On Russell Westbrook: Plenty Of Criticism, A Little Perspective
by Ryan Rosenblatt on May 13, 2011 6:07 AM PDT
in Basketball
Email
Print
Russell Westbrook has been facing some heat in recent weeks. Is he really a point guard? Why does he shoot so much? Does he have the decision making capabilities to be one of the best in the NBA? Why can't he just give the damn ball to Kevin Durant. If you read the mainstream media, lately it has seemed that Westbrook can't do right, even when he's scoring 40 points in a crucial triple overtime playoff game.
Mike Prada, from the SBN basketball hub, tries to provide some perspective though and for UCLA fans, it's not anything new. It's the story of Westbrook the high school freshman, onto his time in Westwood and then to the NBA where one thing is abundantly clear. He works and he improves.
Three years ago, Russell Westbrook was a college shooting guard and the third-best player on his team. While Kevin Love provided the scoring and Darren Collison provided the stability, Westbrook was asked to provide the jolt. That jolt came in the form of fast breaks, rebounding and mad dashes to the rim. UCLA would have been good without Westbrook, but with Westbrook, they became great before eventually falling in the Final Four.
That's at least the surface analysis of what happened to Westbrook in 2008. Peel back a few layers, and you start to realize just how adaptive the supposed selfish gunner really is. When Westbrook was 17, he was a 5'10'' point guard, placed in that position because he had to be. He was heading towards a different career, one where he maybe played high school and college, but never further. Then, Westbrook hit a growth spurt, sprouting five inches before his senior season. His coach, unsure of what to do with a 6'3'' point guard, moved him to shooting guard, and he thrived enough to get a UCLA scholarship.
Fast forward to his sophomore year. The Bruins got caught in a bind when Collison went down with an injury, and coach Ben Howland's only answer was to turn to Westbrook, who barely played as a freshman. So Westbrook went back to being a point guard and succeeded, leading his talented team to a 7-0 record. When Collison returned, Howland shifted him back to shooting guard, and he figured out ways to fit in. He even willingly accepted a bench role so Howland could work an injured player back into the mix. Ultimately, he led the team in assists despite playing most of the season off the ball.
To review: in the span of four years, Westbrook shifted positions four times and accepted a bench role, and still rose to the No. 4 pick in the draft. The Thunder adopted the Durant approach with him, handing him the keys and letting him grow. As a rookie, Westbrook was among the league leaders in turnovers, but they stayed patient with him. Now, Westbrook is putting up similar numbers to the league's MVP on a similarly-good team, all while continuing to provide all the energy plays they need. He outperformed said MVP in the World Championships in Turkey and earned his first all-star berth this season.
If he did that much in three years, who's to say he can't ultimately use these experiences to improve his decision-making?
There are a lot of Bruins to take a lot of pride in. It's absolutely amazing how many incredible athletes have passed through Westwood and Westbrook is doing everything in his power to join them. That's what has always stood out about him. He works and he doesn't just work as hard as everyone else or even harder. He works way harder than anyone else and as hard as he possibly can.
The stories about Westbrook at UCLA are legendary. Kevin Love talked about showing up early to get extra work in at some absurd hour in the morning and amazingly, Westbrook was already there. He wasn't just there, he was already drenched in sweat and when Love was done working, Westbrook was still going. This isn't practice work or work with a coach or getting weight work in. This was extra work on top of all of that and Westbrook did it daily.
UCLA fans remember Westbrook bouncing from position to position. He was a shooting guard who went to West Virginia as a one-game point guard and frankly, was terrible. He was overwhelmed and lost. He didn't stop competing in that game though and afterwards, he didn't make excuses. He took responsibility and next time he had to man the point, he was miles better.
Westbrook will continue to be criticized for the rest of these playoffs. He's not conventional and he does have some places to improve. He'll tell you as much, but he's still pretty damn good and for those who have followed him for years now there is no doubt he is going to get better and improve where he needs to improve. When he's getting blasted with criticism, it's important to remember a guy's history and Westbrook's history shows that there isn't really much reason for panic about his future. He'll take care of it.
13 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Westbrook IS the IT FACTOR
I’ve watched quite a bit of OKC and yes, Durrant is clearly the man (i.e. he’s the bonafide superstar); however, without Russell Westbrook OKC is a mere shadow of it’s present self. Whether it’s shutting down opposing point guards on defense or dunking on front court behemoths on offense, Westbrook elevates OKC from bland to grand (I apologize for the corny alliteration, I just got off a night shift, so please afford me some slack). In order to ascertain just how essential Westbrook is to the Thunder, one need only to notice how often he, and not Durrant, has the rock in his hands (close to 40% of OKC’s offensive possessions when he’s on the floor).
I don't really follow the NBA that closely, but OKC is amazing.
It’s not just Durant and Westbrook- they have talent all over the floor. I understand that they were gifted Perkins, but the organization has done a great job assembling talent. They have good wings in Harden and Cook, good bodies inside with Collison and Ibaka, and a very good backup PG in Maynor. I don’t know if they’ll be able to hang on to all these guys, but they could be very good for a very long time.
by AllHailMightyBruins on May 13, 2011 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not really big on Collison
and Cook for me leaves something to be desired. The simple fact is that Westbrook dominates the ball, for better or worse. He’s capable of amazing things, and has an improving jumper from his UCLA days. He’s an exceptional athlete, and really is the “lightning in a bottle” for the Thunder. That said, the kid is playing with the scoring leader of the entire NBA for the last two years. Westbrook is great, Durant is phenomenal. Westbrook, IMO, dominates the ball too much, and shoots too much. He’s not a natural playmaker, but it’s his ability to get into the lane that gives his team openings. I think he should defer somewhat more than he does now to Durant, as few players can matchup with Durant, while several can match up with Russell. I still think he should have the ball 32-34% of the time. Just not 40.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
I'll be honest, I've only watched a few OKC games this year, so I'm speaking from a small sample, but I've really liked what I've seen. Collison and Cook aren't going to make any all NBA teams, but they're both solid contributors.
Westbrook’s jumper is improved, but still not quite up to elite PG level. When it does get there, watch out. He has such an attacking mindset that he goes once he turns the corner, and part of the problem is that he can turn the corner on just about every play. He almost reminds me of Derrick Rose last season.
Durant is, of course, the heart of that team. He hasn’t looked as good as I’ve seen him before lately, and I’m not sure if that is because Westbrook has dominated the ball so much or if it is the reason Westbrook is dominating the ball so much. Whatever the case, they seem to have a great relationship and aren’t stepping on each other’s egos.
by AllHailMightyBruins on May 13, 2011 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
See I think the comparisons with Rose are misguided
Rose is absolutely a pure point guard. He is THE prototypical point guard, like the 6-million dollar man… if you designed one from the ground up, you’d get Rose (Just like if you designed a shooting guard from the ground up, you’d get Kobe or Jordan. SF? You’d get Lebron or Pippen. PF? You’d get Garnett, IMO, and C, you’d get Dwight Howard or Shaq).
Russell is much more so a scoring guard for me. He’s a shooting guard with good ballhandling stuck in a PG’s body. He’s got the scoring mentality, he’s always in attack mode (like Rose, so part of your comparison is valid), but he doesn’t possess the court vision required of a top-flight pg. On the thunder, he works wonders because he’s the energy of their backcourt, and Ibaka and Perkins are not really big scoring options. They get their points from Westy, Harden, and Durant, and they’re fine with that. Will Russ ever develop into more of a pure PG? Probably. As stated above, he’s adaptible. I just don’t think he’s the type of guy who will easily defer. I think he would be even more of a star at SG as well in a Dwayne Wade-like, dominating the ball capacity. I don’t know if we’ll ever see him there.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
by OswegoBruin on May 13, 2011 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Perhaps performance wise, yes.
But we’re talking prototypically here. If you’re building a center, to play today, you would not build Hakeem, you’d probably build Dwight or Shaq in his prime. But of course, this is a can of worms.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
by OswegoBruin on May 13, 2011 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Kobe gets a lot of criticism too
so does LeBron (recently), Pau, etc. A select few stars seem to be media-infallible (past LeBron, Ray Allen, …), but criticism of Westbrook by the media doesn’t equate to people doubting his abilities or potential.
Ray Allen
hasn’t been criticized because, by any measurement, he is the greatest three-point shooter in the history of the game. He is a champion, and probably the finest role player the game has ever seen, right along with Dennis Rodman.
The stars I see as media-infallible are the ones that fly (somehow) under the radar; Dirk seemingly never gets criticized, Carmelo (aside from being a jerk) seemingly never faces criticism of his game, and Manu Ginobili never seems to see any criticism.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
In the 2010 finals
he shot 7-36 (.194!) from the 3, if we exclude his monster game 2 (where he shot 8-11). That includes 3 games straight where he shot 0-16. Granted it was a very defensive series, but I recall barely any mention about Allen’s cold shooting as a factor in their loss.
I think the reason he’s never criticized is because—as you alluded to—he is a role player. Outside of Chris Paul (because the rest of his team has minimal talent) and Rose (I think more because of media infatuation), every team leader faces significant criticism.
So now that Westbrook is stepping into the Thunder’s leadership role, and they’re becoming contenders, his game is starting to be analyzed more in depth. But it’s not due to doubts about his ability.
Well people were talking about Westy as a possible MVP
candidate this year for a bit.
I agree about Ray, he’s simply not the first option on that team, nor should he be. His cold shooting was pored over by analysts, and I recall it being discussed, albeit not as a MAJOR factor in their loss. I think we agree that with attention comes scrutiny, for better or worse.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
