clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Debating Greivis Vasquez's Future Legacy

Here's one thing I really don't have an opinion on yet, but that I do find interesting. I was looking at a few two day-old posts over D1scourse - if you don't read it, you should - and one of them was a records breakdown. I was rather surprised to see just how high Greivis Vasquez will probably end up on some of the lists.

Before the Longwood game, he was on pace to get to 3rd in Maryland history in points, well within reach of Len Bias at 2nd. He's currently second in assists, and probably will never catch Steve Blake, but at least he's already there. He's also on pace to be 2nd in three pointers made and 6th in field goals made. Then again, he's also on pace to be first in both those categories' shot attempts, as well.

And that got me to thinking about Greivis' lasting legacy. Certainly he'll go down as a great player - the stats are too much for him not too. But at what point does he leave "great" - the Adrian Branches or Laron Profits - and transcend into the all-time greats? Juan, Len Bias, and Joe Smith are untouchable. But what about Steve Blake, or Lonny Baxter, or Walt Williams, or Keith Booth? Where will Greivis rank there? Will he even reach there?

It's tough to call. Plenty of people don't like Greivis, and that's something to factor in. How many all-time greats had as many haters as Vaz? Can't be many. He's never gotten farther than the second round of the NCAA tournament, and he's never won an ACC tournament. Those are two more strikes, because few players are considered "all-timers" when they don't lead their team to major victory.

But then again, you have to take into account what Vasquez has done statistically. He's second in assists, and its possible he could reach second in points, too, both of which would be amazing accomplishments. He's one of the best all-around players in the game today, and that's worth something, too.

He kind of has a role the same way Walt Williams did, too, in that he helped out Gary and this program when they most needed it. In the depths of a failed but highly regarded recruiting class and an inability to grab local talent, Maryland needed someone. Vasquez happened to be that guy.

Without him, where would this team be last year? Heck, where would they be this year? Is it possible that without Vasquez, there would be three straight NITs? Maybe. We'll never know, thankfully. But is that enough to be an all-timer when you consider that the team still didn't go anywhere of note?

I'm still torn on this topic, but I do think it's interesting. What say you?

N.B.: Of course, it helps to define what an all-time great is. Unfortunately, that's pretty undefinable. Generally, it's a black/white issue: if they are, it's well-known. If there's debate, they really aren't. But that's no fun. This is more asking what would Greivis have to do to be an all-timer to you in particular? The only request I have is that you don't limit "all-timer" to Juan, Len, and Joe.