In a time like now, he'd just be encouraged to shoot more and we'd hope he would develop a 3. in an era where everyone was CLAMORING for him to do it, he never did. SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:If Webber's less gifted but similar teammate Gatling could develop a low post game with back to the basket moves then I don't see why Webber and some other athletic big men in his era and this era could not develop better low post games. Webber had the potential to be a very good defender and he was good at times.
If Webber's less gifted but similar teammate Gatling could develop a low post game with back to the basket moves then I don't see why Webber and some other athletic big men in his era and this era could not develop better low post games. I don't see why that would be any different in this era. I would have like Weber to have developed a better low post game and would have liked him to rely less on his jump shot.
He was unusually mobile for a big man then and he would be unusually mobile for a man his size now. Overall I don t think Webber would be that different in this era from the era he played in. Weber might not have objected as much to being a small ball center if he played in this era that has more smaller centers. If Webber had had the right coach and teammates early he could have had a better career then he had. Webber was quite good coming out of college but he had maturity problems and his young side kicks with the Warriors reinforced his maturity problems. unless it landed him as #2 to, say, Chris Paul or Steve Nash or someone like that and he had more structural offensive support and lessened offensive responsibility. I don't think an era change would have helped him much. I feel like if he'd played a role like Vlade's, he'd have been better off: his passing was legitimately quite good, and he had a jumper that let him play the elbow and high post very well, but he wasn't cast well as a lead scorer. He wasn't good at drawing fouls at any point in his career and he was pretty inconsistent after his rookie year, and his good years were mostly injury-shortened.
He was overrated on the Kings as a result of their success and his volume numbers, but he wasn't an especially good scorer at the time, nor was he any kind of special on defense. I don't see that changing all that much moving forward. He was very, very jumper-happy, and even in years where he was moving well and healthy, he was a fairly soft player. There was a mixture of the injury taking away some of his explosion, and of course his lack of interest in physical play in general. In his own career, he had two distinct phases: his first few years (where he still blew on D) and then thereafter, when he softened up considerably.
0 kommentar(er)
