Your Top 10 Favorite Players of All-Time

[NAHSTE]

Not to take sides here, but isn't the whole "versatile player = good player" argument straight out of the Chi-City Sports playbook?

I guess you could say Antoine Walker was the Boris Diaw of his era. Fat, "versatile" and could "play" multiple positions.

[Len B]

With that said, Walker was an above-average guy that seems to fall into a weird category of being largely underrated by a lot of people who didn't really watch him play but more or less saw highlights or stick with the fat, lazy narrative. He's also overrated by many because even though he was entertaining as hell he wasn't anywhere near superstar level and was a byproduct of a very weak Eastern conference during his time.

Not to take sides here, but isn't the whole "versatile player = good player" argument straight out of the Chi-City Sports playbook?

I guess you could say Antoine Walker was the Boris Diaw of his era. Fat, "versatile" and could "play" multiple positions.

Which is all I said. Also add emotional leader and you sum up my thoughts. Walker produced much, much better than Diaw. Whether you liked the guy or not, you can't argue he was a versatile player who did help make his team better during his prime. The post Atlanta Hawks trade sums it up perfectly. The reason he's underrated is because everyone, including Boston fans, think he hurt the Celtics and was a pile of shit. Apparently versatile = superstar in some peoples minds.

I do think its funny leaders are only measured by championships. If a guy is a leader (Tom Brady), he's considered near the best of all time because he has titles. If he's a leader who turns a shitty team into an above average team, it's not recognized. Walker was twice the leader Pierce ever was, but because Pierce has the title people will think he was the glue. They don't like to acknowledge KG. It is possible to be a great leader on an average team, which ups the worth of a player to me.

The rest is me just fucking around with everyone's least favorite troll, FT, and making him backup his shitty shtick. I should be a bigger man and ignore the guy everyone bashes, but sometimes it's too much fun for me.

That said, I'm glad we had a long discussion about Antoine Walker Dream come true since he should be irrelevant.

[Len B]

do people really give that much of a shit about groans? good grief

It had nothing to do with the groan but you'll see some day if you stick around. Hope you do!

[MattD56]

It had nothing to do with the groan but you'll see some day if you stick around. Hope you do!

really?

Don't be the typical woodshed FT we've known to hate here at VSN. You're trolling around groaning every post, which means you disagree with what I'm saying. And in typical FT form you can't counter statistics that I'm giving you, while simply resorting to 'I'm not talking to you!'

You need to stop surrending so easily and be a good little boy while you take your beatings.

it has NOTHING to do with groans? doesn't seem like it

but even if it doesn't, then why bring it up? just seems like an irrelevant thing from my perspective

if you're talking about FT regarding the whole "you'll see" thing, he posts on another site...i'm quite familiar with his posting

[Senser81]

I do think its funny leaders are only measured by championships. If a guy is a leader (Tom Brady), he's considered near the best of all time because he has titles. If he's a leader who turns a shitty team into an above average team, it's not recognized. Walker was twice the leader Pierce ever was, but because Pierce has the title people will think he was the glue. They don't like to acknowledge KG. It is possible to be a great leader on an average team, which ups the worth of a player to me.

Thats a terrible comparison. Lets take away all the leadership intangibles and championships, and compare Tom Brady to Antoine Walker. Brady is so far ahead of Walker on statistics alone, its not even funny. Brady has arguably the greatest statistical season by a QB in NFL history -- Walker's season of leading the NBA in FG attempts while shooting 39% from the field and missing 1000+ shots is arguably the worst statistical season by a player in NBA history. To imply that Walker is Brady's equal, its just that one has titles and the other doesn't, is ridiculous and groan-worthy in itself.

[FirstTimer]

Apparently versatile = superstar in some peoples minds.

Like in yours?

IIRC you said the following of Walker

and the most versatile player in the league
Yeah he was a knucklehead outside of his NBA career, and tailed off tremendously at the end, but it's not like that's not a common theme with the best players in the NBA of the late 90's/early 2000's (Shawn Kemp, Marbury, Steve Francis, McGrady, etc.)

The rest is me just fucking around with everyone's least favorite troll, FT,

I'm not sure you understand what a "troll" is.

but sometimes it's too much fun for me.

It's fun for you to look stupid?

[Len B]

Thats a terrible comparison. Lets take away all the leadership intangibles and championships, and compare Tom Brady to Antoine Walker. Brady is so far ahead of Walker on statistics alone, its not even funny. Brady has arguably the greatest statistical season by a QB in NFL history -- Walker's season of leading the NBA in FG attempts while shooting 39% from the field and missing 1000+ shots is arguably the worst statistical season by a player in NBA history. To imply that Walker is Brady's equal, its just that one has titles and the other doesn't, is ridiculous and groan-worthy in itself.

Didn't even say that. Just saying in New England, Brady pre 2007 was considered a legendary leader and at the time was considered possibly the best QB of all time, solely because he had three championships and didn't have the statistics to back it up. Rightfully so, as I do think he was up there.

Then I pointed out how you are only labeled a leader if you win titles, and that Walker was a leader, albeit on a much worse team. Did I ever say Antoine Walker was just as good as Tom Brady? They were both leaders, one gets credited to the extreme because he has titles, and the other gets zero credit at all, and fans even say we were better off never having him. I just don't get the logic.

Maybe you read my post wrong or I worded it in an odd way, but it was strictly a point that you are only a leader in the publics eyes if you win titles, which shouldn't be the case. That's a whole different argument though.

Right now I'm already on record saying Walker was the best player in the NBA, is as good as Tom Brady and would beat Jesus in handball.

[Len B]

Did I mention Antoine Walker in that group? I said even the elites fell off after a few years, which means it's normal for someone like Antoine Walker to fall off as well. The type of players that boomed in the late 90's all seemed to have short peak years, other than the mega stars like Duncan/KG/etc. At most I think Walker was a fringe all star player for a few seasons, but he gets treated like he was the worst player in Boston history by the locals.

Done with this topic though, I have no worries knowing Antoine Walker was an underrated Celtic.

[Len B]

really?


it has NOTHING to do with groans? doesn't seem like it

but even if it doesn't, then why bring it up? just seems like an irrelevant thing from my perspective

if you're talking about FT regarding the whole "you'll see" thing, he posts on another site...i'm quite familiar with his posting

No, he can groan me in every post for all I care. He's one of the least liked posters on this site and is known for horrible arguments just for the sake of arguing. I just wanted him to go out of his way and explain everything so he could waste more of his time, which is incredibly childish on my part but who cares. I burn time at work here, so it's fun to pass the time.

[FirstTimer]

Did I mention Antoine Walker in that group?

Can you not read?

Yeah he(Walker) was a knucklehead outside of his NBA career, and tailed off tremendously at the end, but it's not like that's not a common theme with the best players in the NBA of the late 90's/early 2000's (Shawn Kemp, Marbury, Steve Francis, McGrady, etc.)

[Senser81]

Didn't even say that. Just saying in New England, Brady pre 2007 was considered a legendary leader and at the time was considered possibly the best QB of all time, solely because he had three championships and didn't have the statistics to back it up. Rightfully so, as I do think he was up there.

Again, disagree. Brady was/is statistically one of the best QBs of all-time. He had the statistics to back it up. Its terrible to compare him to Walker. Brady was a great player who won titles. Walker was a decent player who played on a bad team that allowed him to miss 1000+ shots every year and average 18ppg. I don't know why you are belaboring this comparison. Maybe compare Walker to someone like Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson.

Then I pointed out how you are only labeled a leader if you win titles, and that Walker was a leader, albeit on a much worse team. Did I ever say Antoine Walker was just as good as Tom Brady? They were both leaders, one gets credited to the extreme because he has titles, and the other gets zero credit at all, and fans even say we were better off never having him. I just don't get the logic.

Thats terrible. Brady was a great player in his own right. Did people think Brady was mediocre after he threw 50+ TDs in 2007 because he didn't win the Super Bowl? Walker got some credit (all-star appearances), and I would argue that if Walker played on a very good team there is no way he's an all-star because a very good team wouldn't let someone miss 1000+ shots in his quest to average 18ppg. Peyton Manning was always seen as the leader of the Colts even though he didn't win a Super Bowl until later in his career. The difference between Manning and Walker was that Manning was a great player.

Maybe you read my post wrong

Or maybe you posted wrong.

[Len B]

That's cute that you're talking about 2007 and on, but I did say:

Didn't even say that. Just saying in New England, Brady pre 2007 was considered a legendary leader

You're smarter than that Senser. Don't be FT.

Why would I compare him to Dilfer or Johnson? Neither were leaders and neither played in Boston.

[FirstTimer]

That's cute that you're talking about 2007 and on, but I did say:



You're smarter than that Senser. Don't be FT.

Why would I compare him to Dilfer or Johnson? Neither were leaders.

Tom Brady had made 3 Pro Bowl teams, thrown for more than 4000 yards(leading the league once), lead the league in TD passes, completed over 60% of his passes 6 straight seasons and routinely was around 2:1 TD:INT before 2007. Brady was far more impressive statistically than Walker in relative terms to each league even before 2007.

[FedEx227]

Why are we comparing statistics of a quarterback and a basketball player?

[Senser81]

That's cute that you're talking about 2007 and on, but I did say:

You aren't getting it. My point was about 2007 (not 2007 and on), because that year Brady had arguably the best statistical year for a QB ever and didn't win the Super Bowl...following your logic, this would make Brady LESS of a leader because even though he played well his team didn't win the Super Bowl. I don't think that was the case.

Your point about Brady pre 2007 being considered a legendary leader is mostly irrelevent because Brady pre 2007 was also a great player. He went to 3 pro bowls in 6 years, led the league in passing yardage, led the league in TDs, had one of the highest win% of any QB in history, etc. So if your point is that Walker was just as much of a leader as Brady it just that Brady won titles and Walker didn't, then: 1) thats a truly moronic statement on its own because of its illogical basis, and 2) its a bad comparison because Brady was a much better NFL player than Walker was an NBA player.

Dilfer was a great leader. All of his teammates loved him. I figure he would be good to compare to Walker because both were drafted high, were considered to be busts, and had slightly above-average skills.