Rasheed Wallace has become a joke

[DaRizzle]

Sheed is not a joke...this is just a hater thread. Sad

 

[Ed O]

Looking at career averages, as opposed to career totals, and using Porter's real career, before he started to deteriorate, Porter compares pretty favorably with Rasheed. Actually, looking at just their Portland careers, one could make a case for Porter. I could also Argue that Porter was a more important piece of a VERY good team than Rasheed.

You seem to ignore the value of longevity. Most of the time HoF voters do not.

I don't think that many would agree that Porter was more important to the Blazers than Rasheed has been in the last half-decade with the Pistons' success.

Interestingly, if you compare Sabonis and Rasheed while they were both on a very successful Blazers team, it is pretty clear that Sabonis was a far better player.

WHAT? Are you kidding? You think that Sabonis was a "far better player"?

Man.

Can you remind me how the Blazers did without Sabonis the year he "retired"?

Ed O.

 

[Shooter]

"Many fans" are morons. I bet many of those fans believe in ghosts and don't know where Australia is on a map. Who gives a shit about an ESPN poll?

Obviously not people who disagree with the results, like you. The fact is, polls can reveal what a large group of people think about any number of topics, including dysfunctional NBA players. And since every one of us on this board is a regular fan, I think the opinion of other regular fans on the topic of Rasheed Wallace is enirely relevant.

The Detroit columnist talked about Rasheed being "most frustrating". Even assuming we care about the opinion of a columnist, there is nothing there to indicate he thought he was a cancer or a loser.

You must have missed the part where he said Wallace was "lazy, passive, and didn't care" on many nights.

 

[Shooter]

Here's Dick Vitale on the subject of Rashweed Wallace:

The league can't keep tolerating his behavior . . .
Wallace has been an embarrassment to the uniform. . . .
His example on the court has been disgraceful . . .
The players must look at him with bewilderment . . .
Grow up, Rasheed! . . .

http://espn.go.com/dickvitale/vcolumn010420Shaq-Rasheed.html

 

[Minstrel]

The fact is, polls can reveal what a large group of people think about any number of topics, including dysfunctional NBA players.

Popularity among fans has nothing to do with how much a player helps a basketball team win games. That's pretty clear to rational people.

As Masbee said, facts don't support your contention that Rasheed has been a cancer and/or loser. He's been the go-to guy and one of the best defenders on one successful team after another, including an NBA champion. Rasheed being a central player on a number of winners pretty clearly proves that he wasn't a loser or cancer.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Talkhard (AKA "Shooter") was challenged on the credibility of his sources, so he searched around for the most reputable one he could find, and produced:

Here's Dick Vitale on the subject of Rashweed Wallace

'Nuff said.

 

[Shooter]

As Masbee said, facts don't support your contention that Rasheed has been a cancer and/or loser.

Seems that lots of people disagree, including John Denton of HoopsWorld:

Rasheed Wallace, Detroit's enigmatic center, is far and away the NBA's most underachieving player . . .

Wallace's passive nature on offense and his volatile attitude that make him far less of a player than he should be . . .

And then there's Wallace's disruptive nature on the bench. He's repeatedly walked out or refused to join Flip Saunders' timeout huddles. If he's not touching the ball or seeing the Pistons play the way he wants he pouts and broods and becomes a cancer . . .

Wallace's malaise and many meltdowns are a couple of reasons why the Pistons keep flaming out in the playoffs against inferior competition . . .

Point blank, Wallace is the biggest waste of talent in the NBA today . . .

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=7083

 

[Ed O]

'Nuff said.

Well... and the fact that the column was written when the Shaq-led Lakers were facing the Rasheed-led Blazers in the playoffs.

Haha.

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

Seems that lots of people disagree, including John Denton of HoopsWorld:

It doesn't matter how many columnists disagree. The facts (you know, the events that happened in the real world) have proven you wrong about Rasheed Wallace being a loser and cancer. He's been one of the most important players, if not the most important player, on excellent teams. If "losing" means winning the NBA championship, I hope these Blazers are losers.

I realize that there are other people like you who simply hate Rasheed Wallace to the point of irrationality. There's nothing Rasheed Wallace could have done to disprove being a cancer and loser, to you. Had he joined the Grizzlies and led them to five straight championships, every year you'd still be talking about how he was a cancer and loser. I'm not trying to change your mind; I know your mind was made up long ago, come hell or high water (or, even worse, facts). Just as you find it fun to rant against Sheed, I find it fun to watch you try to scramble to explain away a reality that conflicts with your desired outlook.

 

[crandc]

Rasheed publicly said he did not vote for George Bush.

Anyone still wonder why Talkhard despises him?

"Rashweed" - so mature and original!

 

[The Professional Fan]

I think Bonzi is the "most hated Blazer of all time."

Sheed was just frustratingly talented. I did question his effort more times than I would have liked as well.

Bonzi can **** off!

 

[blazerboy30]

You seem to ignore the value of longevity. Most of the time HoF voters do not.

I don't think that many would agree that Porter was more important to the Blazers than Rasheed has been in the last half-decade with the Pistons' success.

You might be right. I might be right. Porter was the second best, and second most important player on a VERY good team. Rasheed, IMO, has not been the 2nd best or 2nd most important player on any of his good Detroit teams.

WHAT? Are you kidding? You think that Sabonis was a "far better player"?

Man.

Man.

Between 96 and 2001, Rasheed and Sabonis were both on the Blazers. Sabonis had begun to deteriorate (even more). Projecting their average stats for those years out to 36mpg:

Sabonis had more pts, rbs, assts, blks, better ft%
They were essentially the same in steals and 3pt%
Rasheed was only better in fg%.

Like I said, during the years Rasheed and Sabonis were on the Blazers, Sabonis was the better player.

You can whine, get testy and moan if you want, but the fact is that you are wrong.

Can you remind me how the Blazers did without Sabonis the year he "retired"?

Ed O.

WHAT? Are you kidding? You think that a player's value to a team can be measured by how well the team does after they retire? Kareem must have been a terrible player. Shaq will go down as a terrible player. Jordan will be a terrible player since he retired from the Wizards. Actually, what is terrible is your logic.

 

[WarriorFan]

In Shooter's defense, wasn't his point that Rasheed is sometimes a lazy player and did not have the career that he should have had regarding his natural talent? I don't think either of those points are false. Yes he did have a good career and he is a valuable player but he was able to do that despite not having a great work ethic.

As far as him being a potential HOFer, don't sportswriters vote on who gets in? If so, him quoting writers who have a negative opinion of Sheed is very relevant and would indicate that he doesn't have a chance at the HOF. If the only people who think you're guilty of a crime are the jury, guess what, you're guilty.

 

[Minstrel]

In Shooter's defense, wasn't his point that Rasheed is sometimes a lazy player and did not have the career that he should have had regarding his natural talent? I don't think either of those points are false. Yes he did have a good career and he is a valuable player but he was able to do that despite not having a great work ethic.

As far as those saying that the facts have proven Shooter wrong, we're talking about Sheed being a "loser" and "cancer."

Being lazy and not fulfilling one's talent can never be proven right or wrong. It can be used cheerfully against anyone you dislike, since it can never be disproven.

 

[Shooter]

It doesn't matter how many columnists disagree. The facts (you know, the events that happened in the real world) have proven you wrong about Rasheed Wallace being a loser and cancer.

Real world facts? Gee, let me think. How about the time Wallace got ejected from the first game of a big playoff series against the Lakers? Or what about the time he got suspended for attacking a referee, thus depriving the team of his services for 7 games? What about all the times he gave the other team a free shot with a technical foul? Or what about the time he attacked Coach Dunleavy in the locker room, and had to be restrained by his teammates? What about the time he left Robert Horry wide open for the jump shot that sealed the series? Or what about the many, many times he just coasted through games, not giving a shit? Is that "real world" enough for you?

I realize that there are other people like you who simply hate Rasheed Wallace to the point of irrationality. There's nothing Rasheed Wallace could have done to disprove being a cancer and loser, to you.

There's nothing "irrational" about my dislike of Rasheed Wallace. Every fan who believes in the integrity of the game, in good sportsmanship, unselfish play, and giving an honest effort feels the same way. Wallace himself has said that he is "Public Enemy #1," which is proof that many, many fans feel the way I do about him.

You really need to take off your rose-colored glasses. Rasheed Wallace is one of the most disliked guys to ever play in the NBA, and it's not because some member of an internet bulletin board has "a grudge" against him. He's earned his reputation through so many regrettable acts that it would take an encyclopedia to list them all.

But then you are apparently so blind to any criticism of him that you would continue to ignore every writer, reporter, fan, and NBA analyst who presented the facts regarding Wallace. It's pretty sad, actually.

 

[Shooter]

Being lazy and not fulfilling one's talent can never be proven right or wrong. It can be used cheerfully against anyone you dislike, since it can never be disproven.

What nonsense. No one ever accused Michael Jordan of being lazy or not fulfilling his talent. Same goes for Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Kobe Bryant, Hakeem Alajuwon, Bill Russell, John Havlicek, John Stockton, Nate McMillan, Nate Thurmond, Bill Bradley, and many, many other players.

Do you actually believe the stuff you post, or do you just start clacking away on the keyboard with no rhyme or reason?

 

[Minstrel]

Is that "real world" enough for you?

And yet he was a central player on a number of excellent teams, including a championship team. That's where reality trumps your desired narrative.

Obviously Rasheed Wallace has done things that hurt his team. The point is, the good things he does far outweigh them. If they didn't, his teams wouldn't have been successful.

There's nothing "irrational" about my dislike of Rasheed Wallace. Every fan who believes in the integrity of the game, in good sportsmanship, unselfish play, and giving an honest effort feels the same way. Wallace himself has said that he is "Public Enemy #1," which is proof that many, many fans feel the way I do about him.

Again, you're talking about popularity. That has nothing to do with his effect on team success. You know that, you're just desperate to avoid the fact that Rasheed Wallace has been a big part of a lot of team success.

I agree he's unpopular. So what? I'm not looking for a friend when I watch the NBA. Perhaps you are. I'm looking for players who play well and lead to their teams playing well.

 

[Minstrel]

What nonsense. No one ever accused Michael Jordan of being lazy or not fulfilling his talent. Same goes for Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Kobe Bryant, Hakeem Alajuwon, Bill Russell, John Havlicek, John Stockton, Nate McMillan, Nate Thurmond, Bill Bradley, and many, many other players.

Because they're not unpopular. So nobody feels the need to try to attack them with silly unproveables.

If someone said Brandon Roy is lazy and could be better than Michael Jordan if he tried hard, how would you prove that wrong? You couldn't. It's impossible, because such fantasy hypotheticals are always unfalsifiable. You'd just say "What nonsense." Which is what I'm saying to you about your random fantasies about what Rasheed Wallace "could have been."

 

[Rastapopoulos]

What I want to know is, if Rasheed Wallace has become a joke, when was this, and what was he before?

His name just came up in one of those "Daily Dime" thingies they have on ESPN.com. It pointed out that the Pistons have lost as many games since they acquired Iverson (6) as they did in the entire half season after they acquired one Rasheed Wallace. Now that's funny!

 

[andalusian]

The way I see it - it goes both ways. It is hard to argue with the fact that Rasheed never wanted to work in the weight room when he was a Blazer. It is a well known fact. To make the assumption that he could have been a better player if he was willing to do that is not a huge leap of faith.

On the other hand - it is clear that the man has been a part of a winning program for many many years and a big part of the Piston's championship run (not the main cog - but probably the piece that took them over the edge).

Personally, I can see how one can be disappointed in Sheed's accomplishments -especially when he was a member of the team you are a fan of during his prime and did not seem to work as hard as some of the other players from that team. Would him working harder during these years be enough to propel the early 2000-era Blazers to a championship or finals appearance over the Spurs or the Lakers? I do not know - but I am certainly not a fan of a player that was not willing to work on his body in the weight room during that time.

Personally, I have moved on from my disappointment from Sheed. I do not care what he does now - only when they play the Blazers I care about his game.

DO I think that he under-achieved based on his talent? Yes I do. Is it any proof that he did? No.

But, I do not care much about him anymore - which is probably the biggest proof of my disappointment in him - because I seem to care about Blazers past players that are not with the team anymore. I still hope Jarret Jack will turn a corner and become a better player in the NBA, I hoped T-Green would find a home in the NBA after he was moved to Denver last year and I feel sorry for Freddy Jones, to be honest.

 

[Shooter]

And yet he was a central player on a number of excellent teams, including a championship team. That's where reality trumps your desired narrative.

The Portland teams and the Detroit teams were loaded with talented players--and yes, Wallace was one of them. But he was also a prominent part of the "Jail Blazer" years, and he played a major role in the eventual breakup of the team and the franchise's fall on hard times. His lack of discipline, his arrogance, his disrespect for coaches and officials, his tirades, and tantrums, and his refusal to play anyway except the way he wanted to were all a disaster for the Portland franchise. He was a leader on that team, and his poor example encouraged a casual arrogance and disrespect from players like Bonzi Wells, Damon Stoudamire, and Ruben Patterson. Had Wallace had more backbone, more character, and better work habits, it might have been a very different story.

 

[Masbee]

Real world facts? Gee, let me think. How about the time Wallace got ejected from the first game of a big playoff series against the Lakers? Or what about the time he got suspended for attacking a referee, thus depriving the team of his services for 7 games? What about all the times he gave the other team a free shot with a technical foul? Or what about the time he attacked Coach Dunleavy in the locker room, and had to be restrained by his teammates? What about the time he left Robert Horry wide open for the jump shot that sealed the series? Or what about the many, many times he just coasted through games, not giving a shit? Is that "real world" enough for you?


There's nothing "irrational" about my dislike of Rasheed Wallace. Every fan who believes in the integrity of the game, in good sportsmanship, unselfish play, and giving an honest effort feels the same way. Wallace himself has said that he is "Public Enemy #1," which is proof that many, many fans feel the way I do about him.

You really need to take off your rose-colored glasses. Rasheed Wallace is one of the most disliked guys to ever play in the NBA, and it's not because some member of an internet bulletin board has "a grudge" against him. He's earned his reputation through so many regrettable acts that it would take an encyclopedia to list them all.

But then you are apparently so blind to any criticism of him that you would continue to ignore every writer, reporter, fan, and NBA analyst who presented the facts regarding Wallace. It's pretty sad, actually.

Your posts are full of lazy logic and deceptive leaps of faith.

You start out with some truths. Rasheed got a lot of techs, and didn't always score 30, and popular notions. Rasheed was "lazy" and "crazy".

Note that these popular notions are similar to the kind hurled at the Drexler led team, "not a smart team, stupid, will beat themselves". These notions are cute, become ingrained in the pop culture through endless repetition, and as Minstrel says, cannot be disproven, so tend to endure. Repetition and popularity are no substitute for quality. And so often these kinds of thoughts are utter bullshit.

Then you make this amazing leap to junk science - Shooter style. Bam - Rasheed becomes a "Cancer" and an "Underperformer" and (most especially) a "Loser".

Proven Truth - Shooter says.

Total Crap - Masbee says.

No one would blink if you said you hate Rasheed. Or you didn't like what he did in Portland. Or Detroit. Or what he had for breakfast. Or don't like the way he played the game. Or much any other opinion. But, when you make the leap to try to argue that Rasheed is things that facts disprove - it just looks sad.

I am not sure why you do it? It makes me think you are just as crazy as you claim Sheed is, as it is insane to argue the grass is pink when clearly it is not and will burn your feet when it doesn't.

Look at Sheed and his career with your eyes wide open and then make some statements. If pink grass still comes out - seek help.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Rasheed publicly said he did not vote for George Bush.

Anyone still wonder why Talkhard despises him?

"Rashweed" - so mature and original!

Duh, it was McCain vs. Obama! They said he's lazy, not stupid.

 

[Ed O]

Man.

Between 96 and 2001, Rasheed and Sabonis were both on the Blazers. Sabonis had begun to deteriorate (even more). Projecting their average stats for those years out to 36mpg:

Sabonis had more pts, rbs, assts, blks, better ft%
They were essentially the same in steals and 3pt%
Rasheed was only better in fg%.

Like I said, during the years Rasheed and Sabonis were on the Blazers, Sabonis was the better player.

You can whine, get testy and moan if you want, but the fact is that you are wrong.

I'm not whining nor getting testy. That you think I would indicates you have no idea with whom you're discussing this.

I just can't believe anyone who watched those Blazers teams would think that Sabonis was better than Rasheed.

Why normalize for 36mgp when Sabonis wasn't capable of playing more than he did?

Whether Sabonis was deteriorating or not is irrelevant. Rasheed was a better player and there's no way that Sabonis was "far better".

WHAT? Are you kidding? You think that a player's value to a team can be measured by how well the team does after they retire? Kareem must have been a terrible player. Shaq will go down as a terrible player. Jordan will be a terrible player since he retired from the Wizards. Actually, what is terrible is your logic.

I don't know what you are talking about. Shaq's team was just as good with him the year after he left? And Jordan's?

2000-01: 50-32 (with Sabonis)
2001-02: 49-33 (without Sabonis)
2002-03: 50-32 (with Sabonis)

If Sabonis was so superior to Rasheed, shouldn't the team have had more of a difference than a single game?

Ed O.

 

[STOMP]

The way I see it - it goes both ways. It is hard to argue with the fact that Rasheed never wanted to work in the weight room when he was a Blazer. It is a well known fact. To make the assumption that he could have been a better player if he was willing to do that is not a huge leap of faith.

On the other hand - it is clear that the man has been a part of a winning program for many many years and a big part of the Piston's championship run (not the main cog - but probably the piece that took them over the edge).

Personally, I can see how one can be disappointed in Sheed's accomplishments -especially when he was a member of the team you are a fan of during his prime and did not seem to work as hard as some of the other players from that team. Would him working harder during these years be enough to propel the early 2000-era Blazers to a championship or finals appearance over the Spurs or the Lakers? I do not know - but I am certainly not a fan of a player that was not willing to work on his body in the weight room during that time.

Personally, I have moved on from my disappointment from Sheed. I do not care what he does now - only when they play the Blazers I care about his game.

DO I think that he under-achieved based on his talent? Yes I do. Is it any proof that he did? No.

But, I do not care much about him anymore - which is probably the biggest proof of my disappointment in him - because I seem to care about Blazers past players that are not with the team anymore. I still hope Jarret Jack will turn a corner and become a better player in the NBA, I hoped T-Green would find a home in the NBA after he was moved to Denver last year and I feel sorry for Freddy Jones, to be honest.

Drexler was known to not only not like practice, but to bow out with some regularity or go half speed when he did go. He wasn't a weights guy either. He also was known to pound hot dogs at half time... not exactly health food. Did he under-achieve based on his talent? Was he a joke?

just saying...

STOMP

 

[oldmangrouch]

Drexler was known to not only not like practice, but to bow out with some regularity or go half speed when he did go. He wasn't a weights guy either. He also was known to pound hot dogs at half time... not exactly health food. Did he under-achieve based on his talent? Was he a joke?

just saying...

STOMP

Exactly. The media, except for Jaynes, liked Clyde - so they looked at the big picture instead of putting the emphasis on every little quirk or flaw. Even more amazing was the way they covered up for Kersey's sexcapades.

 

[andalusian]

Drexler was known to not only not like practice, but to bow out with some regularity or go half speed when he did go. He wasn't a weights guy either. He also was known to pound hot dogs at half time... not exactly health food. Did he under-achieve based on his talent? Was he a joke?

just saying...

I did not live in Portland or was a Portland fan during these years - so if this was the case (and I will take your word for it) - then yes, he would have disappointed me as a fan as well.

I have all the respect in the world to the Drexler era Portland team - but since I was not a fan or followed them that closely - I have no attachment to the players and as such can not answer this question truthfully.

 

[CutTheCheck]

lol Just made this smiley for my website

 

[Stevenson]

Real world facts? Gee, let me think. How about the time Wallace got ejected from the first game of a big playoff series against the Lakers? Or what about the time he got suspended for attacking a referee, thus depriving the team of his services for 7 games? What about all the times he gave the other team a free shot with a technical foul? Or what about the time he attacked Coach Dunleavy in the locker room, and had to be restrained by his teammates? What about the time he left Robert Horry wide open for the jump shot that sealed the series? Or what about the many, many times he just coasted through games, not giving a shit? Is that "real world" enough for you?


There's nothing "irrational" about my dislike of Rasheed Wallace. Every fan who believes in the integrity of the game, in good sportsmanship, unselfish play, and giving an honest effort feels the same way. Wallace himself has said that he is "Public Enemy #1," which is proof that many, many fans feel the way I do about him.

You really need to take off your rose-colored glasses. Rasheed Wallace is one of the most disliked guys to ever play in the NBA, and it's not because some member of an internet bulletin board has "a grudge" against him. He's earned his reputation through so many regrettable acts that it would take an encyclopedia to list them all.

But then you are apparently so blind to any criticism of him that you would continue to ignore every writer, reporter, fan, and NBA analyst who presented the facts regarding Wallace. It's pretty sad, actually.

Bingo.

Anyone who says these are not facts or is not logical does not understand what facts, logic, and argument means. Sheed earned being ridden out of town on the rails. And please, don't tell me Sheed asked to be traded. That falls into the "you can't fire me, I quit" category. He was beyond disliked at the end, and attendance at games was but one piece of proof.

In other news, nice to see you again, "Shooter"!

 

[Ed O]

Or what about the time he got suspended for attacking a referee, thus depriving the team of his services for 7 games?

You do know who he "attacked", right?

Of course, that it was a referee who was purposefully influencing games probably doesn't matter to you.

Ed O.