Mario Chalmers is not a top 20 PG
I got in an argument with a friend about whether Mario Chalmers is a top 20 point guard or not. I say hell naw. Sure he’s clutch at times, but he makes a lot of bonehead plays and disappears for games at a time. I’ve listed 25 PGs (in no particular order) who I think are better than Chalmers (although a couple are debatable). Let me know your opinion so I can throw it in my friends face that strangers are on my side:
I don't see any of those that are debatable. They are all better than Chalmers.
Chalmer is most definitely NOT a top-20 PG but according to People magazine he is one of the most beautiful.
Tell me something I don't know.
I'd take them all over Chalmers in a heartbeat, the only one that I'm kind of 50/50 on is Nate Rob, he has the same tendency to disappear and be a bonehead like Chalmers. Jameer Nelson is debatable as well, but I'd still take Nelson if given the choice.
I can say that Jose Calderon is arguably also better being one of the more underrated point guards in the league.
Honestly, I don't think Chalmers is even top 30. He is in a fortunate situation, but is just not that good. He is known for being clutch, but he played terribly all Finals. He just has very poor court vision and is not much of a slasher for a PG. His best attribute is his spot-up shooting and even that isn't really anything special.
Chalmers played terribly all finals? Game 2 he had 19 points on 6 for 12 shooting, 4 reb, 2 assists, and 1 steal. Game 6 he had 20 points on 7 for 11 shooting, 4 reb, and 2 assists. Game 7 he had 14 points on 6 for 15 shooting, 2 assists, and 2 steals.
Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't list those 3 games as Chalmers playing terribly.
a total of 6 assists in those 3 games from a pg with the big 3 is not good at all! he should average 15 a game.
Chalmers should absolutely average more assists than he did in those games. My point was there was no way anyone could say he player terribly the entire finals.
Maybe he shot well enough to justify his court time in a few games, but his decision making and passing was consistently terrible and his defense was unremarkable. I may have exaggerated, but I think a PG who plays as small a role as he does should make fewer blatantly terrible decisions on the court. His court vision is worse than a lot of big men.
I think you have your points about this but somehow I still think he is a good fit for this team. His situation and also his output kind of reminds me if what Derek Fisher was in his prime for the Lakers. He is not elite in any category but still a good defender and has an outside shot. Fisher in his prime may have been a borderline top 10 pg but the competition at the 1 today is way better than back then.
There may be better players in this league playing the point but you have to give him some kind of credit. Bron and Wade both need the ball a lot and you need to find your role on a team like that. You just can't play hero ball or try to be the man if you realise your talent is limited to some degree. If the Heat continue to win like this and if he holds his own and remains the starting point guard for them he could earn a few more rings and may be the definition if the ultimate role player like Fish was for so many years alongside Kobe.
To answer this question, he is not a top 20 pg today but he is a very good fit on this team, knows his limitations, his role and deserves credit about how he fills out his role. I don't know if Jennings, Walker, Mo Williams or Nelson would be better fits while beeing better individually.
I think it was year when Chalmers said he was a top point guard..I dont think he is even top 20......But if he's on my team i would want him to have the mind set of a top 10 point guard..
Chalmers might not be an all star.....But he compliments Wade and Lebron well...And he plays well within the team concept and knows his role..And thats is to defend & hit shots..
Nope, but he's a system guy who works really well with that team.
Ron Harper was a 30 something converted SG who played the point for 2nd dynasty Bulls. Derrick Fisher won so many rings without probably ever cracking the top 20 ( could have very well been the worst starting PG in 10-11 during LA's title run)
Throw Chalmers on a terrible team and he'll probably get you 14 ppg 6 apg 2 spg per night, but he knows his role on Miami and if it's with the Heat or another team further along in his career, I wouldn't be shocked if he won another ring or two. He's selfless, can handle the ball, play D and hit 3's, those guys pair really well with winning teams.
Ron Harper or Steve Kerr are other great examples of how you can be a very usefull role player without beeing the man. Sometimes rock solid along with other strenghts like shooting and/or defense can make earn you respect and a niche/role on a championship team. There is a reason why Chalmers is very well respected by his teammates and why he is the starting point guard in Miami. He hasn't won them many games but also hasn't lost them important games too. I'm happy for him and to realise you have a limited ceiling is the key for him to succeed. Prime example for a perfect fit here.
Once again, Mario Chalmers says he’s a top 10 point guard. Again world chuckles. http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/29/once-again-mario-chalm... via @basketballtalk...Chalmers isnt even a top 20 pg..but nothing wrong with thinking you're the best when u hit the floor.....
In no particular order:
Steve Nash (without kobe hogging the ball)
Thats 20 that are definately better players than Chalmers.
I'd put him in a group lower with players like Lowry, Nelson, Collison, and Calderon.
I would like to see him in a team where he is the point guard on offense running the team, instead of playing as a spot up shooter waiting for LeBron to kick it out to him
I'd take chalmers over bledose because chalmers is proven that he can shoot. Other than that he isn't top 20
So because he can shoot, you'd rather have him? I suppose you'd rather have Channing Frye over Dwight, or Chalmers over Westbrook, or Novak over MKG? Just because a guy can 'shoot' doesn't mean they're a better player.
His 3 rings said they don't care what people think. lol
College title in 2008 with that big shot too along with back to back NBA titles with some
good games along the way. He's basically the fourth guy on a great team which isn't bad.
4th best guy on a team that's anything but deep? That is really not saying much.
It's a huge day of signings and were talking about Mario Chalmers?
Hell, I'd take Trey Burke(Hasn't even played yet), Eric Maynor, Greivis Vasquez, and probably a lot more...dude is a top 40 at best IMO...he is too arrogant for his own good, I remember after the first champpionship he said he is a top 10 NBA PG LMAO
Chalmers is beyond terrible.
He can do two things: Shoot 3s and play high risk/aggressive defense. Two things made 1000X easier with LeBron James on your team. He would be no more than a backup on almost every team in the league. The Heat maximize his value with the amount of open looks and late rotations he gets. He's bad.
He really isn't a point guard. Lebron runs the point. Shooting 3's is important. If Lebron had a choice , he would rather have Chalmers than a guy like Rondo ( who most people would consider a much better PG). That is why the Cavs went after Mo Williams when Lebron was there.
"If Lebron had a choice , he would rather have Chalmers than a guy like Rondo ( who most people would consider a much better PG)."
You did not just write that!!!
Bosh isn't a Center either.. He is a stretch 4 , converted to a Miami 5.
But he knows his role and plays it very well so that makes him more valuable to the heat than the more talented players.