RealGM

He was a hell of a player who couldn’t overcome his demons.

I was pulling for him when he got his second chance with the Mavericks but it was not to be.

Too bad.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:

NyKnicks1714 wrote:OP was vigorously defending Karl Malone for you know what in the statue thread. Maybe don't be too shocked by how he's talking about Tarpley.

no, OP was making rational and well thought out arguments while the mob was patting itself on its back for its trite virtue signalling. Ooh, pedophilia is bad! So very insightful.

Now since I can't be cancelled -- I just don't care enough about your opinion to make that a winnable thing for you -- you might as well just run along now unless you've got some actual insight about Roy's abbreviated career.

Well considering you caught the ire of a Mod earlier in this thread keep doing you bud. Your day will come.

You can't be cancelled, but you're an easy ignore after continuing to double, triple, and quadruple down on your poor taste. Bye, Felicia.

Let the dead rest in peace.

ellobo wrote:A better rebounding, worse shooting LaMarcus Aldridge.

That’s a pretty good comp. He was much more aggressive than LA and played better defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It takes a lot more than a "try" to get there.

Mr B wrote:

ellobo wrote:A better rebounding, worse shooting LaMarcus Aldridge.

That’s a pretty good comp. He was much more aggressive than LA and played better defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm actually curious about the Aldridge comparison -- where's that come from?

I would have called Tarpley a huge rebounder, strong interior defender and shotblocker for a combo PF/C, and decent but not dominant interior scorer. Strong athlete too.

I would call Aldridge an ok rebounder (actually softish early in his career), indifferent defender without much shotblocking presence, and who's great talent was as a very skilled midrange jumpshooter. A finesse player who toughened up a bit later, but was still never more than a shrug physically. And of course they couldn't be more different as far as durability/dependability.

What's the similarity you are seeing? I admittedly have foggy memories of Tarpley's offense.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:

Mr B wrote:

ellobo wrote:A better rebounding, worse shooting LaMarcus Aldridge.

That’s a pretty good comp. He was much more aggressive than LA and played better defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm actually curious about the Aldridge comparison -- where's that come from?

I would have called Tarpley a huge rebounder, strong interior defender and shotblocker for a combo PF/C, and decent but not dominant interior scorer. Strong athlete too.

I would call Aldridge an ok rebounder (actually softish early in his career), indifferent defender without much shotblocking presence, and who's great talent was as a very skilled midrange jumpshooter. A finesse player who toughened up a bit later, but was still never more than a shrug physically.

What's the similarity you are seeing? I admittedly have foggy memories of Tarpley's offense.

I’m think young Aldridge on offense. Had great footwork in the paint and good mid-range game. Tarpley was more aggressive, better defensively, and a better rebounder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Winsome Gerbil wrote:

NyKnicks1714 wrote:OP was vigorously defending Karl Malone for you know what in the statue thread. Maybe don't be too shocked by how he's talking about Tarpley.

no, OP was making rational and well thought out arguments while the mob was patting itself on its back for its trite virtue signalling. Ooh, pedophilia is bad! So very insightful.

Now since I can't be cancelled -- I just don't care enough about your opinion to make that a winnable thing for you -- you might as well just run along now unless you've got some actual insight about Roy's abbreviated career.

No one's trying to cancel you, mate. We are just criticizing the opinions expressed in your posts. That's what freedom of speech is all about after all. Not our fault if you cannot take criticism.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:

Mr B wrote:

ellobo wrote:A better rebounding, worse shooting LaMarcus Aldridge.

That’s a pretty good comp. He was much more aggressive than LA and played better defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm actually curious about the Aldridge comparison -- where's that come from?

I would have called Tarpley a huge rebounder, strong interior defender and shotblocker for a combo PF/C, and decent but not dominant interior scorer. Strong athlete too.

I would call Aldridge an ok rebounder (actually softish early in his career), indifferent defender without much shotblocking presence, and who's great talent was as a very skilled midrange jumpshooter. A finesse player who toughened up a bit later, but was still never more than a shrug physically. And of course they couldn't be more different as far as durability/dependability.

What's the similarity you are seeing? I admittedly have foggy memories of Tarpley's offense.

Ummm....it sounds like you just agreed with my comp and explained it in a little more detail.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:

NyKnicks1714 wrote:OP was vigorously defending Karl Malone for you know what in the statue thread. Maybe don't be too shocked by how he's talking about Tarpley.

no, OP was making rational and well thought out arguments while the mob was patting itself on its back for its trite virtue signalling. Ooh, pedophilia is bad! So very insightful.

Now since I can't be cancelled -- I just don't care enough about your opinion to make that a winnable thing for you -- you might as well just run along now unless you've got some actual insight about Roy's abbreviated career.

A bit of digression, but...

One of my pet peeves is the current (mis)use of the term "virtue signaling." It's used to dismiss an empty public display of virtue that costs a person nothing and has no substance behind it.

But virtue signaling in psychology means almost exactly the opposite. It's not a token verbal expression, but a symbolic expression that has meaning precisely because it comes at a cost. For instance a bank in a classically styled stone building expresses financial stability because it costs a lot to build and the building itself is physically substantial and durable. Or a doctor's white coat expresses expertise because it symbolizes the extensive, expensive, and rigorous education and training of the doctor.

A charge of virtue signaling is also impossible to rebut because any sincere and substantive expression of virtue is indistinguishable from an insincere and superficial one. I mean, if you think pedophilia is bad and you say so, are you saying it because you are expressing a strongly held moral value, or because you want to appear righteous to others?

In this currently common sense of the word, a charge of virtue signaling is just as much virtue signaling as the statement it criticizes.

I read up a bit about ole' Roy Tarpley and it was real depressing to see what could've been if he hadn't fallen victim to his vices. He's not the first person and won't be the last person to fall victim to his addictions and there are plenty out there whether it's drugs, alcohol, smoking, gambling you name it. It's sad as if there was more empathy out there where people wouldn't be so judgmental of others' vices that maybe those who are suffering could actually admit it and get the help they need without the fear of being scolded/looked down upon.

A lot of families have been broken up/lost forever and hopefully with people being more knowledgeable that maybe stuff like this could slowly be fixed but in the end you can't help someone who isn't willing to help themselves.

Those Mavericks teams of the 80's really showed some major promise and lost in the 88 conference finals to the Lakers in 7 games. After that it all went downhill as for 12 seasons, they only made the playoffs once in 1990 and got swept in 3 by Clyde Drexler and Portland. They finally won a playoff series in their final season at Reunion arena coming back down 0-2 to beat Utah before losing to the Spurs in 5 in the Nash-Finley-Dirk era.

The team disintegrated as Mark Aguirre was deemed a favourite of the Mavs owner at the time, but he acknowledged the rift between Mark and the locker room was too big to mend and he was shipped out for Adrian Dantley and other core pieces left/got old and the Mavericks became a laughing stock during the 90's that endured the failure of the 3 J's ranch era till Dirk/Nash/Finley/Shawn Bradley arrived with Don Nelson

I read the OP title as "How Good Was Roy Tarpley If He Had Not Tried to Snort Barkleys Weight in Powder" '

I need to go to bed.

People don't have to be known for their mistakes or illnesses.

Uncalled for.

He could've been the next Len Bias

I have addiction issues but i can at least laugh about it and get help

ellobo wrote:A better rebounding, worse shooting LaMarcus Aldridge.

Bologna Smasher wrote:About as good as Jayson Williams, which is nowhere near as good as Lou Amundson.

Much tougher than both these guys imo. He was a beast on the boards and a pretty good defender. I remember he would have 20 plus rebound games. You could not count on him to be 100% on the court but when on his game he was a guy capable of scoring 20 and grabbing 20 boards. If clean and healthy he was definitely an all star level player.

God Squad wrote:I read the OP title as "How Good Was Roy Tarpley If He Had Not Tried to Snort Barkleys Weight in Powder" '

I need to go to bed.

Well..that might have been accurate too. :p

And a colorful image -- wish I had thought of it. The two were contemporaries.

ellobo wrote:

Winsome Gerbil wrote:

Mr B wrote:That’s a pretty good comp. He was much more aggressive than LA and played better defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm actually curious about the Aldridge comparison -- where's that come from?

I would have called Tarpley a huge rebounder, strong interior defender and shotblocker for a combo PF/C, and decent but not dominant interior scorer. Strong athlete too.

I would call Aldridge an ok rebounder (actually softish early in his career), indifferent defender without much shotblocking presence, and who's great talent was as a very skilled midrange jumpshooter. A finesse player who toughened up a bit later, but was still never more than a shrug physically. And of course they couldn't be more different as far as durability/dependability.

What's the similarity you are seeing? I admittedly have foggy memories of Tarpley's offense.

Ummm....it sounds like you just agreed with my comp and explained it in a little more detail.

Well, I mean...under my fuzzy memory the players had almost no similarities at all. Aldridge was a skilled jumpshooting wuss. Tarpley a dominant physical force inside on the boards.

That was why I wanted a clarification on Tarpley's offensive game -- all I could imagine to even bring up Aldridge's name was that maybe Tarpley's offense was midrange jumper based as well. Otherwise it seemed like a very random comparison between guys with totally different profiles.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:

ellobo wrote:

Winsome Gerbil wrote:
I'm actually curious about the Aldridge comparison -- where's that come from?

I would have called Tarpley a huge rebounder, strong interior defender and shotblocker for a combo PF/C, and decent but not dominant interior scorer. Strong athlete too.

I would call Aldridge an ok rebounder (actually softish early in his career), indifferent defender without much shotblocking presence, and who's great talent was as a very skilled midrange jumpshooter. A finesse player who toughened up a bit later, but was still never more than a shrug physically. And of course they couldn't be more different as far as durability/dependability.

What's the similarity you are seeing? I admittedly have foggy memories of Tarpley's offense.

Ummm....it sounds like you just agreed with my comp and explained it in a little more detail.

Well, I mean...under my fuzzy memory the players had almost no similarities at all. Aldridge was a skilled jumpshooting wuss. Tarpley a dominant physical force inside on the boards.

That was why I wanted a clarification on Tarpley's offensive game -- all I could imagine to even bring up Aldridge's name was that maybe Tarpley's offense was midrange jumper based as well. Otherwise it seemed like a very random comparison between guys with totally different profiles.

See what you think: