houheffna
Ignoring Idiots
- Joined:
- May 6, 2009
- Posts:
- 8,673
- Liked Posts:
- 2,711
Well, there is a comparison that can be drawn between Rose and Marbury, as both are combo guards that weren't/aren't all the efficient given what they are asked to do. Both have similar usage rates (for their careers, though Rose's usage has dramatically spiked this season) of around 25%, but haven't shown great efficiency, posting ORtg's of 108 (Marbury) and 107 (Rose). I think Rose has the ability to be the far superior volume-scorer, but without an increase in efficiency, the added points won't carry the weight that they conceivably could. Rose is not a bad or even average player by any means, but I think people have a tendency to remember just the point totals and fantastic finishes over all the missed attempts. At the end of the day (or career), I think Rose will be cemented as the better player between the two, but for right now their similar lack of efficiency (this is not to say that their respective efficiency rates are bad or not above average, but rather just not ground breaking or befitting the praise and hope heaped upon Rose now and what was thought of Marbury, to an extent) as well as their penchant for not playing defense are all undeniable parallels.
I think you give Mr. Cowherd to much credit, he never would have done the research or have given as credible an answer as you did...
That said, Marbury earlier in his career was considered a young pg on the rise. I remember him causing San Antonio all kinds of problems in the playoffs because they didn't have a pg that could handle his size and speed. I think that time has shown Marbury to be a bit of a lost soul and Rose may accomplish more. But at the end of the day, Marbury never reached his potential as a player, but the potential was always there. His selfishness caused him to walk away from a better player so that he could be the man. Rose might not have done that, but he shows signs that he believes he can win a title on his own. That is something I am wary of, but we will see.