Exactly, then why do you back your argument up with stats with a slight difference to show paul is better? plus, especially at this moment when tp is having troubles. It doesnt say always anything you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
Printable View
Exactly, then why do you back your argument up with stats with a slight difference to show paul is better? plus, especially at this moment when tp is having troubles. It doesnt say always anything you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadOdor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukefal
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadOdor
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadOdor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chieflion
:lol badodorQuote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
Total (or raw) stats are crap, stats that show the efficiency of a player (while not completely good) are a somewhat more decent indicator of reality. Besides those stats don't show that CP3 is slightly better right now, they show that he's better on almost every single aspect of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukefal
Paul like Nash are nasty ballhandlers. It's hard to make either one of these guys pick up their dribble and from penetrating any defense you throw at them. And their vision though I think Nash's is better is deadly. You make a mistake and both of them will make you pay. I think Pauls temperment hurts him, and Nash of course is not a defensive standout but both bring so much on the offensive end it really doesn't matter. The other guys can play defense, these two guys are needed to run their teams offenses.
Tony has great dribbling skills, but he tends to pick up his dribble, though not as much as he used to and he will never be the creator that NAsh and Paul or even Manu are.
Nice list. I would pretty much agree with the list and your take.Quote:
Originally Posted by timaios
Parker the last 2007-2009 was good enough to be a franchise player on a mediocre team. His effectiveness depends a lot on who's defending him and if they're fast enough to stay in front of him. Parker, at his best, can destroy a team that doesn't have the right player to defend him. But there are some defenders who can limit him, or if they really key in on him and apply pressure, he can be limited.
thought carmelo and durant would be up top? Tony was Finals MVP..that mean anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lefty
agree +200
i dont think tony is a franchise player, yes hes very good only when hes scoring, if hes not scoring he really becomes worthless unlike ginobili and timmy. please if you think im being irrational tell me how he helps if he doesnt score the ball well! tony is really more of a follower and could have been a leader but doesnt want the role. i think its because he cant handle the pressure. so with that said hell no hes not a franchise player
I think if Tony had the chance to go to the Lakers or Knicks he wouldn't care if he was a franchise player or not. He'd be in a bigger market and it would make sense for Eva's career. I really don't see him staying in SA until retirement, but as good a player as he is, I think he can compliment a team, but not build one.
If you consider Chris Paul a franchise player then yes, I think Tony Parker could be as well if given the chance.
While Paul is the craftier passer by a significant margin Tony is the better penetrator and finisher at the time. This leads to a significant difference in style of play. While Paul can better find teammates in advantageous positions to score (finding cutters and throwing alley oops and such), Parker will create better looks for his teammates by his drives into the paint (and the subsequent collapse of the defense to stop him, leaving an open man). Different methods but ultimately similar results. If Tony was given the amount of control that Paul has I think you would see similar stats (in points and assists).
Defensively its a wash. Both are solid though not spectacular defenders. Paul gambles for steals sometimes with good results while Parker is perhaps more fundamentally sound.
Paul is the better shooter of the two and this is where he edges out Parker in my opinion. If Parker were to further increase the accuracy of his outside shot I think he may become even more dangerous then Paul because of speed and agility while driving to the hoop. He would really be a nightmare to defend (if he wasn't already).
With all that said, if Parker were to become a "franchise player" I do not think he would ever be able to win another title, and the same goes for Chris Paul or any other current point guard in the league.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by stretch
Can you build a team around him? Yes.
Will it be a good team? No.
TRUE INDEED, good article too! He is the only one on this team who is elite HOF and a franchise guy! TIMMAY is the best PF ever, peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by superjames1992
he looked like it last season.
but nowhere near that now.
Lmao, Id have To Go With Matt Bonner!Quote:
Originally Posted by lefty
I agree with the poster who said that there are very few real franchise players in the NBA, and the list was spot on except for Chris Paul, who I'd put in the 2nd category with TP - this is based on the fact that CP has accomplished nothing on a team level except leading the Hornets to a few early playoff exits - I'm sure TP would be able to do exactly the same with the same cast. For the same reason I'd remove Garnett from the 1st category
To summarize:
- tier 1 = players who can bring their team to the NBA Finals whatever the surrounding cast (which excludes Paul or Garnett)
- tier 2 = players who can bring their team to the playoffs regardless of cast, or even deep playoffs runs in good years
That kind of player doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by will_spurs
Exactly, because the hornets involve all around paul. That doesnt mean Paul is better, it's just because he is main thing in the team, hence why he is putting up more numbers than TP. If Paul would have played for the spurs, his numbers would go down drastically, because it's not about him anymore. And the other way around, if Parker would have been the main thing on the team, his numbers would be increasing alot. Parker can also put higher numbers, but it isnt about that in the spurs system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pentagruel
So Paul depends more on what others on his team create for him, everything goes to and thru him. But when that's not the case anymore, Paul will be dissapointing and I think less better than TP, because TP is a better finisher and penetration he can do more by himself.
Except for defense though, Paul is a better defender.
LeBron James on the 2007 Cavaliers is that player. He said make the finals, not win. One might argue about the supporting cast, but that is ok, he made the finals, that is all I am asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
A franchise player like Tim ? of course not.
i would agree with timaios post about two groups of star players, and TP belonging to the second one.
but for me, among the current players, i see only three real franchise players: Tim, LBJ and Shaq in his prime. that's it.
CP3 is an incredible player but, if like me, you're convinced that apg is a overrated stat, you should think that CP3 is an overrated player, especially as a winning franchise player.
what were those stats saying in the last PO, when it matters the most and with the two players healthy ?Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
i think that CP3 at his best is better than TP at his best. but his APG thing and his defense are overrated.
This days undersize players can`t be named as franchise players. Or wait. Arenas is a franchise player for Wizards, cause they`ll be playing him for 6 more years.
For Spurs franchise player is a player, which whole roster is being built on for years. This player is Tim Duncan. Parker is All-Star, but not a franchise player.
it's a good list. I'd say Gasol Durant (potentially) are the closest to the first group and paul garnet are borderline. We could go with 3 groupsQuote:
Originally Posted by timaios
Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
Tim Duncan
Dirk Nowitski
Dwight Howard
Dwyane Wade
Chris Paul
Kevin Garnett (when healthy)
Pau Gasol
Kevin Durant
Brandon Roy
Chris Bosh
Carmelo Anthony
Steve Nash
Deron Williams
Paul Pierce
and for me stoud and johnson are not in these 3 groups
Franchise players should entirely be devoted to the NBA. Parker has shown a Yao like approach to his basketball career by trying to do too much with his time. Its hard to maintain your focus for the whole year and stay at your peak while doing so.
I can't think any real good franchise player who also competes year in and out with Fifa ball, how often does Dirk play for Germany?
I was never a fan of TP's game. He is very good, but a FP? He had a great couple of years, but a LOT of that feeds off Tim and Manu.
I put him in the same realm as Rondo. Definitely value added, but perhaps gets a bit too much credit.
There is no way Pau Gasol, a guy who won 0 playoff games before getting paired with Kobe, is in the 2nd tier and Melo and Nash aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brazil
Tony had his BEST season last year when both Tim and Manu were hurt and less efficient than norm.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobdrj
Your comment doesn't hold much water.
When Parker isn't scoring, he really doesn't do anything exceptionally well on a consistent basis to justify being a franchise player. There have been very few small players who can be called franchise players. Unfortunately size has a lot to do with it. Was it Chuck Daley who told Isiah Thomas that it was too bad he wasn't 6 inches taller because at that size and with his talent, he'd be the best BB player in the world.