Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:nate33 wrote:Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:Semantics. I agree the big man in the middle can change a game but all I need to refute your premise is to mention Rasheed Wallace and Ben Wallace.
Which if either was a true center?
Ben Wallace was the center.
Name a good defense below-average offense guard that you would consider a star.
Thinking back, Michael Cooper.
I believe Matisse Thybuile (sp?) could be one with talented offensive players surrounding him.
Dennis Johnson of the Celtics I think played for Seattle first IIRC when he wasn’t counted for offense.
Darryl Walker. Really great player.
Dudley Bradley was a phenomenal player.
Nate, DeShawn Stevenson and Larry Hughes each had SOMETHING on the defensive end. Hughes was well on his way to an All Star game alongside Arenas. Larry wasn’t below average offensively but like GARRETT TEMPLE or Trent Hassell nobody would say offense is his strength.
What I think is an Eric Snow IS A STAR NEXT TO AN ALLEN IVERSON.
Just think the defense is not being compensated the same way. In basketball it is a little bit different than football. A defensive lineman can make a hell of a lot of money. I think I left tackle like Trent Williams is going to earn more but I am not even sure about that. What I really know is that the unsung heroes in the NBA are guys like Paul Millsap.
I knows I tried to tell the wizards about him.
None of these guys are stars with the possible exception of DJ. They're not indispensable. You can obtain these guys as free agents. Stars are guys that teams don't let get away.
I suppose this is a semantic argument. But when you say Mitchell will be a star, I think it's hyperbole. There's nothing wrong with saying Mitchell will be a "good player", or a "reliable starter". But if you throw the word "star" around indiscriminately, the term becomes meaningless.