Why wasn Nique in the 1992 Dream Team?

[Dsinner]

Of those 14, how many of those have played worthy of their pick or their press?

Has Shelden played worthy of his pick?

How about Reddick (co-player of the year in college basketball)?

Uhm,,,Daniel Ewing?

Luol Deng playing like a 7th pick?

Most of the Duke players are players with good fundamentals who come off the bench because they lack the pro talent. They have been taught to play in a system and when they get to the pros, there is no system. You either have talent and can do anything or you don't, The only player who played all four years and was not systematized was Grant Hill. His father played a strong role in him developing though. The rest of these guys are bound to come off the bench as a specialty player. Since the days of Danny Ferry Duke has never been a college that you finished and came out as a star.

No Duke player from the last three decades has been a core player on an NBA titlist, and just four—Grant Hill, Christian Laettner, Elton Brand, and Carlos Boozer—have played in an NBA All-Star game.

Think of that List....

Elton Brand = Didn't finish at Duke and was a consistent street baller at the Ruck.

Carloz Boozer = Left Duke Early.

Grant Hill played all 4 years at duke but had his father's guidance towards becoming a star.

Christian Laettner probably rode the fame of Dream Team 1 to the Allstar game.

We had the ability to watch Shelden. You know what happened to Shelden? It wasn't that h couldn't.... it's that when he got to the pros, there was no Coach K constantly pushing him! Coach K pushes, motivates, and directs, but sometimes, you have to let a player find their own way. I think that's the failure in the systematization of Dukies. They become peices of Caoch K's chess board but when they get to the pros, they are expected to be able to move themselves. So yeah, coach K can fuss, cuss, and snort his players to wins, but when they leave, there's no pro coach that is going to baby them like that. In the words of Jim Rome, "It's a grown man's game!!"

Problem with your argument is with two things... 1)you're admitting they are overhyped players (meaning they weren't as good as the golden arches made them out to be going into Duke anyway and Duke made them better than they actually were). So coach K didn't ruin them, they simply weren't NBA material when they got to Duke and weren't NBA material when they left. If you ever watch any of Dukes games you would see that Sheldon, Reddick, Ewing etc. weren't ever going to be NBA stars from day one before coach K "ruined" them. This is a no-brainer, or at least should be.

2.) Coach K has taken a group of Superstars (not All-stars mind you) and accomplished something that hasn't been done in a loooong time. So, you're whole Coach K's system isn't for a pro athlete, coach K ruins pro talent is complete utter sh*t.

It's basketball thinking at it's worst to believe that Duke's program takes a bunch of Pro talented players and turns them into average to good college players at their max. I can't even begin to explain how short sighted this argument is.

So, the players that made it did so despite Duke and had possible other outside influences that were truly the reason for their success? So with that logic the Dukees that didn't make it didn't so because of outside influences as well. Diesel why do you always argue out of both sides of your mouth? It's like talking to a parrot. You have no idea what you're saying you just respond based on a reaction.

"Duke players can't play pro ball except these and they did it because of blah blah blah". Or," Coach K can yell, cus and snort at his players all he wants but when they get to the pro's they're not going to be babied. " LOL do you even read what you type? Cussing, snorting and yelling is babying?!?! LOL, Diesel the parrot.

Edited September 5, 2010 by Dsinner

[AHF]

What? Each one of those links quoted word for word "Laettner is considered by many to be the greatest college basketball player ever." That's nearly word for word in each of those links (there are plenty more links I can post that quote the exact same line. What that means is that he is obviously in the conversation by many.

I'll bite.

It seems like you think "greatest of all-time" is the same as "one of the greatest of all-time." Let me tell you the difference so we can define our terms. Greatest means better than all others. When people say "one of the greatest" that means that others are better than the player in question but he is among the elite.

Example: Saying Clyde Drexler was "one of the greatest shooting guards of the 1990s" doesn't mean that any non-homer considers him to have been better than Jordan.

Not one of the articles you cite -- no matter how far afield they ran from mainstream media - made the case that Laettner was the greatest of all time. Let's go one by one.

Link #1:

0/1 No claim that he is considered by anyone as the greatest college player of all-time.

considered one of the greatest collegiate players ever

One of the greatest is very different from "the greatest."

Link #2:

0/2 - No claim that he is considered by anyone as the greatest college player of all-time.

Greatest College Basketball Careers

Mojo list of top 10 careers in college history. No such quote about being considered the greatest player ever. There is a link to the above article video article. It goes on for over a minute and doesn't mention anything about him being considered by anyone as the greatest player in college history. Ends discussing his solid NBA career.

Link #3:

0/3 - No claim that he is considered by anyone as the greatest college player of all-time.

Christian Laettner - Greatest College Basketball Careers

Link to same Mojo list.

Link #4:

0/4 - No claim that he is considered by anyone as the greatest college player of all-time.

He is considered by many to be one of the greatest college basketball players ever

Again, nothing about anyone considering him to be the greatest college basketball player ever. Just one of the top guys.

Link #5:

0/5 - No claim that he is considered by anyone as the greatest college player of all-time.

one of the greatest collegiate players of all time

Again, not the greatest. Moreover, the same link states:

In a league that included such talents as Michael Jordan, Ralph Sampson, Tim Duncan, Christian Laettner, and Len Bias, Thompson is widely considered the greatest player in the history of the Atlantic Coast Conference

To define our terms, if you aren't the best in your conference, you aren't the best in the history of the game.

Link #6:

0/6 - No claim that he is considered by anyone as the greatest college player of all-time.

Christian Laettner, considered by some to be the greatest player in NCAA Tournament history

Ohhhh.....we were so close! Someone actually said Laettner was considered by some to be the greatest at something! It just isn't the greatest player in NCAA history like we have been talking about. Instead, it is more narrowly defined to greatest tournament player. His one MOP versus the three MOPs for Alcinder begs the question on what criteria is being used but it is almost certainly cumulative team success and Laettner's transcendent moment against UK that "some" are relying on - ala the argument that Laettner's freshman year should be thrown out when looking at his career averages but considered when looking at Duke's tourney success while he was there.

What is more telling is the fact that the same article - which is a puff piece promoting David Thompson and Laettner - mentions Thompson as someone that "some people" consider the best player in college basketball history and DOESN'T make the same point about Laettner. The article actually makes the argument that Laettner is not in the conversation as greatest college basketball player of all-time since Thompson is discussed in this context and Laettner isn't. I have no idea why that article was cited since it actually undermines your position.

************************************

Recap - Not a single link you provided either:

(1) Argued that Laettner is the greatest player in NCAA history

or

(2) Argued that anyone considered Laettner the greatest player in NCAA history.

Edited September 9, 2010 by AHF

[Dsinner]

I'll bite.

It seems like you think "greatest of all-time" is the same as "one of the greatest of all-time." Let me tell you the difference so we can define our terms. Greatest means better than all others. When people say "one of the greatest" that means that others are better than the player in question but he is among the elite.

Ok, I see what you're saying there. Regardless, he is in the conversation by some (which is one of my two original points that led to this ^^^ discussion). When you are considered ONE of the greatest ever than an argument can be made (see his tourney records, which is by a some more important than empty reg season stats) that he is. Again, I don't think he is but I have heard and read convo's in which a very good argument was made and by non Duke fans mind you.

My other point, and the orignal point that lead to this "best ever" discussion, is that Laettner CLEARLY deserved to be the college player on that team. There simply is no other argument, other than a keen "best ever" deflection, that can be made to that point. If you want to continue this conversation let's stick to this point. I concede that Laettner is not in the the best ever conversation and will even erase all memory and ignore future references that say otherwise. So, if you have any clear justification as to why the unanimous player of the year, one of the best to ever play the game (that better lol?), and perhaps the best tourney player of all time (don't even start) didn't deserve to be on that squad by all means let's hear it. And showing Shaq had better numbers isn't going to get it done.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Dsinner

[AHF]

My other point, and the orignal point that lead to this "best ever" discussion, is that Laettner CLEARLY deserved to be the college player on that team. There simply is no other argument, other than a keen "best ever" deflection, that can be made to that point. If you want to continue this conversation let's stick to this point. I concede that Laettner is not in the the best ever conversation and will even erase all memory and ignore future references that say otherwise. So, if you have any clear justification as to why the unanimous player of the year, one of the best to ever play the game (that better lol?), and perhaps the best tourney player of all time (don't even start) didn't deserve to be on that squad by all means let's hear it. And showing Shaq had better numbers isn't going to get it done.

Actually, here are 3 very good reasons that Laettner didn't deserve the spot on the Olympic team:

The team should have been about the best players on the same team, i.e., the "Dream" team. With that in mind:

(1) Dominique Wilkins was better and would have made the team better;

(2) Isiah Thomas was better and would have made the team better;

(3) Shaq was better and would have made the team better which is why Laettner's name being called with the first or second pick of the NBA draft would have shocked people whose job it is to identify the best basketball players (i.e., NBA scouts and GMs).

[i have yet to hear an argument for Laettner as the greatest player of all time but if you think there is a credible one, please feel free to share it - especially one that doesn't make it seem like Robert Horry is an all-time great.]

[Dsinner]

Actually, here are 3 very good reasons that Laettner didn't deserve the spot on the Olympic team:

The team should have been about the best players on the same team, i.e., the "Dream" team. With that in mind:

(1) Dominique Wilkins was better and would have made the team better;

(2) Isiah Thomas was better and would have made the team better;

(3) Shaq was better and would have made the team better which is why Laettner's name being called with the first or second pick of the NBA draft would have shocked people whose job it is to identify the best basketball players (i.e., NBA scouts and GMs).

[i have yet to hear an argument for Laettner as the greatest player of all time but if you think there is a credible one, please feel free to share it - especially one that doesn't make it seem like Robert Horry is an all-time great.]

OK, for starters that slot HAD to go to a college player. Let's go ahead and refresh that point. I already said that IF a college player had to be picked it had to be Laettner so your points 1-2 are pointless as I would completely agree.

To point 3...You've already conceeded that Laettner is considered by many to be ONE OF the greatest of all time. Right? Soooo why would you even begin to believe that one of the greatest, who had his best season, and who was VOTED by those who know 10000000X more about college basketball than you and I to be the best player that year didn't deserve to be on that team? Oh yeah, you're a Wildcat.

Shaq possibly being a better pro shouldn't have anything to do with him playing in the Olympics. FIBA play is more like college play than like the NBA. So, logic would dictate that it would make more sense to get the better college player and not the better NBA prospect.

Come on man you have nothing to stand on with this. I'll repeat this....Laettner was the COLLEGE PLAYER OF THE YEAR (and the voting was even close) that year despite what you think of Shaq. The argument pretty much ends right there. You really should do this already... :white flag:

I'm not continuing with Laettner best ever argument because you're clearly not following me when I say I don't think he was. Yet you somehow want me to make an argument as to why he should be considered. I've already stated that some feel the Tourney is more important than reg season and since he's in that conversation that's enough for them. I'm not going to make an argument for something I don't beleive. It wouldn't be a good one.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Dsinner

[lethalweapon3]

sooooo what was the thread question again?

~lw3

[MaceCase]

sooooo what was the thread question again?

~lw3

Perhaps he was busy with other things that summer :whistling:

http://www.hawksquawk.net/community/index.php/topic/351364-does-anybody-know-the-truth-about-nique/

[AHF]

OK, for starters that slot HAD to go to a college player. Let's go ahead and refresh that point. I already said that IF a college player had to be picked it had to be Laettner so your points 1-2 are pointless as I would completely agree.

That is fair.

To point 3...You've already conceeded that Laettner is considered by many to be ONE OF the greatest of all time. Right? Soooo why would you even begin to believe that one of the greatest, who had his best season, and who was VOTED by those who know 10000000X more about college basketball than you and I to be the best player that year didn't deserve to be on that team? Oh yeah, you're a Wildcat.

No. I am basing the criteria on best player not on best college career. Every NBA GM in the league would have taken Shaq over Laettner that year. Every single one of them. Shaq was the favorite for ROY. Why? Because he was the better player.

Shaq possibly being a better pro shouldn't have anything to do with him playing in the Olympics. FIBA play is more like college play than like the NBA. So, logic would dictate that it would make more sense to get the better college player and not the better NBA prospect.

Come on man you have nothing to stand on with this. I'll repeat this....Laettner was the COLLEGE PLAYER OF THE YEAR (and the voting was even close) that year despite what you think of Shaq. The argument pretty much ends right there. You really should do this already... :white flag:

NBA GMs picked two players over Laettner because he wasn't the best player coming out of college. Like I said earlier, if you needed a posterboy for the college game then the role of towel-waver deserved to go to Laettner. There is no question that he had the best college career of the players to consider. I just don't think he was as good in the international game circa 1992 as Shaq or Mourning would have been (this wasn't an era that resembled the current international game). I do think this is a very debatable area whether someone is pro-Shaq or pro-Laettner, but there is no debate if you are rewarding someone for their college career and there is no debate if you are picking someone based purely on talent (Shaq was the no-brainer #1 overall pick). It is debatable because Shaq also had some great college numbers and Laettner was also an excellent second-tier (i.e., non-franchise player) pro prospect.

On this issue, there are many mainstream people who have put this argument in writing like ESPN's JA Adande's article last year on Isiah Thomas' snub:

We also know the political nature of the roster. Giving the lone spot slotted for a collegiate player to Christian Laettner instead of Shaquille O'Neal was equally absurd.

My argument is that you take the best players and Laettner doesn't qualify by that criteria - people knew he was not as good as Shaq back then but he had the better college career and was the NCAA POY so I at least understand the argument.

I'm not continuing with Laettner best ever argument because you're clearly not following me when I say I don't think he was. Yet you somehow want me to make an argument as to why he should be considered. I've already stated that some feel the Tourney is more important than reg season and since he's in that conversation that's enough for them. I'm not going to make an argument for something I don't beleive. It wouldn't be a good one.

Agreed. There isn't a good argument for Laettner as the greatest college basketball player of all-time. That is why he isn't in the conversation for greatest college basketball player of all-time.