Parker will dominate Paul in game 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LongtimeSpursFan

No. Chris Paul led teams have been known to underperform in the playoffs and have never reached the WC Finals hence his nickname Choke Paul.
Oh wait did you mean Parker that has reached the playoffs every year in his career culminating in trips to finals in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2013, 2014 and a NBA finals MVP in 2007?
Heck after looking at both PG credentials which player would you rather have leading your team?

---

Lol. You act as if Parker was the reason we got there. He can thank Tim, Manu, and Pop for those trips to the Finals.

Parker will have a solid game in game 2 but its an all around team game and the spurs will win big in game 2 book it....plus splitter is playing possum and will have a big game too as well.....pop playing mind games

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LongtimeSpursFan

Don't you watch basketball? Whose career would you rather have? 12 straight playoff appearances, NBA Finals MVP, 6 WC Finals, 5 NBA Finals, 4 championship rings. Or Chris Paul with no championships, no MVPs, few playoff appearances...regular season performer.
Parker led teams have also knocked out Paul led teams in 2007 and 2012. In 2012 Parker had a better head to head series against Paul as well outperforming him in most games.

---

You deflected from the second and 3rd question. CP3 is light years ahead of tony in terms of talent. Noone is ranking Tony ahead of CP3 in point guard or player rankings. Just give it up kid.
Tony is lucky enough to play with a top 5 player ever. and top 3 coach ever. And a top 5 SG ever.

He better. The clippers aren't even paying attention to him and he's taking fucking 18 foot jump shots and ball hogging. Time to show you're worth that paycheck motherfucker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by itzsoweezee

He better. The clippers aren't even paying attention to him and he's taking fucking 18 foot jump shots and ball hogging. Time to show you're worth that paycheck motherfucker.

---

Mah nigga.

If he dominates Paul Im gonna eat a lot of ham sandwiches, that would be great if we win the series, dominating Pau and losing the game/series doesnt mean shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDAYXvQUgAAoekZ.jpg

---

Man that image just sums up this season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDAYXvQUgAAoekZ.jpg

---

:lmao

Hard to call Longtimespurs fan. However, the career issue is sort of controversial. It leads many people to think that accolades influenced by others=better player. Playoff appearances, NBA finals MVP, WC finals, and rings are heavily dependent on the players around you. For proof look at Lebron's accomplishments on Cleveland vs Miami. After all, would TP get to the playoffs with a different cast? We simply don't know. Here's what I can say about the two: Tony Parker is the more offensively aggressive player. I like that he takes pressure off the shooters by driving to the paint for one of his layups. Paul is passive early on looking to distribute In the first half then score in the second. Paul is certainly more controlled and doesn't turn the ball over, but quite honestly today's NBA calls for a different mold of PG,personally I think shooting PGs like Curry are what will be demand in the future. You can compare the two players on many criteria, but having the better career is sometimes luck. Didn't Robert Horry win like 7 rings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pageC4

Hard to call Longtimespurs fan. However, the career issue is sort of controversial. It leads many people to think that accolades influenced by others=better player. Playoff appearances, NBA finals MVP, WC finals, and rings are heavily dependent on the players around you. For proof look at Lebron's accomplishments on Cleveland vs Miami. After all, would TP get to the playoffs with a different cast? We simply don't know. Here's what I can say about the two: Tony Parker is the more offensively aggressive player. I like that he takes pressure off the shooters by driving to the paint for one of his layups. Paul is passive early on looking to distribute In the first half then score in the second. Paul is certainly more controlled and doesn't turn the ball over, but quite honestly today's NBA calls for a different mold of PG,personally I think shooting PGs like Curry are what will be demand in the future. You can compare the two players on many criteria, but having the better career is sometimes luck. Didn't Robert Horry win like 7 rings?

---

When you're a starting PG on a championship team, a part of a Big Three that has won more games than any other Big Three it's difficult to discount the contributions made. Yes Parker has been fortunate to play on teams with great talent but in 2003 he and Manu were finally able to get the Spurs past the Lakers because the Spurs had lacked athleticism at the one and two positions. Sure, players like Horry may have won seven rings but Horry or Kerr or Fisher were never the main cogs of their respective team.
As far as Pauls career, I have a saying that I tell my players "Big players make big plays in big games". Until Paul does something worthwhile he is the Tony Romo of the NBA.

He'd better produce..... he's a lot younger but plays like he is a lot older.

If he continues to suck through this series he needs to be benched.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkurts

He'd better produce..... he's a lot younger but plays like he is a lot older.

If he continues to suck through this series he needs to be benched.

---

Parker is 32. Paul is 29. Parker has been in the league four more years than Paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LongtimeSpursFan

When you're a starting PG on a championship team, a part of a Big Three that has won more games than any other Big Three it's difficult to discount the contributions made. Yes Parker has been fortunate to play on teams with great talent but in 2003 he and Manu were finally able to get the Spurs past the Lakers because the Spurs had lacked athleticism at the one and two positions. Sure, players like Horry may have won seven rings but Horry or Kerr or Fisher were never the main cogs of their respective team.
As far as Pauls career, I have a saying that I tell my players "Big players make big plays in big games". Until Paul does something worthwhile he is the Tony Romo of the NBA.

---

LTSF its impossible to compare the two though. Lets examine the zupport each player has. Tim Ducan is known as being quite possibly the best power forward in the game. TD plays defense and offense, blake on the other hand is simply a more athletic version of Amare Soudemire. Blake has no defensive game, so by that measure TP has way more of a supporting cast than CP3. Examine Kahwi and Ginoblis contributions, the clippers dont have two way players like the Spurs do...so comparing team success based on these very different rosters will not paint an accurate picture at all. The clippers follow the mold of the steve nash phoenix suns, high octane offense, full court, but weak on defense...that isnt a deliberate system though its just the overall cast of clippers players arent two way players like the spurs players are. Again that will factor in heavily on CP3 and TPs trajectory. For example, put TP on the clippers and the team wont get past the second round, not because TP isnt good,but because collectively the Clippers dont have a balanced squad. In contrast, put CP on the spurs and he will have success at the same level as TP did becuase of the team around him. Context is key to that discussion. Also, the so called hump that the spurs had to over come(the lakers) were an obstacle to everyone. Its not that TP and co werent ready to win a chip back then its just the lakers were a tad bit better than the spurs, but lets not make out the spurs to be a team that blossomed primarily because of TP. He was simply one spoke on a well built wheel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pageC4

LTSF its impossible to compare the two though. Lets examine the zupport each player has. Tim Ducan is known as being quite possibly the best power forward in the game. TD plays defense and offense, blake on the other hand is simply a more athletic version of Amare Soudemire. Blake has no defensive game, so by that measure TP has way more of a supporting cast than CP3. Examine Kahwi and Ginoblis contributions, the clippers dont have two way players like the Spurs do...so comparing team success based on these very different rosters will not paint an accurate picture at all. The clippers follow the mold of the steve nash phoenix suns, high octane offense, full court, but weak on defense...that isnt a deliberate system though its just the overall cast of clippers players arent two way players like the spurs players are. Again that will factor in heavily on CP3 and TPs trajectory. For example, put TP on the clippers and the team wont get past the second round, not because TP isnt good,but because collectively the Clippers dont have a balanced squad. In contrast, put CP on the spurs and he will have success at the same level as TP did becuase of the team around him. Context is key to that discussion. Also, the so called hump that the spurs had to over come(the lakers) were an obstacle to everyone. Its not that TP and co werent ready to win a chip back then its just the lakers were a tad bit better than the spurs, but lets not make out the spurs to be a team that blossomed primarily because of TP. He was simply one spoke on a well built wheel.

---

:toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pageC4

LTSF its impossible to compare the two though. Lets examine the zupport each player has. Tim Ducan is known as being quite possibly the best power forward in the game. TD plays defense and offense, blake on the other hand is simply a more athletic version of Amare Soudemire. Blake has no defensive game, so by that measure TP has way more of a supporting cast than CP3. Examine Kahwi and Ginoblis contributions, the clippers dont have two way players like the Spurs do...so comparing team success based on these very different rosters will not paint an accurate picture at all. The clippers follow the mold of the steve nash phoenix suns, high octane offense, full court, but weak on defense...that isnt a deliberate system though its just the overall cast of clippers players arent two way players like the spurs players are. Again that will factor in heavily on CP3 and TPs trajectory. For example, put TP on the clippers and the team wont get past the second round, not because TP isnt good,but because collectively the Clippers dont have a balanced squad. In contrast, put CP on the spurs and he will have success at the same level as TP did becuase of the team around him. Context is key to that discussion. Also, the so called hump that the spurs had to over come(the lakers) were an obstacle to everyone. Its not that TP and co werent ready to win a chip back then its just the lakers were a tad bit better than the spurs, but lets not make out the spurs to be a team that blossomed primarily because of TP. He was simply one spoke on a well built wheel.

---

your post does make a lot of sense and I fully agree. Only thing that I don't like with CP3 overall is the fact he has a tendency to hide himself at the biggest stage... he is one of few of his teams that can create for himself and in POs unless you are the 2014 Spurs you face situation when Defense suffocates offense and you need a go to go guy to make shots. CP3 will often start to defer ala Bobo and over pass letting others try to put points on board. Aggressivity on Offense has always been an issue with him, Pop would massacre Parker in that kind of situations, it worked for Parker but a player like Bobo is a bit more difficult to handle, maybe also for Paul. That's my only restriction but I'm sure Paul would have been extremely successful with Pop and the Spurs.

For the rest I think LSF is just highlighting the fact that, contrary to what certain player fans try to inoculate in people's mind, Parker as one of primary option and a player with probably the biggest usage rate behind Tim, cannot be a "cancer" or the equivalent of L Barbosa. Spurs successes have been built with Parker contribution not despite him, this is just a silly dumb idea to believe that a team win that consistently with a high usage player being a sort of "cancer".

If Parker could dominate Paul, that would be great, but the Spurs just need him to cancel out Paul, which requires a combination of Parker playing better and Paul playing worse than what happened in Game 1.

Great post Brazil. Agree with all your points. CP3 has made some pretty clutch shots in his career, but not to the degree that the public wants to see. The Spurs and Lakers defined their rivalry by last second shots. As viewers fans have become used to a drama filled events like that, and they demand "clutch" shots like that from stars. Lebron was criticized for that as well (not taking and making a wining shot). Although now that he has two Larrys attention has gotten off of him. Now guys like CP3 are under the microscope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDAYXvQUgAAoekZ.jpg

---

Maybe TP will do some commercials for a laminate or hardwood flooring company. :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timmy2003

Unlikely.

---

Although I think it was true in some years past (that Tony would beat if not dominate Paul), I fear those years are in the rear-view mirror. I hope Parker does well.

It is a lot easier for us to win when he does well.

Shouldn't even start Parker tbh. Start CoJo or Mills

Parker will penetrate Paul today

Good lord he was awful last night.