PDA

View Full Version : Do you think Shaq has underachieved?



TannerOwnsDevin
10-10-2009, 11:41 PM
Hear me out first before you guys flame. I know he has 4 titles, 3 Finals MVP and a regular season MVP.



But if you look at the quality of players he played with along with his unquestionable and somainating skill, I think Shaq should've at least tied or had more rings than Jordan. He only had a few scoring titles eventhough NO ONE can stop him in his prime and he only had 1 regular season MVP when the media LOVED him.



Furthermore, he only won majority of his title when he was paired with a SuperNova talent like Kobe ( I guess you can say the same for Kobe too) but the point being is he could've had more with Penny and Wade.



Considering those factors above (unlimited supply of talented players and unquestionable skill) Do you think Shaq underachieved? Do you think he could do more if he had more a desire to be consistenly great? or if he had much more work ethic (like Kobe or Jordan)?

Ty Fast
10-10-2009, 11:48 PM
No

IRUAM #21
10-11-2009, 12:25 AM
Fail.

JordansBulls
10-11-2009, 12:33 AM
Not really!! He played great in the 90's and didn't win until he was 28. He was on title teams pretty much since his 3rd year in the league thru 2008.

B-Ray
10-11-2009, 12:37 AM
Shaq is one of the 50 greatest players of all time
no underachievement there

Chronz
10-11-2009, 01:09 AM
If he has, its certainly not for the reasons you mentioned.

JayW_1023
10-11-2009, 01:13 AM
Not many centers at 37 still have Shaqs value...and given his history of injuries...that's really impressive in my opinion.

jetsfan28
10-11-2009, 01:15 AM
I voted for both. He underachieved for a few years, but it's allowed him to stay a bit stronger and overachieve now, so it evens out :shrug:

Sox Appeal
10-11-2009, 01:24 AM
Without question. When he was with the Lakers, he only came into the season in shape once, and ironically, that was the year he won the MVP.

JasonJohnHorn
10-11-2009, 01:31 AM
Shaq is one of the most dominant centers of all time, but you are right to question whether he has underachieved. He has been gifted with phenominal physique, but he has not done with it what others at his position have. He is a decent passer out fo the double team, and solid defensively in the paint, but he has never been able to guad centers who step out of the paint, and his offensive game, though effective, is limitted. He has never bothered to condition himself like Hakeem, Karl Malone and Jabbar have, nor has he bothered to add the mid range jumper to his game like Duncan, Robinson Hakkem, Jabbar and many other greats, nor has he ever developed the foot work in the post that Hakeem had, instead he relied on the @$$-check to get position in the paint.

I'm not saying he isn't great, but if had done more than rely on more than his natural physical gifts and developed a game even remotely comprable to Hakeem, or Robinson or Duncan, he likely would have not just been one of the 50 greatest of all time, he would have easily been the most dominant player since Wilt Chamberlain. As it stands, four rings (and counting) is impressive.

As for those who say he needed Kobe or Wade, it is important to note that everybody needs other good players on the team to win. Kobe has Gasol and Odom, Jordan had Pippen and Rodman (or Grant). And all big market teams and players have benefitted for the officials help.

He is one of the greatest, but could have been even bigger. So yes, I would say he has underachieved.

_KB24_
10-11-2009, 02:07 AM
It would be wrong to say he "underachieved". He was so dominant, he should have gotten 10 MVPs but he still did a lot and achieved a lot. You can say many HOFs underachieved because of the height we put them at, but they have still done so,so much.

abe_froman
10-11-2009, 03:05 AM
yes and no.could he have been better? yeah,he would get lazy and come in out of shape.but its hard to call one of the greatest players of all time an underachiever

knickfan4life
10-11-2009, 03:48 AM
i think it has less to do with his conditioning and more of his pride that cost him a couple of titles throughout his career. Problems with Penny and then Kobe, i think he should have had more in LA, and 1 more iwth Miami, do you guys remember the tumble that team took, title team to first round exit, i was amazed

Lakersfan2483
10-11-2009, 04:00 AM
His work ethic hindered him from winning and achieving even more success, so in that regard, he underachieved somewhat. One could only imagine how much he could have achieved if he had Jordan or say Kobe's work ethic.

abe_froman
10-11-2009, 04:05 AM
i think it has less to do with his conditioning and more of his pride that cost him a couple of titles throughout his career. Problems with Penny and then Kobe, i think he should have had more in LA, and 1 more iwth Miami, do you guys remember the tumble that team took, title team to first round exit, i was amazed

true.he likes being the center of attention.when the media and fans start turning their attention and love,focusing on his flashy sidekicks instead,he gets jealous and upset

TannerOwnsDevin
10-11-2009, 10:48 AM
Shaq is one of the most dominant centers of all time, but you are right to question whether he has underachieved. He has been gifted with phenominal physique, but he has not done with it what others at his position have. He is a decent passer out fo the double team, and solid defensively in the paint, but he has never been able to guad centers who step out of the paint, and his offensive game, though effective, is limitted. He has never bothered to condition himself like Hakeem, Karl Malone and Jabbar have, nor has he bothered to add the mid range jumper to his game like Duncan, Robinson Hakkem, Jabbar and many other greats, nor has he ever developed the foot work in the post that Hakeem had, instead he relied on the @$$-check to get position in the paint.

I'm not saying he isn't great, but if had done more than rely on more than his natural physical gifts and developed a game even remotely comprable to Hakeem, or Robinson or Duncan, he likely would have not just been one of the 50 greatest of all time, he would have easily been the most dominant player since Wilt Chamberlain. As it stands, four rings (and counting) is impressive.

As for those who say he needed Kobe or Wade, it is important to note that everybody needs other good players on the team to win. Kobe has Gasol and Odom, Jordan had Pippen and Rodman (or Grant). And all big market teams and players have benefitted for the officials help.

He is one of the greatest, but could have been even bigger. So yes, I would say he has underachieved.


great post there.

knickerbockerny
10-11-2009, 11:31 AM
He could have easily won more rings, but his infamous break up with the Lakers possibly cost him a couple more rings. Some people but pride in front of everything, while others don't... shake has an enormous amout of pride. With all of that said he still had a steller career.

MrFastBreak
10-11-2009, 11:57 AM
He could be both. It just depends on how people look at what he has done since he's been in the league. Some people expected him to achieve more than he did. Other people expected him to do what he has done now. And that's;

4-time NBA Champion
2000 NBA MVP
199293 NBA Rookie of the Year
3-time NBA Finals MVP
2-time NBA Scoring Champion
3-time All-Star MVP
14-time All-NBA Selection
15-time All-Star

People who expected him to do more than that would prolly consider him a underachiever.

TannerOwnsDevin
10-11-2009, 12:06 PM
I dont care much about All star recognitions, ultimately its how many rings and maybe how many MVP's he had in his career.


People say he's the Most Dominant Big Man ever, yet he has fewer rings than Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Bill Russell.

Pierzynski4Prez
10-11-2009, 12:23 PM
Hell no, how do you win 4 titles, and call it underachieving. If you can do that, then only 6 for MJ is a vast underacheivement.

Pierzynski4Prez
10-11-2009, 12:24 PM
I dont care much about All star recognitions, ultimately its how many rings and maybe how many MVP's he had in his career.


People say he's the Most Dominant Big Man ever, yet he has fewer rings than Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Bill Russell.

So do you think that Robert Horry is a better player than Karl Malone?

TannerOwnsDevin
10-11-2009, 12:31 PM
So do you think that Robert Horry is a better player than Karl Malone?

Yes, since wea ll know Robert Horry is known as the most dominant Forward of all time:facepalm:

bigsams50
10-11-2009, 12:37 PM
How can you win 4 rings and underachieve?

jmastert
10-11-2009, 12:50 PM
this is ******** his game says enough. HE DOMINATED HIS WHOLE CAREER

SproulHimself
10-11-2009, 12:50 PM
Hear me out first before you guys flame. I know he has 4 titles, 3 Finals MVP and a regular season MVP.



But if you look at the quality of players he played with along with his unquestionable and somainating skill, I think Shaq should've at least tied or had more rings than Jordan. He only had a few scoring titles eventhough NO ONE can stop him in his prime and he only had 1 regular season MVP when the media LOVED him.



Furthermore, he only won majority of his title when he was paired with a SuperNova talent like Kobe ( I guess you can say the same for Kobe too) but the point being is he could've had more with Penny and Wade.



Considering those factors above (unlimited supply of talented players and unquestionable skill) Do you think Shaq underachieved? Do you think he could do more if he had more a desire to be consistenly great? or if he had much more work ethic (like Kobe or Jordan)?


I think you may be one of the dumbest people ever to follow sports. Please don't have any kids because we don't need any more idiots like you running around.

Championships are won by the entire team not one player. Jordan is the greatest, but he wouldn't have won all those championships w/o Pippen or Phil Jackson.

Any player to receive 1 finals mvp has achieved greatness...shaq has 3...do the math.

BkOriginalOne
10-11-2009, 01:23 PM
The only mark you can make is the fact that he should've beat the Pistons in the finals.
4 rings, MVP.
He also has a legit shot at a 5th ring, and where he signs next season, he should have a shot there too.

Raps08-09 Champ
10-11-2009, 01:55 PM
I love how you think Shaq underachieved while you think Kobe overachieves.

TannerOwnsDevin
10-11-2009, 02:18 PM
Championships are won by the entire team not one player. Jordan is the greatest, but he wouldn't have won all those championships w/o Pippen or Phil Jackson.

Any player to receive 1 finals mvp has achieved greatness...shaq has 3...do the math.

Dont get so worked up. I understand that you dont have the foresight to keep this topic interesting and obviously you're not following the concept of the thread. So, according to you genius, Championships are won by an entire team (Thanks Cap'n Obvious :rolleyes:) but that was never even in question until those slow brain cells of yours started showing life today.


Using that very orginal logic of yours. Shaq in history has probably the best collection of All Stars, Role players in league history.




Kobe
Dwyane Wade
Steve Nash
Amare Stoudemire
Karl Malone
Gary Payton
Lebron
Penny Hardway
Nick Van Exel
Glen Rice
Mitch Richmond

Dennis Rodman
Robert Horry
Jason Richardson
Horace Grant
Ron Harper
Dennis Scott
Nick Anderson
Eddie Jones
Derek Fisher
Mo Williams
Jason Williams
Antoine Walker
Zydrunas Ilgauskas
Udonis Haslem
James Posey



At one time or another, Shaq has played with 17 NBA All Star players and 18 All NBA teamers. So understand that using your reasoning, Shaq should have more than 4 titles, in that respect. Add the undisputable fact that O'Neal was absolutely a force to be reckon with, he underachieved if we're to compare him to some of the legendary players who won with less. Duncan for one had 4 titles with a fewer cast of star players (tony Parkey, Ginobili and David Robinson). Same with Jordan, Abdul Jabbar and Bill Russell. Even Magic Johnson, who had fewer talents won 5 titles. And Shaq's position was far more imposing than Johnson.



So, lets keep this open mind approach in this subject and its easier to see why some people would say he underachieved (Poll says 47% in this thread thinks that way). Is Shaq successful in his own right? Yes, sure. Could he do more with the amount of talent and quality of roleplayers, superstars teammates he had? Then, IMO, no, he could've done more.

TannerOwnsDevin
10-11-2009, 02:21 PM
I love how you think Shaq underachieved while you think Kobe overachieves.

Shaq was drafted # 1. He was dubbed as the league's best player after Jordan even before he played an NBA game. Kobe was a 13th pick who was thought to be just another high flying guard who could score a lot of points but nothing else.


Shaq was a ROY. An instant 20 and 10 player in his rookie year. Kobe did not even made All NBA rookie 1st team. he was a bench player who did'nt get a lot of burn in his freshman year at the league.

kswissdaf
10-11-2009, 02:38 PM
If u even make it to the nba you have not underachieved

Raps08-09 Champ
10-11-2009, 02:43 PM
Shaq was drafted # 1. He was dubbed as the league's best player after Jordan even before he played an NBA game. Kobe was a 13th pick who was thought to be just another high flying guard who could score a lot of points but nothing else.


Shaq was a ROY. An instant 20 and 10 player in his rookie year. Kobe did not even made All NBA rookie 1st team. he was a bench player who did'nt get a lot of burn in his freshman year at the league.

So if Shaq won ROY and was an instant 20 and 10 player with all his rings and MVPs, how did he underachieved?

And coming into the NBA, Shaq was thought to be better because he was a C.

TheKing23
10-11-2009, 03:07 PM
No he hasn't underachieved...

4 rings (soon to be 5), an MVP, 3 finals MVP's, 15 time all-star, 14 time all-NBA, 2 scoring titles, an olympic gold medal and a platinum selling album

:dance:

bigsams50
10-11-2009, 03:14 PM
i think we can all agree on one center tht underachieved......................Kwame Brown

TannerOwnsDevin
10-11-2009, 04:03 PM
So if Shaq won ROY and was an instant 20 and 10 player with all his rings and MVPs, how did he underachieved?

And coming into the NBA, Shaq was thought to be better because he was a C.

Im using YOUR example since you're comparing his case to Kobe. Seperately on those merits mentioned above, Shaq did'nt underachive in his rookie year, but the thread was not about his ROOKIE Year but rather against the legacy of OTHER legendary players.

TannerOwnsDevin
10-11-2009, 04:04 PM
If u even make it to the nba you have not underachieved

So Kwame Brown, Michael Olowokandi and recently Adam Morrison did not underachieve? :facepalm:

MackSnackWrap
10-11-2009, 04:18 PM
no hes been amazing through out his career

bigsams50
10-11-2009, 04:21 PM
Shaq will go down as one of the most dominant players (if not the most) to ever play the game, how is tht under achieving?

xBLAMEITON24x
10-11-2009, 04:32 PM
No. 3mvps 4 rings 6 conference championships. No way