Question the first: Is Kevin Garnett really all he is cracked up to be?
JC: Kevin Garnett is one hell of a player. He leaves it out on the court every night, works hard and handles the ball (and passes) exceptionally well for a big man. I just don't see him being "dominant" enough to ever win an NBA championship. First, many of KG's teammates do not get better with him in the lineup. For example Wayne Gretzky turned Dave Semenko a career fourth line winger into a 20 goal scorer. Have we heard from Horace Grant or Scottie Pippen since they left Chicago? And what of journeyman Drew Gooden having his best season ever with Lebron James in Cleveland. Latrell Sprewell and Sam Cassell hardly had career years last year playing with Garnett. Plus Garnett and his Wolves got trounced by the Lakers in the Western Conference Finals. He simply ran into the "brick wall" known as Shaq. KG cannot match Shaq's dominance on the court, nor his presence off it. You want evidence, look at what he's done for Dwyane Wade this year. Also Tim Duncan has taken a bunch of good to mediocre players in San Antonio and molded them into one of the best teams in the west. KG averages a lot of rebounds and a lot of points, and is a match-up nightmare, but he lacks the dominance of an O'Neal or Duncan, plus his doesn't really get his teammates more involved with his presence. Gimme Shaq, TD or Lebron any day over The Ticket.
MG: I agree somewhat. First of all, Sam Cassell made his first All-Star team last year in his first year playing with Garnett. I also don't buy into the notion that Garnett doesn't make his teammates better. Any power forward that passes as well as he does (I do think that he is a better passer than Duncan), is going to elevate the play of his teammates. The biggest thing that elevates Duncan is that Garnett is stoppable in big games. Two years ago, when San Antonio made their playoff run, the Spurs finished off the Lakers in six games in the Conference semi-finals. In Game 6, Shaq was on top of his game scoring around 40 and grabbing about 15 boards. But Duncan was even more unstoppable. He finished the game with 38 points, 22 rebounds, 9 assists and 8 blocks. Contrast that to Garnett's performance against an even more out of shape Shaq last year. The Big Ticket certainly played great, but he wasn't unstoppable to the point of making his team win when it counted most. I love Garnett, but if I needed a player just for this season, I would have to take Duncan. After this season, every year for the next decade, my choice is LeBron.
JC: We both feel that KG is an excellent player but not a dominant one. Not a guy who you hand the rock to with five minutes left and say "win this for me." Especially if he's in the playoffs against a guy like O'Neal or Duncan. About making people better though, maybe Garnett makes his teammates better as most excellent players do, but not even close to the degree that Shaq or Duncan do. Shaq and Duncan are unstoppable post-up matchup nightmares. The only people who can stop them are one another. Garnett is not the same way. Karl Malone played stellar defense on “The Ticket” in the West Finals last year and kept him silent enough for his team to lose. And on Lebron, is it just me or did the Cavs beat the T-Wolves a few days ago? Lebron can do things that even Jordan couldn't dream of accomplishing. Mentally he might be a few years away from being that Jordan type player, but right now I'd take him over KG. Greg Anthony I salute you!
Who is the best player in the NBA? MG: I think that this year it is Tim Duncan. His stats haven't dipped at all, despite playing the fewest minutes per game of his career. Add to that the Spurs record and his leadership of the best defense (by far) in the NBA and I don't think anyone else brings as much to the table. Garnett is close, especially considering he is averaging 15 rebounds and six assists per game, but his team just isn't playing that well. Lebron is awfully close, but his team isn't quite good enough yet and his meltdown the other night (in the final minute, he was called for traveling twice, got a technical foul and lost track of his man who scored the game winner) isn't exactly characteristic of the best player in the league. Duncan never has those kinds of meltdowns and his team is looking pretty dominant.
JC: Mike you talked about "The Ticket" and Lebron, and though you might not have mentioned Dirk, I can understand why, but there is one man you did not even touch upon! I'm thinking seven foot two, three hundred forty five pounds of sheer muscle, determination and power. I'm talking about the MDP. Mr. Shaquille O'Neal. Alright so maybe Shaq can't hit a fadeaway jumper or pull a killer crossover, but he is by far the toughest match-up maybe in the history of the league. His size coupled with his speed make him so dangerous. The only two players who can guard him are Duncan and Yao and even they don't do such a good job of keeping "The Big Aristotle" in check. He opens up many lanes for other teammates such as Dwyane Wade and Udonis Haslem. The Heat traded away two excellent starting players and right now they're better than last year, all because of Shaq. True he might be averaging less points per game, but he's deferring a lot more to Wade and other members of The Heat. Also, when you need a quick two, is there any other player in the NBA you would rather go to? I think not. Duncan is an amazing hall of fame player, but there will be other players like him. There is only one Shaq.
MG: Yeah, Shaq needs to be in the conversation. I don't think he is the best for a few reasons. First, in a close game, you have to take him off the court in the final minutes of the game. Teams for years have fouled him to keep him, or one of his teammates, from scoring. There have been times when Shaq has been able to sink a few free throws to render the Hack-a-Shaq ineffective, but it still works pretty well. Consistency is also a problem for Shaq. His motivation wanes quite often and it is apparent when he is on the court. He moves poorly without the ball and depending on how much he cares at the time, his defense varies between amazing and atrocious. You're never quite sure which Shaq you are going to get on a given night. You never have to wonder about Duncan. He's 100% every time he steps on the court.
JC: First of all, I don't buy the Hack-a-Shaq theory. Shaq has been on three championship teams in the past five years. Though the method is effective on occasion it has shown to fail. I will admit Shaq's motivation can be a problem, but right now there isn't a more motivated player in the league than "The Brick Wall." He's showing everyone who was the real reason why the Lakers won three titles. I'm starting to wonder how important Kobe really was to those teams considering what Shaq is doing with decent but not exceptional talent on The Heat. He's also making Wade look better than Kobe. You have to also remember how dominant Shaq’s Lakers were in defeating Duncan’s Spurts in The Playoffs (with the obvious exception of 2003). But the past is the past and we're talking about the best player right now. Sometimes people try to look past Shaq and point to Kobe as being the reason for his success, but when push comes to shove Shaq is the best passing big man in league history and he was able to get those balls to Kobe for open shots. In fact, Shaq gets all his teammates involved and if you couple his passing ability with his moves down low he is virtually impossible to guard. You also have to remember that defensively he's a difficult match as well. This is like apples and oranges, Duncan is "lethaler" but Shaq is "lethalest" if that's a word.
Can the Philadelphia Eagles win it all without TO?
JC: For years I've been telling people that Donovan McNabb was one of the top three if not the top quarterback in the NFL. Strong armed, strong legged and strong willed, since he was booed on draft day, McNabb has been the Eagle's entire offense, finding openings in team's passing and rushing defenses when there apparently were none. The only problem was that he had little help with the oft injured Duce Staley providing nothing in the running game, and a core of mediocre wide receivers doing hardly anything to exploit McNabb's extraordinary gifts. Enter Terrell Owens. Owens has diversified the Eagle's offensive machine, turning McNabb from dangerous to lethal as the former Orangeman has posted career highs in touchdowns, yards and completion percentage. There is just one problem. Owens won't be there in three weeks when the Eagles open their playoff run as the injury sustained a week and a half ago will keep him on the bench. Can the Eagles win it all without him? Well, The Eagles have gotten within a whisker of the Super Bowl before without TO, and in a weak NFC I think they will be able to do it again. Donovan McNabb is a special player, especially when the playoffs come around and I think he will be determined to get them that extra mile. Their receivers are a problem. Freddie Mitchell needs to remember how good he was as an all-American for UCLA and Todd (St)inkston needs to remember that football is a contact sport. Otherwise Philly's defense remains rock solid and their offense should be good enough to defeat whoever they take on in the playoffs. There might be a "T" in team but there isn't an "O" and I think the Eagles will show that on February 8.
MG: Can the Eagles win it all without TO? Sure, but only if the AFC secedes from the NFL. There is always a question as to how valuable a receiver can be to a team. After all, they typically don't do much blocking and only touch the ball 10 times per game. So if you look at it from that perspective, losing TO hurts, but it isn't a fatal blow. But if you look at it from the angle of what TO does for the team's confidence, then he is just about irreplaceable. He's a cocky SOB, which is exactly what the Iggles needed this year. They were coming off their third straight NFC Championship HOME loss. Anytime something like that happens, doubts aren't creeping into your mind. Doubts about the team dominate your thoughts. Owens erased all of that. All of a sudden, the team began acting like they are bad asses and they should win it all. They have been rolling over teams and TO has put up gaudy numbers. But like I said, his impact can't really be measured just by numbers. With TO injured, the team has lost its swagger. This isn't the same team as two weeks ago and the NFC Championship game is going to show that.
JC: The team can't just "lose" its swagger because one player, especially a wide receiver gets hurt. Guys like Pinkston and Mitchell understand they have to step up to compensate for his loss and I think they will do that. The Eagles will probably play another NFC Championship game at home, and this time they will probably win. I don't see The Falcons doing much damage, and though The Packers have Brett Favre, they're not half the team The Eagles are (I'm discounting all Wild-Card and NFC West champ because they are all horrible). The AFC could be tough, but Philly can do it. I don't think The Steelers, The Patriots or The Colts are THAT much better than Philly. Philly's defense is still strong enough and with McNabb, their offense is still dangerous enough to take it to any AFC team in a one-game showdown. One can make the argument that TO gave them the swagger that they need to defeat teams in the playoffs and that's not something that can be taken away by injury.
MG: A team can't lose it's swagger because of an injury to a wide receiver? Tell that to Minnesota. I don't think that Philly has the confidence or firepower to win it all without Owens. Philly already has a crappy running game (Westbrook is the #12 back in the NFC. Mike Vick and Warrick Dunn, who are on Atlanta, each have run for more yards this year than Westbrook). The ground attack is only going to get worse without a quality receiver to take the pressure off. Even Westbrook's receiving will fall off. Without the threat of McNabb going downfield, the flat isn't open for Westbrook to roam. Freddie Mitchell(16 catches) and Todd Pinkston(36 catches) aren't going to pick up the slack either. I know this because they haven't ever before. In my eyes, the only hope that Philadelphia has is to hold their opponents nearly scoreless, because they sure won't be doing much scoring without TO. In conclusion, Eagles - TO = loss in NFC championship.
