clash peter holt vs tony parker [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : clash peter holt vs tony parker

Pages : 1 [2]

portnoy1

08-01-2009, 03:20 PM

Calderon is a good player, but Bargnani is soft and his contract isn't the best, to say the least. You wouldn't rather have Rondo than Calderon? Rondo has beast potential on D.
Defensively Rondo/Perkins is the better deal hands down. I Just want the spurs to go back to ( 2 big men defending the paint and 1 solid perimeter defender/ 2 big men to post and 3 perimeter players to shoot and drive/dish ) Calderon/Bargnani can hit shots when a big man is double teamed however Rondo cant shoot and perkins really isnt in to taking alot of shots out on the perimeter. Honestly the only big man I've seen who can spread the defense ( shoot/hit 3's )and get rebounds is 1 -Troy Murphy 2 - Sheed.

portnoy1

08-01-2009, 03:23 PM

Sheed doesn't rebound as well as one might think, but I agree with you about Sheed. He was a perfect fit for this team.
thats why murphy is no. 1

ohmwrecker

08-01-2009, 03:23 PM

I'm sorry, I just can't do this anymore. You guys are saying that Calderon and Rondo are better than Tony Parker? Astounding.

alamo50

08-01-2009, 03:25 PM

I suggest you read your own quotes "You have received too much freedom already since you got here." :lmao are you for real ? wth are you talking about ?

Joining Eva attending movie premieres and award shows all over the country during the season.

That's what I call freedom.

Cry Havoc

08-01-2009, 03:26 PM

I can give you the triple doubles in the playoffs if you'd like...

You mean the playoffs where Parker just averaged 28.6 points, 6.8 assists, and 4.2 rebounds?

FG% and points I would include in one stat.

Ah. I guess this is why you're not analyzing for any major networks. That's so ridiculous that you should actually stop posting. That's like saying a career .220 baseball player is good because he's got 2000 hits over his career.

That's why, when people cite statistics about scoring, they use the % as a gauge of efficiency.

You know. Like Tony Parker just averaged 28.6 points per game in the playoffs while shooting 54.6% from the field.

portnoy1

08-01-2009, 03:27 PM

I'm sorry, I just can't do this anymore. You guys are saying that Calderon and Rondo are better than Tony Parker? Astounding.all im saying is that the spurs need a more consistent system. Parker getting 22pts worth of layups and 7ast worth of 3pt shooting isnt consistent enough for a team that wants to win a championship. What if teams decide to lock in on parker and close down the lane, their goes 22pts and all our 3pt shooting which we live and die by like the 2002 Celtics.

ChumpDumper

08-01-2009, 03:27 PM

If you give Duncan and Ginobili the ball right underneath the basket there is nothing else they can do but score, and then Parker gets the assist.If Parker has the ball right at the basket there is nothing else he can do but score.

Freeze

08-01-2009, 03:28 PM

Playoffs Ranks :
TP Ranks #5 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking Per 48 Minutes
Rondo Ranks #13 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking Per 48 Minutes
Billups Ranks #15 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking Per 48 Minutes
D-Will Ranks #23 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking Per 48 Minutes
Calderon Ranks #39 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking Per 48 Minutes (regular season, did not make the playoffs)
Paul Ranks #41 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking Per 48 Minutes (was 2nd in the regular season, but does not count isn't it ?)
Iverson do not ranks in the nba in Efficiency

So I guess on your criteria TP is the 5th best player in the NBA, and the best PG.

:owned

ChumpDumper

08-01-2009, 03:28 PM

all im saying is that the spurs need a more consistent system. Parker getting 22pts worth of layups and 7ast worth of 3pt shooting isnt consistent enough for a team that wants to win a championship. What if teams decide to lock in on parker and close down the lane, their goes 22pts and all our 3pt shooting which we live and die by like the 2002 Celtics.That's why Manu and Duncan and Jefferson are on the team.

Damn, you Parker haters never cease to amaze.

Cry Havoc

08-01-2009, 03:28 PM

all im saying is that the spurs need a more consistent system. Parker getting 22pts worth of layups and 7ast worth of 3pt shooting isnt consistent enough for a team that wants to win a championship. What if teams decide to lock in on parker and close down the lane, their goes 22pts and all our 3pt shooting which we live and die by like the 2002 Celtics.

28.6 points, 6.8 assists, and 4.2 rebounds on 54.6% shooting.

You are stupid.

portnoy1

08-01-2009, 03:30 PM

You mean the playoffs where Parker just averaged 28.6 points, 6.8 assists, and 4.2 rebounds?

Ah. I guess this is why you're not analyzing for any major networks. That's so ridiculous that you should actually stop posting. That's like saying a career .220 baseball player is good because he's got 2000 hits over his career.

That's why, when people cite statistics about scoring, they use the % as a gauge of efficiency.

You know. Like Tony Parker just averaged 28.6 points per game in the playoffs while shooting 54.6% from the field.Thats nice, but how did he help the other guys get going. Lets think about game 4 vs Mavs. He had 31pts by the half. Thats one of the most awesome displays of individual offense I've ever seen (HONEST). But later on the other guys werent involved and they locked into Parker. We lost by 9 I think, But it was still a pretty convincing loss despite Parkers 43 pts. If Jordan and Kobe can't do it by themselves than Parker has no chance.

Cry Havoc

08-01-2009, 03:33 PM

Thats nice, but how did he help the other guys get going. Lets think about game 4 vs Mavs. He had 31pts by the half. Thats one of the most awesome displays of individual offense I've ever seen (HONEST). But later on the other guys werent involved and they locked into Parker. We lost by 9 I think, But it was still a pretty convincing loss despite Parkers 43 pts. If Jordan and Kobe can't do it by themselves than Parker has no chance.

You're right. It's Parker's fault that Matt Bonner was our starting center.

So we should trade Parker because of it.

Dude. Stop. You're done. You lost. There is no debate here. You haven't made a single cognizant point in this entire thread.

ohmwrecker

08-01-2009, 03:33 PM

I can't believe I've been arguing with a trade machine linker.

Freeze

08-01-2009, 03:33 PM

Thats nice, but how did he help the other guys get going. Lets think about game 4 vs Mavs. He had 31pts by the half. Thats one of the most awesome displays of individual offense I've ever seen (HONEST). But later on the other guys werent involved and they locked into Parker. We lost by 9 I think, But it was still a pretty convincing loss despite Parkers 43 pts. If Jordan and Kobe can't do it by themselves than Parker has no chance.

The other guys were like 1 on 20 FG's !!!!

He kept us in the game when it could have been a blown out !

Cry Havoc

08-01-2009, 03:34 PM

4-1 Mavs.

You are more stupid.

Oh look, a closet Mavs fan.

Four rings, faggot!

portnoy1

08-01-2009, 03:35 PM

28.6 points, 6.8 assists, and 4.2 rebounds on 54.6% shooting.

You are stupid.Almost 30pts 7ast a game and he shot I great percentage from the field. Thats all cool, but outside if him take a look at the other averages -Duncan's ofcourse.

TD4THREE

08-01-2009, 03:36 PM

4-1 Mavs.

You are more stupid.
That's what happens when Roger Mason is your third option.:rolleyes

portnoy1

08-01-2009, 03:40 PM

You're right. It's Parker's fault that Matt Bonner was our starting center.

So we should trade Parker because of it.

Dude. Stop. You're done. You lost. There is no debate here. You haven't made a single cognizant point in this entire thread.
Each player has a specific talent and its really up to the Point guard to use that talent to the teams benefit. Manu was out and Parker drove and dished all day long. You have to have more dynamics to your Offense. If parker were A TOP 3 POINT GUARD he would have noticed that JJ Barea was guarding Michael Finley, a player who cant post up ( especially a 5-9 dude ). If I recall Parker never once looked for finley downlow. Once again you have to utilize talents of the other players on the team not just yours.

portnoy1

08-01-2009, 03:45 PM

If Finley posted up Barea and got some buckets, drew double teams or got a couple of Fouls on little JJ, then the mavs would have had to change their defensive scheme. Maybe even not play JJ as much. Then when finley post up parker can wait out on the Perimeter and used his improved Jumpshot to make the mavs pay for doubling down. Parker would have had and easy night with 30 or even 40 pts, without working like a dog to get his and to set up everybody else.

sonic21

08-01-2009, 04:03 PM

lol at tony haters.
They were quiet for months when tony carried us the 2nd part of the season.

Leetonidas

08-01-2009, 04:12 PM

portnoy1

08-01-2009, 04:15 PM

parker is an effecient scorer, has been for the last few years. but so was Kevin Mchale

Leetonidas

08-01-2009, 04:20 PM

parker is an effecient scorer, has been for the last few years. but so was Kevin Mchale

Okay, one of the 50 All-Time Greats? That's a compliment. :lol

portnoy1

08-01-2009, 04:22 PM

Okay, one of the 50 All-Time Greats? That's a compliment. :lol
my point is that mchale never passed.

portnoy1

08-01-2009, 04:27 PM

Your not going to change his opinion. IF its wrong...

Its wrong...
thats fine but my point is still solid. you can have great scoring numbers, but it doesnt mean that your good at other aspects of the game.

Freeze

08-01-2009, 04:53 PM

parker is an effecient scorer, has been for the last few years. but so was Kevin Mchale

NBA efficiency is not just about scoring, it's about every statistical aspect of the game.

BTW, TP was also 8th in PER rankings (http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics) when Rondo is 37th and Calderon 41st.

timaios

08-01-2009, 05:08 PM

Spurstrodamus :married: portnoy1

ChumpDumper

08-01-2009, 05:27 PM

Manu was out.

Cry Havoc

08-01-2009, 05:35 PM

pppp

08-01-2009, 06:06 PM

How can u guys even discuss with these guys? TP hate is still strong.

After all the guy did especially last year, taking the whole team on his shoulders and all...

Brazil

08-01-2009, 06:21 PM

this thread is still alive ?? wtf??

Cry Havoc

08-01-2009, 06:40 PM

How can u guys even discuss with these guys? TP hate is still strong.

After all the guy did especially last year, taking the whole team on his shoulders and all...

People are idiots.

ChumpDumper

08-01-2009, 07:28 PM

Nobody hates Parker, but if there's any time to trade him, it's now. It's like the perfect storm, Boston is apparently sick of Rondo for some petty reasons -- and Parker is coming off his best season... if you can get Perkins and Rondo for Parker that's pretty much an absolute steal, talent wise.
Are there any Boston fans here? Would you do that deal? Let's say Rondo, Perkins, Tony Allen and a throw-in for Parker?If that's an absolute steal for the Spurs, why would any celticfan want to do that trade?

Oh, that's right 1=2 in your world.

anakha

08-01-2009, 08:04 PM

SO your trade idea presumes Boston fans are insane, idiots, or both? :lol

Muser

08-02-2009, 07:45 AM

I'd do the trade, but that would not happen so there is no point in even discussing it.

50 cent

08-02-2009, 02:54 PM

The reason Boston is having problems with Rondo is because he thinks he is a max player and they don't.

S.A. would have the same problem in a year and would have to pay him max money or lose him for nothing.

You people are really fucking idiots wanting to trade Parker. He is one of the Top 3 PGs in the league. It's really pathetic.

eyeh8u

08-02-2009, 02:59 PM

The reason Boston is having problems with Rondo is because he thinks he is a max player and they don't.

just making shit up?

thats not the reason

portnoy1

08-02-2009, 04:05 PM

Just to be clear in this thread, for everyone who hasn't been paying attention.

It is portnoy1's contention that we lost the series to the Mavericks because Tony Parker doesn't know enough about running point to pass the ball to Michael Finley in a post-up.

So, the reason we lost to the Mavs is Parker. Finley was our go-to guy for the series. If we would have just given him the ball more, we would have won.

...

:lmao

lol Finley
...nope Parker was obviously our best player in the series. But in games 1,4 and 5 we needed a guy that could give us another 15-20pts, or at least change dallas' defensive scheme. Finley was the guy with the most abilities outside of Parker and Duncan. Mason and Bonner are just shooters
Gooden was still new and kinda got injured. Finley is a player that has alot of different aspects to his game that got lost when he came to the spurs. Here he is just a spot up 3pt shooter. However his abilities are 3's obvioiusly + off the dribble shooter, iso post up and coming of screen shooter. With the loss of Ginobili the spurs needed one guy that the defense had to respect or adjust to besides Duncan and Parker. Finley had 6-2 J.terry and 5-9 JJ Barea guarding him and he stands at 6-7, I think he deserved some touches in the post, especially if that is a decent part of his game. With your one of your big guns down ( Ginobili ) you have to bring out the best of the players you have instead of trying to do everything yourself. Even Jordan had to learn that, Once he did then came the emergence of scottie pippen. Jordan Would score and his new found legit sidekick Pippen would take of everything else in the meantime. 1 - Jordan score 2 - Pippen run the point, rebound, defend and work off of michael.

Obstructed_View

08-02-2009, 04:33 PM

Finley was the guy with the most abilities outside of Parker and Duncan.[/B]

And the only one with the ability to score 18 points and still be -20 for the game.

portnoy1

08-02-2009, 04:52 PM

And the only one with the ability to score 18 points and still be -20 for the game. the +/- system dictates how your team does when your on the floor. Tim duncan can play all 24 minutes of the a first half and have 20pts, but if the other team is up by 15 then his +/- might be well under.