Elton Brand vs Chris Webber

[SHAQ32]

Prime vs prime (not length, just how good they were), who was better?

[Sublime187]

I would take Brand. Better defender and more consistent on offense.

[No-more-rings]

Webber is probably the better player, but his rather poor durability makes it a tough call.

[OkcSinceSGA]

Brand for sure peak vs peak. His peak in that all star season is historically underrated. His playoff dominance in 06 was very 96 Shawn Kempesque. Webber was a better shooter and playmaker but Brand's defense, efficiency and consistency was amazing. If Elton Brand wasn't playing in the era of prime Duncan/KG/Dirk he would of made many more all star teams.

[XTC]

Peak Brand for sure.

Webber was amazing, but Peak Brand was playing at a similiar level to KG/Duncan/Dirk at the time.

25/10/2.5/2.5 on 53%. His advanced stats where amazing as well.

58.0 TS%, 26.5 PER, 14.8 WS, .229 WS/48, 6.3 BPM, 6.5 VORP.

He did that with amazing defense, and he scary part is, he got even better during the playoffs. Brand was just NASTY that year. I remember his mid range jumper being money that season.

[Cavsfansince84]

I liked Brand because he was such a good all around player and always seemed to play within his strengths. He was also the first Duke player I actually liked.

[Doctor MJ]

I’d go with Brand.

Webber had more potential, and you could argue he filled enough of it he should get the nod, but when Sac was good we were asking whether they really needed Webber playing the primacy he did and when he got hurt and they were largely fine, that hurt his stature.

I think Webber with some subtle tweaks to his game could have been a tier higher.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[pillwenney]

I’d go with Brand.

Webber had more potential, and you could argue he filled enough of it he should get the nod, but when Sac was good we were asking whether they really needed Webber playing the primacy he did and when he got hurt and they were largely fine, that hurt his stature.

I think Webber with some subtle tweaks to his game could have been a tier higher.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Not sure it's right to penalize Webber for playing with a lot of talent including most importantly another all-time elite passing big who could be the fulcrum of the offense. That doesn't change Webber's elite ability in that respect.

[Doctor MJ]

I’d go with Brand.

Webber had more potential, and you could argue he filled enough of it he should get the nod, but when Sac was good we were asking whether they really needed Webber playing the primacy he did and when he got hurt and they were largely fine, that hurt his stature.

I think Webber with some subtle tweaks to his game could have been a tier higher.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Not sure it's right to penalize Webber for playing with a lot of talent including most importantly another all-time elite passing big who could be the fulcrum of the offense. That doesn't change Webber's elite ability in that respect.

Webber played as a volume shooting big man with mediocre-to-bad efficiency. Guys like that basically don't exist any more because it was the wrong way to play even then. It's one thing to say his impact was minimized because he happened to have another great passing big on his team, and another thing to pretend that he was playing in a way that was at all close to optimal.

This is one of these things where if I see massive impact, I tend to cut a guy some slack. Rick Barry should have played differently than he did to max out his impact, but he was clearly being groomed to volume score and was clearly hugely impactful leading a championship team where he played all the meaningful minutes and everyone else acted as a satellite to him.

This is why I talk about looking to see what would happen when Webber was out, because his reputation had skyrocketed in Sac precisely because he was seen as "the star" on a team without other stars. We then saw that he didn't impact the game like a big-time alpha did, and when you combine that with playing in something of a unipolar way with poor portability that raised red flags at the time, to me he ended up bouncing around the league as a has-been at an age when he should have still been a guy his franchise swore by.

To be clear, that doesn't mean I think that Brand was way better than him. To me it's pretty close even with Webber's issues.

[penbeast0]

Not sure it's right to penalize Webber for playing with a lot of talent including most importantly another all-time elite passing big who could be the fulcrum of the offense. That doesn't change Webber's elite ability in that respect.

Well, in Washington, no one else on the front line was much of a passer and again, Webber racked up stats without producing great impact. And he came across as immature and selfish. Team asked him to move to center to play Juwan Howard and Rasheed Wallace at PF to improve the team, he refused. His stengths (great athleticism, ability to make spectacular passes) were the same, so were his weaknesses (dislike of physical contact leading to mediocre efficiency and post defense, poor practice habits) and while the team was one of the highest paid in the league, it never won a single playoff game in his tenure. As the team star, he is the face of that failure though, of course, not the only cause.

To me, he's always that player even with later success in Sacramento so I may not be an unbiased judge but add Webber's history of freezing in the clutch and I take peak Brand if he's healthy.

[SHAQ32]

Not sure it's right to penalize Webber for playing with a lot of talent including most importantly another all-time elite passing big who could be the fulcrum of the offense. That doesn't change Webber's elite ability in that respect.

Well, in Washington, no one else on the front line was much of a passer and again, Webber racked up stats without producing great impact. And he came across as immature and selfish. Team asked him to move to center to play Juwan Howard and Rasheed Wallace at PF to improve the team, he refused. His stengths (great athleticism, ability to make spectacular passes) were the same, so were his weaknesses (dislike of physical contact leading to mediocre efficiency and post defense, poor practice habits) and while the team was one of the highest paid in the league, it never won a single playoff game in his tenure. As the team star, he is the face of that failure though, of course, not the only cause.

To me, he's always that player even with later success in Sacramento so I may not be an unbiased judge but add Webber's history of freezing in the clutch and I take peak Brand if he's healthy.

Offensively speaking, Webber's supporting cast in Washington doesn't compare to what he had in Sacramento. Divac, Peja, Bibby, Chrstie.. Bobby Jackson. That is a lot of talent.

[penbeast0]

Offensively speaking, Webber's supporting cast in Washington doesn't compare to what he had in Sacramento. Divac, Peja, Bibby, Chrstie.. Bobby Jackson. That is a lot of talent.

To be fair, he should have had more success in Washington with a supporting cast of Rod Strickland, Cal Chaeney, Juwan Howard (admittedly playing out of position at SF but a former efficient 20ppg player in his prime), Webber, and whoever was at center (choose from defensive minded Charles Jones or a young Ben Wallace, Georghe Muresan, or Rasheed Wallace who they traded for Strickland though after Webber publicly announced he refused to play center, Rasheed came out and announced the same thing). That's a pretty talented team too, just didn't mesh which is a bit of a slam at the primary playmakers (Webber and Strickland).

[SHAQ32]

Offensively speaking, Webber's supporting cast in Washington doesn't compare to what he had in Sacramento. Divac, Peja, Bibby, Chrstie.. Bobby Jackson. That is a lot of talent.

To be fair, he should have had more success in Washington with a supporting cast of Rod Strickland, Cal Chaeney, Juwan Howard (admittedly playing out of position at SF but a former efficient 20ppg player in his prime), Webber, and whoever was at center (choose from defensive minded Charles Jones or a young Ben Wallace, Georghe Muresan, or Rasheed Wallace who they traded for Strickland though after Webber publicly announced he refused to play center, Rasheed came out and announced the same thing). That's a pretty talented team too, just didn't mesh which is a bit of a slam at the primary playmakers (Webber and Strickland).

I just don't remember Washington having that type of shooting to really utilize Webber's passing. Outside of Legler, and then Tracy Murray.

[pillwenney]

I’d go with Brand.

Webber had more potential, and you could argue he filled enough of it he should get the nod, but when Sac was good we were asking whether they really needed Webber playing the primacy he did and when he got hurt and they were largely fine, that hurt his stature.

I think Webber with some subtle tweaks to his game could have been a tier higher.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Not sure it's right to penalize Webber for playing with a lot of talent including most importantly another all-time elite passing big who could be the fulcrum of the offense. That doesn't change Webber's elite ability in that respect.

Webber played as a volume shooting big man with mediocre-to-bad efficiency. Guys like that basically don't exist any more because it was the wrong way to play even then. It's one thing to say his impact was minimized because he happened to have another great passing big on his team, and another thing to pretend that he was playing in a way that was at all close to optimal.

This is one of these things where if I see massive impact, I tend to cut a guy some slack. Rick Barry should have played differently than he did to max out his impact, but he was clearly being groomed to volume score and was clearly hugely impactful leading a championship team where he played all the meaningful minutes and everyone else acted as a satellite to him.

This is why I talk about looking to see what would happen when Webber was out, because his reputation had skyrocketed in Sac precisely because he was seen as "the star" on a team without other stars. We then saw that he didn't impact the game like a big-time alpha did, and when you combine that with playing in something of a unipolar way with poor portability that raised red flags at the time, to me he ended up bouncing around the league as a has-been at an age when he should have still been a guy his franchise swore by.

To be clear, that doesn't mean I think that Brand was way better than him. To me it's pretty close even with Webber's issues.

I've never bought this argument that Webber "should have played differently" (in the sense that people generally mean which is fewer jumpers and more drives and post-ups).

The offense functioned as it did because the bigs played out on the floor and were both all time elite passers for their positions. Without that element, you're talking about a completely different team, and one that very possibly is worse over all offensively, even if it means Webber himself is more efficient. The offense called for the bigs playing less efficiently to maximize the efficiency of the wings and guards. The team would not have faired as well without him if they didn't literally have two all-time elite passing bigs. The team was very reliant on an elite ability of his: that ability just happened to be passing. It's not the conventional way to measure stars, but it led to him being a fulcrum of an elite offense.

And I find it extremely disingenuous to criticize his late career as a function of his "issues." It was very simply and clearly an issue of his knee getting wrecked.

[Doctor MJ]

Not sure it's right to penalize Webber for playing with a lot of talent including most importantly another all-time elite passing big who could be the fulcrum of the offense. That doesn't change Webber's elite ability in that respect.

Webber played as a volume shooting big man with mediocre-to-bad efficiency. Guys like that basically don't exist any more because it was the wrong way to play even then. It's one thing to say his impact was minimized because he happened to have another great passing big on his team, and another thing to pretend that he was playing in a way that was at all close to optimal.

This is one of these things where if I see massive impact, I tend to cut a guy some slack. Rick Barry should have played differently than he did to max out his impact, but he was clearly being groomed to volume score and was clearly hugely impactful leading a championship team where he played all the meaningful minutes and everyone else acted as a satellite to him.

This is why I talk about looking to see what would happen when Webber was out, because his reputation had skyrocketed in Sac precisely because he was seen as "the star" on a team without other stars. We then saw that he didn't impact the game like a big-time alpha did, and when you combine that with playing in something of a unipolar way with poor portability that raised red flags at the time, to me he ended up bouncing around the league as a has-been at an age when he should have still been a guy his franchise swore by.

To be clear, that doesn't mean I think that Brand was way better than him. To me it's pretty close even with Webber's issues.

I've never bought this argument that Webber "should have played differently" (in the sense that people generally mean which is fewer jumpers and more drives and post-ups).

The offense functioned as it did because the bigs played out on the floor and were both all time elite passers for their positions. Without that element, you're talking about a completely different team, and one that very possibly is worse over all offensively, even if it means Webber himself is more efficient. The offense called for the bigs playing less efficiently to maximize the efficiency of the wings and guards. The team would not have faired as well without him if they didn't literally have two all-time elite passing bigs. The team was very reliant on an elite ability of his: that ability just happened to be passing. It's not the conventional way to measure stars, but it led to him being a fulcrum of an elite offense.

And I find it extremely disingenuous to criticize his late career as a function of his "issues." It was very simply and clearly an issue of his knee getting wrecked.

But the Kings did great with Webber out with no volume shooting big man like Webber had before so any notion that the Kings simply had to give a Webber-like player such primacy has been disproven, no?

And if it was true back then before teams really embraced 3's like they should have, the reality is that the concentration of primacy in Webber was almost certainly further from optimal given what we understand today.

Re: disingenuous criticize his late career. His "late career" began at a fairly young age precisely because the Kings saw what the team could do without him: The offense skyrocketed in '03-04 with the team's official star gone, and soon enough he was gone and irrelevant.

But I'm also shaped here by his "early career", meaning his time spent on his first two NBA teams wherein he went from superstar prospect to afterthought. Literally, this is a guy who is only relevant to later discussion as something other than a disappointment because of his time in Sacramento - all his All-NBA accolades came there - and there he played a role with excessive primacy that made people question whether it was necessary...until he got hurt and the offense improved without a Webber-like fulcrum.

Now again, the reality is that Webber was still a good player roughly in the same tier as Brand. I'm not saying Webber was trash...but Webber remains overrated to this day because of how he was seen during his hype peak in Sacramento when people were seriously debating him vs Shaq & Duncan as MVP candidates when the reality is he should have been seen basically on Brand's level with a higher maintenance personality.