Harvey: Parker's Challenge Includes Failure

[duncan228]

Parker's challenge includes failure (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/columnists/buck_harvey/Parkers_challenge_includes_failure.html)
Buck Harvey

DALLAS — The Spurs have always asked too much of Tony Parker, and they did in the beginning. Then, in the fifth game of his career, the teenager started.

The team leaned on him, and he leaned forward and loved it. Now both sides have come to a new juncture, and this will be in play today. The Spurs want him to be great every night, because they can't win this series without that. In doing so, Parker has to risk being awful.

So far, Parker is reluctant.

“Everybody is human,” Parker was saying Friday after practice, and this is a statement that even the Spurs sometimes forget.

Parker can't score 38 points every night. Chris Paul, with fewer points in the first two games in Denver combined, feels especially human against Chauncey Billups.

So when Parker sandwiched two ordinary games around his brilliant one against Dallas, he showed a human side. Part of that might be physical.

His obvious gift is his quickness, and how he shifts from gear to gear. Scouts credit his hips; he stays so low to the ground he creates a lateral magic that loses defenders.

Still, Parker doesn't have a freakish body. He's not much of a jumper, for example, amazing for a point guard who scores so often in the paint. One team official jokes he can remember only one Parker dunk over the years — yet he thinks a Parker dunk miss is more memorable.

Maybe this stops Parker from stepping up to the next level of mega-star. Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade, for example, have no such restrictions.

But scouts also wonder about Parker's head, and there was a telltale sign in the second quarter Thursday night. Then, with the Spurs struggling, Parker walked the ball up the court and flipped a pass to Drew Gooden in the post.

When did Gooden become Plan A? Some in the Spurs organization were just as confused when Parker dumped the ball inside to Tim Duncan.

That says as much about the new status of Duncan.

What the Spurs want is for Parker to create, to attack, to take the game into his non-dunking hands. That stopped Thursday not because J.J. Barea moved into the starting lineup. That stopped because Parker stopped.

It went this far: Some on the Spurs staff thought Parker's mind was somewhere else while he sat on the bench.

He was as distant after the game. Asked if the Mavericks did a better job of helping on defense, Parker gave an odd answer.

“I only played in the first half,” he said.

And then Parker pointed at the Spurs' defense as the problem, when his coaches don't see it that way. The ineptness of the Spurs' offense is what gave the Mavericks energy and opportunity.

Spurs coaches are often kind to him even in off-the-record comments. They prefer to believe he defers because he wants to play the right way. He lets Gooden and Duncan have a turn because he thinks he should.

But they also see this as another stage in Parker's development. If he starts missing perimeter shots, he stops taking them. He's not going to shoot 4 of 22 and have one of those nights that make him the goat.

And when he drives and Josh Howard comes over to block him? He retreats further.

It's a natural reaction, but it's also one the Spurs can't afford anymore. Just as Bryant and Wade would keep attacking — as would Manu Ginobili — Parker needs to.

That's what he faces today. He's had ultimate success in a game in this series.

Will he risk ultimate failure?

[ducks]

kobe played terrible in utah
roy played terrible tonight
ray allen was 1-12 in game one for boston

duncan 4 points in game 3

[ducks]

when tp is at his best is when pop tells him to shot 25 times
he almost is to unselfish at times

it is almost like he feels he needs to pass the ball more like spurstalk.com posters think

[timvp]

Pretty good article. Although unfair at certain parts. Parker had literally no help and shot plenty. He needs to play like a superstar but he needs some sort of help.


And regarding Parker, he's literally not built like a player who can always dominate if he's not getting any help. He's not a Wade or LeBron whose athleticism makes him able to repeatedly beat multiple defenders, rise above, absorb contact and finish repeatedly. Parker actually needs spacing and last night with everyone sucking around him, there was no spacing.

So when Parker sandwiched two ordinary games around his brilliant one against Dallas, he showed a human side. Part of that might be physical.

His obvious gift is his quickness, and how he shifts from gear to gear. Scouts credit his hips; he stays so low to the ground he creates a lateral magic that loses defenders.

Still, Parker doesn't have a freakish body. He's not much of a jumper, for example, amazing for a point guard who scores so often in the paint. One team official jokes he can remember only one Parker dunk over the years — yet he thinks a Parker dunk miss is more memorable.

Maybe this stops Parker from stepping up to the next level of mega-star. Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade, for example, have no such restrictions.

:bking

[Ice009]

First : This article is pretty decent. Tony needs to step up and do it.

Second : Shut the #$%^ up Ducks.

[ducks]

tp needs 25 shots

[Kori Ellis]

I think it's a horrible article. It's trying to indicate that during the game, Parker didn't care or his head was elsewhere when he was on the bench. Parker has that glazed look on his face when he's focusing the most; so I thought he was more pissed off and focused (plus he wanted back in the game to try to mount a comeback).

Anyway, it's stating the obvious... if Parker doesn't get 30+ ppg, the Spurs can't win in these playoffs.

[spursfan09]

Hmm already setting the foundation for who will get the blame.

TP is going to be the scapegoat.

Oh and I'm pretty sure the whole damn team looked like they were distant and not into the game, not just him.

[timvp]

It's a natural reaction, but it's also one the Spurs can't afford anymore. Just as Bryant and Wade would keep attacking — as would Manu Ginobili — Parker needs to.This was the most unfair line. Parker didn't stop attacking in Game 3. He just was taken out of the game. You can't attack from the bench.

He was on pace to shoot exactly the amount of field goals as he did in Game 2 and more than he did in Game 1. 14 field goal attempts in 21 minutes is not a player who lacks aggression :lol

The Spurs had a lot of problems in Game 3. Parker being any sort of scapegoat is a joke. He wasn't good but it wasn't for a lack of attacking or a lack of heart. Like I said earlier, Parker isn't built to be a player who can consistently win battles against two or three defenders (in Game 3, it was actually more like three or four defenders).

If Duncan can't score against one-on-one coverage, the shooters aren't hitting shots, the defense is soft and the energy is MIA, Parker could play like he did in Game 2 and the Spurs would have still gotten destroyed.

[EricB]

Hmm already setting the foundation for who will get the blame.

TP is going to be the scapegoat.

Oh and I'm pretty sure the whole damn team looked like they were distant and not into the game, not just him.



It's happened before

Signed

2002
2004
2006

[Kori Ellis]

It's happened before

Signed

2002
2004
2006

Manu was definitely the scapegoat used by most people in 2006 for "the foul" not TP.

[Blackjack]

But they also see this as another stage in Parker's development. If he starts missing perimeter shots, he stops taking them. He's not going to shoot 4 of 22 and have one of those nights that make him the goat.

And when he drives and Josh Howard comes over to block him? He retreats further.

It's a natural reaction, but it's also one the Spurs can't afford anymore. Just as Bryant and Wade would keep attacking — as would Manu Ginobili — Parker needs to.

That's what he faces today. He's had ultimate success in a game in this series.

Will he risk ultimate failure?

I've often felt the same way about Tony, but at the same time, I've found myself questioning him less and less recently.

Sure, Tony still has some growth to do, when it comes to consistently taking ownership of games, but for the first time since he's been here, I'm actually starting to see the makings of a true franchise-player, not just an all-star.

One of the most inspiring and impressive performances I've ever seen was a 10-27 (IIRC) performance in a game 7, by a man who'd rather risk being the goat than risk letting down his team, their fans, and his self.

That performance was so beyond comprehension given health, the opposition, and the stage in which it was played on, but 10-27 has always stuck out.

That's ownership.

And that's what this team needs from Tony.

[timvp]

^^Good post

Sure, Tony still has some growth to do, when it comes to consistently taking ownership of games, but for the first time since he's been here, I'm actually starting to see the makings of a true franchise-player, not just an all-star.

Perhaps I'm holding Parker to a different standard. I don't view him as a franchise-level player. He's damn good, obviously, but I just don't think his ceiling is high enough to hold him to franchise player standards.

He could be the best player on a championship level team but he'll always need help. He's not going to be able to carry a Cavs-in-2007 type team the Finals.

[pjjrfan]

tony's flaw is if he is not scoring he has a hard time creating for others. With Tim and Manu he could afford to back off and let them be the creators and the scorers. Now it's just him, Tim is not right, two days rest and he looked like he was stuck in cement and had no lift, which made him miss layups and short range shots. It's not really fair to drop everything on Tony's lap, the rest of the team just couldn't buy a basket so that made everything worse. the defense was geared to stop Tony and Tim pretty much took care of himself with some help from Dampier.

[polandprzem]

This was the most unfair line. Parker didn't stop attacking in Game 3. He just was taken out of the game. You can't attack from the bench.

Yes you can


Ask Amare

[Blackjack]

^^Good post


Perhaps I'm holding Parker to a different standard. I don't view him as a franchise-level player. He's damn good, obviously, but I just don't think his ceiling is high enough to hold him to franchise player standards.

He could be the best player on a championship level team but he'll always need help. He's not going to be able to carry a Cavs-in-2007 type team the Finals.

I think franchise-player is relative.

Do I think he's Duncan-level, franchise-player?

No.

But, as far as a 6'-ish point-guard goes?

I'd say, yeah, he's showing signs that that's not out of the realm.

Granted, he's not the prototypical point-guard, thus building a team around him is a tricky proposition, but his willingness to play team-ball and and his work-ethic lead you to believe it wouldn't be an Iverson-esque-type chore.

For Tony to have championship-level success, post-Duncan, he's most likely going to need another stud frontline-player alongside him. Preferably, someone who's versatile enough to play both the high and low-post to keep the lane open and get an easy deuce in the half-court.

So, I guess I'd say he's on his way to being a franchise player, just not the Duncan, Shaq, Jordan, etc., championship-level, franchise-player.

[GSH]

Pretty good article. Although unfair at certain parts. Parker had literally no help and shot plenty. He needs to play like a superstar but he needs some sort of help.


:bking

Yeah, that article sort of neglects to mention all the wide open shots his teammates have been clanking. You could translate that article to say that passing is a bad idea, since his teammates are less likely to make their shots than he is. And it also neglects to mention that they collapsed on Tony as hard as I can ever remember seeing. If he had kept pushing the ball into that mess, people would be bitching about him wanting to play 1-on-3 all the time.

When they make up their mind that they are going to focus on Parker at all costs, his job is to kick the ball out to his teammates, and their job is to knock down shots. I didn't see too much of that happening.

Maybe that look on his face was from trying to figure out whether to kick the ball to a teammate who has missed his last 3 shots, or another teammate who has missed his last 5?

[timvp]

Yeah, that article sort of neglects to mention all the wide open shots his teammates have been clanking. You could translate that article to say that passing is a bad idea, since his teammates are less likely to make their shots than he is. And it also neglects to mention that they collapsed on Tony as hard as I can ever remember seeing. If he had kept pushing the ball into that mess, people would be bitching about him wanting to play 1-on-3 all the time.

When they make up their mind that they are going to focus on Parker at all costs, his job is to kick the ball out to his teammates, and their job is to knock down shots. I didn't see too much of that happening.

Maybe that look on his face was from trying to figure out whether to kick the ball to a teammate who has missed his last 3 shots, or another teammate who has missed his last 5?

:lol

That's a good point. Who knew Parker would ever get slammed for passing too much. I need to go outside and make sure hell is freezing over.

:hat

[kace]

Terrible article. Lame and unfair.

So, basically, Tony needs to be the ultimate franchise player otherwise it's a fail.

How many active players can be considered true franchise players ? Meaning by their own presence they can lead their team to victories and being contenders:

i see only 3: LBJ, Tim (in his prime) and Shaq (in his prime): THAT'S FUCKING ALL !!!!!

Kobe needed a lot of help to make LA a serious contender (gasol, bynum, even fischer...). LA was shit with in 2005-2007.

and CP3, that could make the list, is proving he's not enough for his team to compete.

We're talking about a THREE MEN LIST and right now, it's only a one man list.

I'll be clear: Tony doesn't belong in the LBJ, TD and Shaq category of players. i guess that even considering the question proves how much he has became great.


but let's see some stats from these PO:

D-Will in G3: 3-7, Utah wins the game

Kobe in G3: 6-24, LA has a last shot to win the game

Dirk in G1: 7-15, Dallas wins

Yao: 2-7 in G3: Houston wins

Roy in G3: 6-18, Game lost in the last possession

Pierce in G2: 8-19, Boston wins


All these games were won or very closed with poor or average performances from their supposed offensive leader. and i could add many others ones.

The fact is that SA is relying too much on Tony right now. Who think that with these numbers from tony, the spurs have any chance to even let the game closed. We would be destroyed if Tony has a poor game, like in game 3. Even with an only decent game from him like in G1, we don't have any chance to win.

At this moment, Tony is the player the most important for his team in all the PO. I don't think it's a good thing for the spurs to be so dependant on one player. The truth is that outside him, we suck badly on offense.

If Tim could be at least the 20-10 machine he used to and some others role players could consistently put great offensive numbers that would help.

and for what i think and read about tony's comments, he would like more help. He doesn't care to be a superstar in a losing team. basically, after being bashed so many times,(by his haters) for being a ball hog, now this article and some members are reproaching him to not attack by himself enough ?

I don't want the spurs to be like the Heat: a PO team with one offensive perimeter superstar with no chance to win a title. I prefer the old spurs team, relying on a consistent big man, two others stars (well, just one for this PO) and reliable role players.

and this article couldn't have been more wrong about tony's attitude in G3; tony wanted to stay in the game, he said it in a french interview. he really didn't want to quit and seemed a little bit upset about Pop's decision to bench the starters. Harvey should check his fact, it's called journalism.

[ulosturedge]

Harvey is saying he's afraid of having a bad game? I don't think that was the case game3. He looked for his shot early and it was apparent that the Mavs made adjustments to collapse on him everytime he got the ball. So naturally he shifted gears and passed the ball to let his teamates take some open shots. The problem is those weren't going in either. To make matters worse the defense was just as horrid as the offense. So the game was out of hand before he even had a chance to look for his shot again. The opening of the 2nd half killed it. And you can't make shots from the bench...

[ducks]

Manu was definitely the scapegoat used by most people in 2006 for "the foul" not TP.

not here

[EricB]

Manu was definitely the scapegoat used by most people in 2006 for "the foul" not TP.


It quickly went back on "if Parker hadn't choked..."

[wildbill2u]

Look at how many people, both sportswriters and ST's most knowledgeable posters, say the Spurs will need Parker to carry the team offensively. Some say he must average 30ppg.

No one that I've seen says that Duncan must score 25ppg and 15 rebounds for the Spurs to advance. Duncan is now almost regulated to the background or ignored in their estimation of what he must do to make the Spurs winners.

That shows how far the Spurs have changed in the minds of most people as to the focus of who is the clutch player who must come through. I doubt most of them even realize how much their analysis of the Spurs and their dominant player has changed.

Duncan is still the heart and soul of the team and their leader because of it. but with Manu gone, Tony is now the dominant player that determines the wins and losses.

[Mel_13]

I'm just not a big fan of blame game articles like this one. Especially, if you're pointing a finger at a player who has clearly elevated his game and carried the team for major stretches of the season. And implying that Tony plays with fear is just plain ridiculous. Even a casual observer of his career has to see a player who has handled mental abuse from his coach and routinely challenges the league's biggest players on a nightly basis.

And who are these unnamed coaches and staff members? Are they key personnel or the guys who rebound shots at practice? Are we to believe that members of the Spurs inner circle are getting a message to Tony thru Harvey? Is there any evidence that Pop has some reluctance to tell Tony what he wants, in private or in front of a worldwide audience?

At least wait until the patient is dead to do the post mortem.

[EVAY]

This kind of article makes me see red. Tony can't do it by himself because NOONE can. Not even Tim. We never won a championship with only one superstar. And that is what Tony is right now unless Tim steps up and helps. David never won until Tim was here. Tim won with David twice, and with Manu and Tony. He has never won by himself either, and that is what Harvey is suggesting Tony whould be able to do. (BTW, niether has Kobe, Shaq, Dwayne or Garnett been able to carry a team to the championships alone.) This is really horse manure.

Tony is able to penetrate the lane better when our big(s) basically take the role of blocker, to keep the other team's big men away from him. With Bonner on the floor, his role is "spread the floor", so he is not there to help block the bigs, so it is all up to Tim. And depending on which play is called, Tim may or may not be in position to do it. (i.e., the pick and roll from the top of the key involves Timmy setting a pick far away from the basket, usually against the other team's guard, so he can't get back and block near the basket). The second best big man we have right now for setting the low block is actually Oberto, but I have no idea why Pop is so mad at him.

Buck Harvey makes me nuts.

[timvp]

Look at how many people, both sportswriters and ST's most knowledgeable posters, say the Spurs will need Parker to carry the team offensively. Some say he must average 30ppg.

No one that I've seen says that Duncan must score 25ppg and 15 rebounds for the Spurs to advance. Duncan is now almost regulated to the background or ignored in their estimation of what he must do to make the Spurs winners.

That shows how far the Spurs have changed in the minds of most people as to the focus of who is the clutch player who must come through. I doubt most of them even realize how much their analysis of the Spurs and their dominant player has changed.

Duncan is still the heart and soul of the team and their leader because of it. but with Manu gone, Tony is now the dominant player that determines the wins and losses.

Yeah, it's scary but Parker right now holds more responsibility with this team than Duncan probably ever held with any of the Spurs teams. If Parker doesn't play like a superstar, the Spurs don't have a chance. I don't remember a team in Duncan's career that the Spurs had to have a superstar game from Duncan just to have a chance to win a first round game. Maybe in the early 2000's ... but I don't think it was this drastic.

[ducks]

articles like this make me believe this is really tp's team not duncan
I do not care what tp says

[benefactor]

articles like this make me believe this is really tp's team not duncan
I do not care what tp says
What the hell does it matter? We win nothing if we don't have one or the other. Just shut the hell up about it already.

[ducks]

if it does not why agrue with me

[benefactor]

if it does not why agrue with me
Because it's not about whose team it is...it's about the team itself. We lose if Duncan has a 6pt, 4reb game. We lose if tony goes 6-25 and commits 7 turnovers. We lose if both of them play well but no one from the bench scores more than 4pts. Everyone has a part that they must play to assure victory...so this BS about who the team belongs to is just what I said it is...BS.

[adidas11]

It is asking way too much for any NBA team to want their point guard (sub 6'3") to perform as a franchise-level player.

By franchise-level, I'm talking about a player that you can build a championship caliber team around, and for that player to perform night in and night out at a dominating level.

The only point guard (sub 6'3") that I can think of who was even close to being able to do that was Iasiah Thomas, and even then, when that Detroit team ascended to a championship caliber team, they had to go for a more balanced attack.

Depending on Parker to score 38 pts a game just to win in the first round of the playoffs (and blasting him when he is not able to do so) is asinine.