What does this even mean? You're holding him to a championship-level standard, but not guys like Josh Howard, Jason Terry, or whoever else you want to throw out there from whatever team?
The thread is about Dirk.
Since the author of the thread and many others agree that Romo needs to be more like Dirk, he is the guy under my microscope.
If a similar thread was made about Tracy McGrady or another good-but-not-great NBA star who only plays well on one end of the floor, I'd be making similar points.
LeBron hasn't won a title.
Hah. Give him about a month. It's either LeBron or Kobe (minus Shaq) this year, so pick your poison.
It takes a team, and Dirk hasn't had the team to do it yet.
Just because Dirk hasn't done it, that doesn't mean he's good enough and it's the team around him that sucks.
Dirk has played with Steve Nash (2x MVP), Josh Howard (1x All-Star), Jason Terry (6th Man of the Year), and Jason Kidd (9x All-Star). Kidd isn't what he once was, but he's still a very solid starting PG.
He had a supporting cast as good or better than what Miami had in 2006, and it didn't matter. The best player in the series (Wade) took over, and Dirk couldn't respond. He wasn't good enough.
This is just like people blaming Romo for failures in December when it should fall on the whole team.
No, it isn't "just like that".
A football team has 22 starters, not including special teams. A basketball team has 5 starters. Superstar talent is a lot more important in basketball than it is in football, since football is much more of a team game.
Besides the defensive concept in the NBA is more about team defense, rotations, defending the pick and roll, etc. I don't care how good one guy is defensively, if he doesn't have the effort from the entire team, NBA offenses are good enough to expose the weakness.
That's true... but Dirk
isn't a good defender, now is he?
Let's see if you can tackle that one head-on without any spin.
The Mavs were 48 minutes and 30 seconds from doing it in 2006. At that point you wouldn't have said this. Because they ended up losing, you think you can make an absolute qualifier like that? Hindsight is great isn't it?
1) Yes, hindsight is great. Because of hindsight, we can now say that Tom Brady in the 6th round was a monumentally
GREAT draft pick. Something we couldn't have said before Brady first took the field in 2001. We all use hindsight multiple times every day to make judgments on just about anything.
2) You said yourself that "Dirk hasn't had the team", didn't you? So if I'm guilty of an improper absolute qualifier, then so are you.
3) Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Maybe if Dirk was a better player, he wouldn't have allowed the Mavs to blow it vs. Miami. Maybe he wouldn't have been a no-show in Game 6 in Oakland.
Dirk was a top 5 player in this league this year.
I don't know about top 5, but even if that's the case, so what? Isn't the goal a championship?
Karl Malone was very good for many years. Ditto Charles Barkley, Dominique Wilkins, Clyde Drexler, Allen Iverson, etc.
None of these guys were good enough to carry their team to a title. Clyde finally got his ring after teaming up with Hakeem and accepting the #2 role... which is what I believe Dirk will need to do if he wants a ring.
He's better than everyone on the Nuggets team, and they're still in the running. If they end up winning (and a number of people think they just might), then your point would be bogus.
My point won't be bogus because the Nuggets aren't winning crap. If they get past the Lakers (which I doubt), Cleveland will smoke them in the Finals.
But I'll be happy to eat my crow if Denver wins it all.
He was the number 4 scorer in the league, 4 points per game behind Dwyane Wade, with LeBron at 2 and Kobe at 3, and one percentage point behind Wade and LeBron in shooting %, and one point better than Kobe. Sounds dominant to me.
Whatever you want to call him, it's not good enough.
The 3 guys you just mentioned are all better offensively
AND defensively than Dirk, and those are the guys who are either winning titles or are on the verge of winning a title.
They are the competition. They are the Jordan/Duncan/Olajuwon to Dirk's Malone/Drexler/Barkley. The great vs. the very good.
What happened when Dirk squared off with the aforementioned Wade? Dirk was 29-75 (38.7%) after Game 2 in the Finals, while Wade was 48-95 (50.5%) over that same stretch.
Great vs. very good.
How many dominant offensive players are on your list? Sounds like you have unrealistic expectations.
Only a few.
The expectations are perfectly valid if your goal is an NBA Championship. Since Dirk doesn't do it on both ends of the court (like a Tim Duncan), his offensive game needs to be up there with Kobe, LeBron, and Wade if he wants a title.
Well I thought if someone wanted to be truly dominant offensively, they had to be versatile??
I never said that. I said versatility is ideal, as the best offensive players in the game today can torch you in many different ways.
Shaq was an exception, because he was
SO good in the low post that he didn't need to do anything else.
I hope you're not of the opinion that because Shaq had 80 pounds on Dirk and therefore he can knock anyone out of his way and dunk the ball and tear down the rim that he's more dominant offensively than Dirk.
I'm of the opinion that Shaq was better offensively because in his prime, he was downright impossible to defend 1-on-1 (unlike Dirk) and because his offensive numbers trump Dirk's.
The POINT is that they were and are both dominant in what they did offensively. Whether they're versatile or not.
Shaq was better both offensively and defensively. Dirk is not, and never will be, in the class of Shaq in his prime.
Which isn't saying much, considering Shaq is one of the very best to ever play the game.
Another thing about him is he is quiet.
