIS [Stretches i know] PF - MoT, Griff, KT C - Ming, Cato 1st thing that stands out is that we are Offense Heavy Defense light As someone said. . .we DO NOT NEED A STAR at every position Do we? Enough basketballs to go around If we do this. . .alot of folx will looked VERY overpaid [not everyone can avg 20 pts] If we manage this. . . WHat are your Expectations from everyone Francis - 20, 6, 6, 1 Mobley - 21, 3, 5, 1 Odom - 12, 7, 6 Mo T - 14, 7, Ming - 10, 10 That is 77pts from the starting line up 23 rebs. and 17 assts [Mobley's 5 asst maybe a stretch] If Odom is having these type numbers. . NO WAY he is a MAX GUY Sub Rashard - 15, 8, 2 [More points, Rebs and less assist] Still not MAX GUY numbers Add Griff and KT numbers. . . no reason we should not be a 95~100 pt per game team Remove Odom and Rashard Any reason Rice cannot be a 12, 5, 3 guy? or the #15? Tmo What are you expectations of Rice as a starter? #15? Tmo? Rocket River
Francis 15pts 10 asts Mobley 17 4 KT 15 6rbs Griffin 12 8 Ming 15 10 Cato 5 6 MOT 10 4 Nach 15 8 Mobley and Francis become team players and make the team better! Francis becomes an improved Point Guard!
I see KT with 1 or two more Rebs a game 72 pts/game from the starters . .and 30 from the bench 102/game is not bad. Rocket River
My projections for the core rotation (and a very happy 'Live' ): PG - Francis 20 pts 9 assts 4 rebs 2 stls SG - Mobley 18 pts 4 assts 4 rebs 2 stls SF - KT 12 pts 8 rebs 3 assts PF - EG 14 pts 10 rebs 3 assts 3 blks C - Cato 8 pts 10 rebs 2 blks Bench MoT - 8 pts 6 rebs 2 assts Mooch - 8 pts 6 assts 1 stl Ming - 10 pts 8 rebs 3 assts 3 blks Rice - 8 pts 3 rebs - Greater implementation of the 'Flex' offense, with a brand new emphasis on passing and weakside movement, and a dash of backdoor passes and P&R (instead of P&Fade) thrown in as well. - Improved and deeper frontcourt allows Rockets to use more zones and half-court traps to create steals. - Ming has a Griffin-like rookie year (slow start, steady improvement throughout the year), plus opportunity to play consistent minutes at Rockets' thinnest position, possibly starting by year's end. - Rockets slip into 7th seed, are league's most improved team, and take Lakers\Kings or Spurs\Mavs to limit in 1st round before losing hard-fought series. 'Man,' says Charles Barkley, 'you better beat this team now, because in a few years, no one will want any part of the Rockets.' Ernie and Kenny nod in silent approval.
Oh, and be prepared for Barkley to "trash" the Rockets selection of Ming on draft night. He has already gone on record saying he things Ming will be a bust. I get the feeling he just never is too high on foreign players, more importantly foreign players that are new to the league. Not that his opinion means jack squat other than to laugh at some of his comments. Chris
I've been saying for a while that what we need are better role players ala '94-'95 Rockets and '99 Spurs.
We need at least one tough guy mentally and physically who will do the dirty work of grabbing boards/ strong D/scores off of put backs instead of jumpers. Cato could fill this need - right now KT is probable the toughest guy out there- which says we need a thug. (with a heart of gold)
Man, what gets you out of bed in the morning? Is this all you do? Scan the bbs for stat predictions and then call them a joke? Do you have anything at all of substance to offer or is this all? And if this is all, I repeat, what gets you out of bed in the morning? This kind of witless, baseless posting is the argumentative equivalent of "Nuh-uh!" and "Because I said so." Grow up.
On another note, I don't think the Blazers' problem is having too much talent or too many 'stars'. Their problem is that everyone wants to be THE 'star.' 'Too many generals, not enough soldiers', that's the common diagnosis for the Blazers.
To win the championship, it takes one player who is the unquestionable star of the team. He has to be within the top 3 at his position in the whole NBA. Then you must have a second star, who is an all-star, but is content let his star teammate carry the team. These are all the stars you need. At every other position, you need specialists. Whether it be defensive, shooting, rebounding, etc. If you look at every winning team in history this is essentially what they had. Now if you look at the Blazers, a typical first or second round and out team, you see that at each position, they have players who demand the ball to be effective and have the same strengths and weaknesses. This is what the Rockets are destined to become if players roles are not soon sketched out and if each player is willing to play their role for the benefit of the team.
I totally agree. With the Rockets, Francis is the premier star. Someone else has to step up. In the short term it could be Mobley...and long term Ming or Griffin. And then the team needs it's role players. Everyone needs to know their own role on the team and the team has to function as a "team" to make it to the championship. Of course before they can do that, the team has to be HEALTHY! Chris
Yeah thats true. And it seems like everytime that little weak TNT show is showing Rockets highlights Barkley is quiet as hell but when they show a highlight of another team he gives them their props.
Guys, there is no one formula. In a similar vein as Live, nobody has a problem with having too many stars, problems start when people who think they are stars are not stars, or merely stars think they are superstars. In the 80's the Lakers, Celts, 76ers and Pistons all had multiple stars or multiple superstars and needed them all to win. Phily infact didn't win until they added a 2nd superstar (Malone) to a team already with a superstar (Dr. J), a star who might have been a superstar (Toney), and other fine role players. Detriot was finally able to get over the hump (beat teams with multiple superstars) after they added a star/close to superstar (Dantley then Aguire) to a team allready loaded with a couple of superstars and fine role players. Here is another way to look at it. Had Sac made an extra shot they normally make in game 7, or had Portland not collapsed in the 4th quater of game 7 three years ago--the story line would have been a balanced team of oustanding players beat a team of 2 superstars and merely role players. In short, both series were won on razor then margins. No need to over-interpret or look for hard fast histroical trends on the team versus mega-star argument. It is just the way of journalists to overinterpret things like that.
Since when does Sacramento have multiple superstars. I see Mike Bibby's role as having to run the team, Chris Webber shoulders most of the scoring (although Bibby had to do most of this in the Lakers series), Peja gives them perimiter shooting, Vlade is a big body on Shaq, and Doug Christie is a defensive specialist. I actually see no superstar unless you count Chris Webber who was far from it during the playoffs. If you look at the Kings, they are a perfect example along with the Lakers of the kinds of players it takes to win a championship.
IMO, Webber was no less of a superstar than Karl Malone, David Robinson, or Patrick Ewing were in their playoff days, when they often faded or at the very least failed to raise their games. Webber's numbers were very solid, he just was not the one making the plays with the game on the line. Webber IS a superstar, just not in the all-time-great-level superstar category. That's a fine distinction, I know, but I think Webber deserves some credit for being the anchor of a great team.
U not a supastar until you step beyond ya abilities Rise above and press further than you were before Loosely translated. . he ain't supa until he STEPS UP IN THE PLAYOFFS AND WINS!! Rocket River
LAfadeaway33, the Lakers and Kings team are built very differently. The Lakers have 2 megastars--both among the 5 best players in the whole league--a bunch of role players around them (all of them below average NBA starters and bench players). Sac has no player among the 5 best in the league, but is is a team built on average to above average to way above average players through 8 deep. Their game is based on a team offense where whichever advantage they have they try to exploit it and where each guy has to be able to make plays. The Lakers just pound it in to Shaq, occasionally let Kobe play 1 on 1, and have everyone play defense. Totally different philosophies dictated by personelle. It just happened the Lakers squeeked by, had Sac squeeked by everyone's story would be "a team of 8 deep beats two megastars everytime". Journalists and fans like to make too much of a slim margin where a little luck either way really could have made the difference. There is no forumula other than having the right combination of great, good, and average players with good chemistry. How is that for a formula.
