PDA

View Full Version : What modern day players qualify for the Ewing Theory?



Iodine
04-04-2010, 10:33 PM
If you dont know what the Ewing Theory is
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1193711

So far I have
Monta
Redd
Kevin Martin
WHO ELSE YOU GOT?

FOBolous
04-04-2010, 10:48 PM
Tracy McGrady. The Rockets were inexplicately better without him. Heck...the year the Rockets finally made it to the 2nd round of the playoffs was the year they played without him in the playoffs.

JordansBulls
04-04-2010, 10:49 PM
If you dont know what the Ewing Theory is
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1193711

So far I have
Monta
Redd
Kevin Martin
WHO ELSE YOU GOT?

Are you ********** kidding me with this? Who the hell wrote that article? How in the hell did the Knicks fair better when Ewing was injured or in foul trouble?

That may have happened from 1998 and onward, but anytime before that, hell no.

TheKing23
04-04-2010, 10:51 PM
Iodine, I told you T-Mac, but you wouldn't listen would you?

Iodine
04-04-2010, 10:51 PM
What's the Ewing Theory? Where did it come from?
The theory was created in the mid-'90s by Dave Cirilli, a friend of mine who was convinced that Patrick Ewing's teams (both at Georgetown and with New York) inexplicably played better when Ewing was either injured or missing extended stretches because of foul trouble.

happy JB?

Iodine
04-04-2010, 10:51 PM
Iodine, I told you T-Mac, but you wouldn't listen would you?

Well I am sorry there?

Ovratd1up
04-04-2010, 10:54 PM
Yao/T-Mac

JordansBulls
04-04-2010, 10:55 PM
What's the Ewing Theory? Where did it come from?
The theory was created in the mid-'90s by Dave Cirilli, a friend of mine who was convinced that Patrick Ewing's teams (both at Georgetown and with New York) inexplicably played better when Ewing was either injured or missing extended stretches because of foul trouble.

happy JB?

Is that a joke? Didn't Ewing team win the championship at Georgetown?

Didn't Ewing's team only be elite when Ewing was their?

DodgerBulls
04-04-2010, 10:57 PM
I ROFL when I read the article. It's ridiculous.

jetsfan28
04-04-2010, 10:59 PM
Are you ********** kidding me with this? Who the hell wrote that article? How in the hell did the Knicks fair better when Ewing was injured or in foul trouble?

That may have happened from 1998 and onward, but anytime before that, hell no.

From around 1996 onward, it was definitely true. The Knicks treated Ewing like a superstar, but he wasn't, and because of that, they were always destined not to be elite for two reasons. Number one, they didn't see the need to get other stars because they thought he was one when, thanks to his knees, he wasn't. Reason number two was that they treated him like a superstar on the court and ran the offense through him when it should have been run through Spree.

When the Knicks made the finals, him being hurt helped them. Spree got a larger role in the offense and carried them despite having a broken foot, they got more athletic inside with Camby and Thomas (even Chris Dudley was more mobile than Ewing at that point), and he also made things easier for Johnson (a spot up shooter only at that stage in his career) and Ward (a horrific PG who was at least a decent 3 point shooter) by penetrating.



After Ewing's athleticism started to go, the fact that the team treated him like he was a superstar when he wasn't really hurt them, to no fault of his own.





To answer the question, I don't see that player now. If the Rockets had any other GM, it would be Yao, but Morey smartly realized what he was and got Jordan Hill and Hilton Armstrong, plus a dynamic scorer in Martin, while other GM's would have waited until Yao came back and then realized he probably isn't the same player anymore.

The obvious one, if he were still relevant in the league, would be Arenas, who is treated like a superstar, but whose teams are worse with him because he kills momentum and has other talented players defer to him. Even if he wasn't a ball hog, Butler and Jamison still deferred to him, which made the team worse, which is why they were successful without him.

jimm120
04-04-2010, 10:59 PM
All I know is that the Knicks have SUCKED hard since Ewing hasn't been on the team. So, they're magically Finals contenders from 1990 - 1997....Good enough during 1998 - 2000....and 2001 and beyond have sucked tons. And guess what, it ALL corresponds with Ewing's prime.

In his prime, he made the Knicks title contenders (if it wasn't for that pesky Jordan guy). Plus, he didn't get offensive help ever (really, Starks as the #2???).

While on the decline, he made the Knicks playoff contenders (in decline, but with Sprewell and Houston, he finally had a good offensive supporting cast).

After he was traded, the Knicks became rubble. Crap. Overpayed superstars after overpaid superstars.

Sorry, the "ewing" theory is bogus. Just look at that "prime example" of when Ewing went down in 1999. The Knicks were IN THE EASTERN FINALS!!! They weren't in the 1st round nor the 2nd. They were in the eastern finals..>WITH HIM. They managed to get to the finals, but they might have also gotten there with him...and I can tell you right now that they would have had more of a chance with the 7 foot Ewing in the paint to guard Duncan or Robinson AND to score on them than they were.


Ewing theory is bogus. Knicks have sucked since he was forced out. He took them to the eastern finals, which they were already up 1 game.


===========================

And lets look at the guy's "predictions" back from 2001:
# Drew Bledsoe: Dude, the guy was sent to a crap team and as much as I hate Brady, he WAS some huge deal...hall of famer.

# Michael Vick: Lol. He was dead wrong with this one. Wrong in College and wrong in Atlanta. Atlanta has sucked more since he wasn't there.

# Chris Webber: Lol. Webb left after a few years and it has become one of the worst franchises out there.

# Vince Carter: I just lol at this one. Not even with this "star" in Bosh have the Raptors been able to get back to where they were with Carter...and Carter's teams were worse (Tmac still had not developed).

# Griffey: I don't know about this one. The Reds sucked WITH him and WITHOUT him.

# Kobe Bryant: Never left the Lakers...I guess you can count this one a bit. The team DID suck (even though it had around the same kind of supporting cast) for a few years after Shaq left. It took major hax tools to get them to where they are now.

# Pete Sampras: ....really? An individual player sport? Tennis isn't a team sport, moron.

# Barry Bonds: No...I hated Bonds (don't care about the roids) but they sucked way more after he left.

# Peyton Manning: Lol..Manning going down as Hall of Fame

So in conclusion, he was possibly right with ONE of his "predictions" correct to the "Ewing Theory". And that was Kobe Bryant...and last I checked, that team without the major hax that was done was still ok.

TheKing23
04-04-2010, 11:00 PM
Well I am sorry there?

:love:

GSW Hoops
04-04-2010, 11:03 PM
A bunch of folks have said Kobe Bryant and Tyreke Evans, but I'm not sure I agree with them.

td0tsfinest
04-04-2010, 11:06 PM
I love the examples the article uses:
P.Manning
Lindros
Griffey
The Girl from Saved by the Bell who went to 90210 after.

jackdawson
04-04-2010, 11:14 PM
Wtf is an ewing theory anyway??

GSW Hoops
04-04-2010, 11:21 PM
Corey Maggette (never seems to get injured when the W's need it most :) )
Andris Biedrins
Monta Ellis

Baron Davis

Bruno
04-04-2010, 11:47 PM
Interesting how this 2001 article says Bryant is a potential future Ewing Theory candidate.

I don't think using the 1999 playoffs/Finals to prove the Ewing Theory is fair. Ewing was 36 years old.

Ty Fast
04-05-2010, 12:51 AM
Wtf is an ewing theory anyway??

Ewing went down and instead of the team falling apart they got better and went to the finals in 99

jetsfan28
04-05-2010, 12:18 PM
Interesting how this 2001 article says Bryant is a potential future Ewing Theory candidate.

I don't think using the 1999 playoffs/Finals to prove the Ewing Theory is fair. Ewing was 36 years old.

It really was true from 1995 on, and around 1995 he was still considered a superstar. Maybe even a bit earlier.

sep11ie
04-05-2010, 12:28 PM
I love the examples the article uses:
P.Manning
Lindros
Griffey
The Girl from Saved by the Bell who went to 90210 after.

Kelly Kapowski:drool::drool:

Chronz
04-05-2010, 01:17 PM
Tracy McGrady. The Rockets were inexplicately better without him. Heck...the year the Rockets finally made it to the 2nd round of the playoffs was the year they played without him in the playoffs.
Are you kidding me? Inexplicable? It was pretty damn easy to see why the team did better without a hobbled Tmac. Hes talking about players who made his team worse while hes at full speed. You know like Monta

BoognishMN
04-05-2010, 01:32 PM
AI on every team since 04'
Al Jefferson

JasonJohnHorn
04-05-2010, 01:36 PM
Marbury and T-Mac come to mind, and potentially Yao, as when Yoa was injured during the regular season, they played better.

Iverson late in his career too. Denver is knocked out first round several years in a row, then WCF without him.... hmmm.....

SirCalvin81
04-05-2010, 02:03 PM
Charlie villanueva

SirCalvin81
04-05-2010, 02:04 PM
EVERY1 on the pistons not named jonas jerebko

PJAF
04-05-2010, 02:23 PM
Rename the theory because it in no way even comes close to the Knicks without Ewing. Stupid idiot.

Giaps
04-05-2010, 02:25 PM
This is why writers don't play the game and need to stick to selling papers. Absolutely clueless.

Chronz
04-05-2010, 02:31 PM
Marbury and T-Mac come to mind, and potentially Yao, as when Yoa was injured during the regular season, they played better.

Iverson late in his career too. Denver is knocked out first round several years in a row, then WCF without him.... hmmm.....

How is it AI's fault that he was replaced by a better player and a better fit? Marbury maybe , but Tmac only if your talking about an old injured one, but whats the point of that?

Young and Stupid
04-05-2010, 02:45 PM
Anyone who is refuting the Ewing theory either didn't watch the Knicks after 1996 or is in denial.

ballpd05
04-05-2010, 02:51 PM
Anyone who is refuting the Ewing theory either didn't watch the Knicks after 1996 or is in denial.

LMAO!!!

AI definitely... Denver got better when he left, Detroit got drastically worse, and even Memphis got better once he left.

eugene
04-05-2010, 02:57 PM
stupid thread because of the arguments used... especially using Ewing as the main example!

JordansBulls
04-05-2010, 04:26 PM
From around 1996 onward, it was definitely true. The Knicks treated Ewing like a superstar, but he wasn't, and because of that, they were always destined not to be elite for two reasons. Number one, they didn't see the need to get other stars because they thought he was one when, thanks to his knees, he wasn't. Reason number two was that they treated him like a superstar on the court and ran the offense through him when it should have been run through Spree.

When the Knicks made the finals, him being hurt helped them. Spree got a larger role in the offense and carried them despite having a broken foot, they got more athletic inside with Camby and Thomas (even Chris Dudley was more mobile than Ewing at that point), and he also made things easier for Johnson (a spot up shooter only at that stage in his career) and Ward (a horrific PG who was at least a decent 3 point shooter) by penetrating.



After Ewing's athleticism started to go, the fact that the team treated him like he was a superstar when he wasn't really hurt them, to no fault of his own.





To answer the question, I don't see that player now. If the Rockets had any other GM, it would be Yao, but Morey smartly realized what he was and got Jordan Hill and Hilton Armstrong, plus a dynamic scorer in Martin, while other GM's would have waited until Yao came back and then realized he probably isn't the same player anymore.

The obvious one, if he were still relevant in the league, would be Arenas, who is treated like a superstar, but whose teams are worse with him because he kills momentum and has other talented players defer to him. Even if he wasn't a ball hog, Butler and Jamison still deferred to him, which made the team worse, which is why they were successful without him.

Thru 1997, he was the only reason the Knicks were any good. Once he got hurt in 1998 the Knicks won like 43 games. And in 1999 they got better but by then they had Houston and Sprewell on the team.

ballpd05
04-05-2010, 04:37 PM
Thru 1997, he was the only reason the Knicks were any good. Once he got hurt in 1998 the Knicks won like 43 games. And in 1999 they got better but by then they had Houston and Sprewell on the team.

I agree with his logic though because Ewing getting hurt made room for Camby and Thomas which made them more athletic and tougher. Houston and Sprewell were serious back then.

jetsfan28
04-05-2010, 04:40 PM
Thru 1997, he was the only reason the Knicks were any good. Once he got hurt in 1998 the Knicks won like 43 games. And in 1999 they got better but by then they had Houston and Sprewell on the team.

This post couldn't be any farther from the truth. The Knicks were good because they out-physicaled other physical teams in what was a physical league. They had a great defense and forced a lot of turnovers in a lower scoring league. Part of the reason they were never GREAT was because they paid Ewing like a superstar and assembled their roster like he was a superstar when he wasn't. They considered Ewing to be a superstar, so they put guys like Mason then LJ, and Starks, and Charlie ****ing Ward around him, tough guys who were good defenders, but never a second competent scorer until it was too late. They thought he can lead a team alone offensively, but he wasn't an elite offensive center, he was a guy who hovered around 50% shooting.

Young and Stupid
04-05-2010, 04:42 PM
For all of the people in this thread arguing with the "use of Ewing as the prime example" have you really never heard of the Ewing-theory? Maybe I took it for granted because I live in NY, but I was under the impression that it had been widely publicized. Seriously, I'm curious. I mean I'm only 18 and I've read books about it and heard Knicks fans harp on it ad nauseum.

mjqusoldier
04-05-2010, 04:49 PM
ridiculous article

Sly Guy
04-05-2010, 04:54 PM
let's hope that Andrew Bogut of the Bucks fits into that category.

Qdawg
04-05-2010, 05:02 PM
I would say Iverson but he hasn't been a marquee player for a few years.

Iodine
04-05-2010, 05:08 PM
. Seriously, I'm curious. I mean I'm only 18 and I've read books about it and heard .

You think people on PSD know how to read?

Young and Stupid
04-05-2010, 05:16 PM
You think people on PSD know how to read?

You're right, I guess I should have considered that before making an *** of you and me. Sorry PSD.

Iodine
04-05-2010, 05:24 PM
It's ok we still <3 you

Evolution23
04-05-2010, 05:26 PM
Lol another Knick hater.. i love u all

Iodine
04-05-2010, 05:29 PM
Lol another Knick hater.. i love u all

You realize that almost everyone who agree's with the theory so far has been knick fans right?

abe_froman
04-05-2010, 05:36 PM
Lol another Knick hater.. i love u all

if you read the comments,the number of those saying the theory is true about him have been almost exclusively knick fans telling/arguing with non knick fans that its true

IRUAM #21
04-05-2010, 06:02 PM
Lol another Knick hater.. i love u all

Lol another ******** PSD poster ;) ... i love you all

JWO35
04-05-2010, 06:07 PM
Richard Hamilton and Tayshaun Prince

SLY WILLIAMS
04-05-2010, 06:48 PM
1999 Knicks playoffs:

With Ewing
8 wins-2 losses

Without Ewing
4 wins 5 losses

*** Game in which Ewing got hurt and only played 25 minutes was also a loss.

The theory is bunk. A bunch of fans liked that we ran more and the media played it up as us being better without Patrick but the 1999 playoffs nor our records supported that.

In college Ewing took Georgetown to 3 ncaa finals winning the one vs Hakeem while losing to Jordan by a hoop and to Villenova

BALLER71
04-05-2010, 07:01 PM
Some of the examples for the Ewing Theory are ****ing stupid.


5. Miami Dolphins, 2000: Dan Marino retires and everyone prepares for a rebuilding year in Miami; the Fins end up advancing to the second round of the playoffs with Jay Fiedler. Jay Fiedler!

I lol'ed

jetsfan28
04-05-2010, 07:04 PM
1999 Knicks playoffs:

With Ewing
8 wins-2 losses

Without Ewing
4 wins 5 losses

*** Game in which Ewing got hurt and only played 25 minutes was also a loss.

The theory is bunk. A bunch of fans liked that we ran more and the media played it up as us being better without Patrick but the 1999 playoffs nor our records supported that.

In college Ewing took Georgetown to 3 ncaa finals winning the one vs Hakeem while losing to Jordan by a hoop and to Villenova

Not a good argument. Knicks played the Hawks, who I'm pretty sure they could have beat with Herb, Dudley, Wingate, Brunson, and Childs, and against the Heat Ewing played 32 minutes and 26 minutes in wins, 39 and 35 in losses, before playing 40 in a game 5 they barely won thanks to a lucky role. Not coincidentally, they scored 95 and 97 with him playing less, with big scoring outputs from Spree and Houston who got 29 and 24 combined shots, and 73, 72, and 78 with him playing more minutes, with Spree and Houston getting 22, 20, and then 29 combined shots. They shot less in the two losses because they ran the offense more through Ewing instead of driving and kicking with Spree and Ward.


In the finals, they played the Pacers, a superior team in just about all respects. They basically won in spite of him in game 1 (16 points on 4-13 shooting, while Perkins hurt them from the perimeter when he was in and the Davis "brothers" dominated inside). In game 2, he was playing badly until he got hurt, resulting in the Knicks being down 11 at halftime. They came back without him, then lost. They then won 3 of 4 games without him. So in that series, they went 3-1 without him, 1-0 with him, and did better without him than with him in game 2.

In the finals, they played the Spurs, easily the best team in the league, no one was even remotely close, ridiculous to count that series the same as the Hawks. The best examples from that year are the Pacers and Heat series, where they were better with less Ewing.

SLY WILLIAMS
04-05-2010, 07:20 PM
Jets if you want to prove they were a better team without Ewing than you should do it but you havent so far. You cant just throw away any wins and losses that you chose based on teams you deam worthy. We were the 8th seed. Without Patrick there is no way we beat Alonzo (#1 seed Heat) and probably no way we beat Dikembe. Scoring is not all that matters. Having a legit inside presence both in the post on offense and defensively to bang inside maters big time especially in the playoffs. While Camby has gotten better and stronger at that point in his career there were doubts that he was even strong enough to play PF never mind center. That is why Toronto moved him as well as because of his injuries. By the way werent you like 7 years old in 1999? The next season we went right back to the 7th game of the EC finals with Patrick. How did the Knicks do after Patrick was traded? Did they ever win 50 games again without Patrick? Did they ever win a single playoff series again without Patrick?

JNA17
04-05-2010, 07:29 PM
only thing i will say about ewing is that any player that misses a layup in game 7 of a playoff game, you deserve to be criticized.

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/1995/05/28/1995-05-28_the_miss__patrick_ewing_s_la.html

SLY WILLIAMS
04-05-2010, 07:59 PM
only thing i will say about ewing is that any player that misses a layup in game 7 of a playoff game, you deserve to be criticized.

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/1995/05/28/1995-05-28_the_miss__patrick_ewing_s_la.html

He did miss that layup. He was not a perfect player but I also remember this:
Watch them all but #3 was 1994 a last second 7th game put back slam to put us in the NBA finals. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWhAtFQUhpo

and this

1981 McDonald's All American
1982-83 NCAA AP All-America (1st)
1983-84 NCAA AP All-America (1st)
1984-85 NCAA AP All-America (1st)
1985-86 NBA All-Rookie (1st)
1987-88 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
1987-88 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
1988-89 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
1988-89 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
1989-90 NBA All-NBA (1st)
1990-91 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
1991-92 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
1991-92 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
1992-93 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
1996-97 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
Hall Of Fame
Top 50 Player of All Time

All-Star Games
1986 NBA
1988 NBA
1989 NBA
1990 NBA
1991 NBA
1992 NBA
1993 NBA
1994 NBA
1995 NBA
1996 NBA
1997 NBA

MVP Award Shares
1988-89 NBA 0.235 (4)
1989-90 NBA 0.176 (5)
1990-91 NBA 0.021 (11)
1991-92 NBA 0.104 (5)
1992-93 NBA 0.366 (4)
1993-94 NBA 0.252 (5)
1994-95 NBA 0.219 (4)
1996-97 NBA 0.050 (8)

king4day
04-05-2010, 09:42 PM
He did miss that layup. He was not a perfect player but I also remember this:
Watch them all but #3 was 1994 a last second 7th game put back slam to put us in the NBA finals. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWhAtFQUhpo


Number 4 and 8 were SICK

Ty Fast
04-05-2010, 11:09 PM
Charlie villanueva

thats a good one. richard jefferson too

mr_relevant
04-06-2010, 12:09 AM
Poor Ewing

dodie53
04-06-2010, 02:59 AM
michael redd

wileyisTOFU
04-06-2010, 03:07 AM
Donovan mcnabb

Chronz
04-06-2010, 11:49 AM
Without picking any side I like that theres a debate about basketball from the 90's without it being moved. In all my years I havent figured out how to do that.

Ill say this Ewing may have been a lateral improvement type player in that 99 run, the Knicks were better in a run and gun type offense against the Pacers, but Ill also admit they couldve used Ewing against the Spurs. If only Ewing was smart enough to admit he wasnt the offensive player he used to be. Well he was never really a good offensive player, its why the theory was named after him, his teams could withstand his absence for prolonged stretches offensively because he wasnt very efficient and overly reliant on his jumper. But by 33 he was significantly below league average, and still chucking. Had he toned down on the ballhoggery he couldve helped his team much more.

They still wouldve lost to the Spurs but it wouldve been a better matchup. Camby on D-Rob and Ewing on Duncan wouldve spared LJ the embarrassment.