is Manu Ginobili.
i think saying Parker will eventually be better than Jason Kidd, while not farfetched, is wishful thinking.
Saying Parker will be the best PG in the NBA means he's going to be gobbling up Marbury, Baron Davis, Andre Miller, Steve Nash, Steve Francis, Gilbert Arenas and Mike Bibby.
While I'm not saying that Parker can't be better than some or all of those guys, I just don't see it right now.
Now....
Ginobili I don't think is getting the attention he deserves. Manu is the one guy the Spurs can't afford to lose. If you agree with me here, you are obviously paying attention. He can see things Parker wishes he could see. He can make the athletic play, the smart play and the easy play all at once.
Can you imagine that? An athletic player that knows how to play?
He and Tim Duncan should be the building blocks for this team.
With all due respect to Tony Parker.
I didn't want to post that cause I would have gotten dissed.
But yes, Manu is starting to show what he can give to the team, next year he'll be phisically ready...remember that this year he had to play play the WBC and started the year injured. He'll know the system and get the minutes, the touches and the shots that he deserves.
Clutch, athetic and smart players like Manu are hard to find... Parker is a very talented scorer, but he is just that, a scorer.
Given Manu's age, I think he has less upside than Parker. But I still think Parker has a little ways to go before he becomes as good as he can be.
I am just not optimistic that either Parker or Manu will live up to their potential if Kidd comes.
He takes minutes from Manu && Parker.
If Kidd comes, Parker should go so that we can give both young studs a chance at PT.
Agreed NCali.
Splitting time amongst the group of Bowen, Jax, Manu, Parker, and Kidd may prove to be difficult. Especially if the Spurs have the rumored mindset of starting both Kidd and Parker in the backcourt (not a good idea). The essentially leaves both Jax and Manu to compete for the back up shooting guard position, or to compete for a starting slot with Bruce Bowen. Moving Parker may be the best move just for slotting playing time, and keeping team chemistry intact.
I disagree.
Kidd will make them both better, especially Manu.
Kidd has made Jefferson better than he is, I think.
My main beef in all Parker hatefest is how can all of you TP haters say that he's as good as it is now, that he couldn't develop into a better player in the future.
How can all of you dissmiss him just like that ?
I mean, obviously the kid has the talents, and most importantly, the right work ethic that burns inside of him.
If a 21 yrs old sop re player could developed into a LEGIT second scorer of a championship team in just one year, how can you say that the guy's already in his limit, that he's suddenly suck and a LAZY BUM in just overnight.
FIZZZAR, you know that i always be a strong supporter of Manu since the beginning. Never ever doubt him even in his low moment. I always BELIEVE that the guy has the talents and the drive to make it as a Spur.
So, why you apply a DOUBLE STANDARD on Tony now ?
guwana, this is not about hate for Tony.
I love Tony.
I think he's great.
But, if you sai that EVERY good young player was going to be the best player at his position, you're going to be right, but mostly wrong.
What I don't like about Parker, is that he doesn't seem to be a playmaker, like Tim is and like Manu is.
It's great that Tony can score and that he has the heart of a Lion, but I think there would have been a few young point guards that could have accomplished the same things.
But since Tony won a le (if Baron Davis were on the Spurs and not Tony, the Spurs still would have won a le), it's like there's this false sense of security that he must have been the catalyst.
From what I see, I think Tony is a tweener. He's not really a point guard since he's not a great playmaker. He's best when he's scoring. Like Sam Cassell.
Carnac, i have no problem recognizing Kidd as a great playmaker. I'm not that dense not to do so. We can argue as much as we want about his fitness to this team, how much will he add to a young but already a championship team. Still, adding a PG in his class wouldn't hurt this team at all in the short run IMHO.
It's just people who keep saying that BOTH TP and Manu would be retainable after we sign Kidd for the long run that just continue to amaze me. And also people that saying TP is as good as it is. For me, that's an ARROGANCE and IGNORANT statement, as we all know that we're no fortune teller or possess the time machine.
Well, maybe the whole fuss is all about perception IMHO. Why ? Cause i BELIEVE that TP has "IT" to develop into a star in this league. Might not be in the level of Kidd ( especially in his playmaking and allaroundness game ), but a Starbury level isn't out of question IMHO. Carnac, the fact is, this year TP isn't that far away ( or perhaps already IN ) from the second level PGs list of the league. I certainly don't see him that far behind compared to the like of Bibby, Davis, or Arenas.
My two centz
Bullsh!t.
Parker has a lot more potential than Manu. Parker has a chance to be the best point guard of his generation. He has two solid seasons and a Championship by 21 years of age. Look at his stats during the last three months when the Spurs caught on fire. Those are All-Star numbers.
Manu is still more of a myth than reality. He's also going to be a good player, but not to the point that Parker will be.
You can take that to the bank.
Nail, head, bang, timvp. Kid is barely 21 years old. His assists went UP over one full, per game, on a team where, as noted above, TIM is the playmaker.
I love Manu, his game, his vision, but what you see now, other than his missed injury time, is what you get. He's like 26 years old, and won't probably develop too much further.
C'mon. No one who knows anything has ever said, besides the man he replaced, Avery Johnson, that he is a tweener. He's not the main passer or playmaker on this team, and he's never even tried to take that mantle.From what I see, I think Tony is a tweener. He's not really a point guard since he's not a
But so many Parker haters are blind to his ability to dominate some games like an MVP. Very few guys have that kind of potential. Very few guys outplay kidd for 2-3 games in the finals.
Tony is a lot closer to Baron Davis than most people here think. And what you say *may* be true.But since Tony won a le (if Baron Davis were on the Spurs and not Tony, the Spurs still would have won a le)
But it didn't happen with Baron, it happened with Tony. Get over it.
If the Spurs DIDNT have Tony, we would have been a #4 seed and a Lakers first-round victim.
Manu is great. I love him. Tony is just a better player. Don't get me wrong. We need manu to get better, and he will. He is an integral part of what the Spurs do.
Tony has the chance to be the best PG of his generation?
Maybe. But probably not.
Manu has a better grasp of the game, and has twice as much athletisicm.
Once he figures out how to score against the bigger NBA players, the sky's the limit for him.
Manu has a lot more playmaking abilities, and he's not even the point guard.
Whoa, I'm not trying to slam Parker. OK? I'm just saying that everyone thinks tony parker, and ONLY tony parker, could have led the Spurs to the le.But it didn't happen with Baron, it happened with Tony. Get over it.
In fact, this was all Tim Duncan. Duncan needed help, but Parker isn't the only one who could have filled that hole.
Parker has a ring at 21, and that's great, but there are a few PGs who could have filled that role.
Why is that?If the Spurs DIDNT have Tony, we would have been a #4 seed and a Lakers first-round victim.
I said he could be the best point guard of his generation.
You said maybe.
Not much of a difference.
And yeah, no kidding Parker was replaceable. Every player in the league not named Duncan or Shaq is replaceable.
What is the point of that?
I agree with Carnac in sense of what their potential is. I think both have the potential to become stars, but if I had to pick the one who is most likely to be MVP some year, I would pick Manu.
Manu is a player that makes exciting and good things happen, especially when the game is on the line. Look at:
www.nba.com/features/nest..._stat.html
and compare Manu and Parker in their "crunch time statistics" during the playoffs.
Carnac - Sorry if I misinterpreted. There definitely has been a lot of misplaced hate torwards Parker lately (you have a couple of bad finals games and they hang you).
But you are right. Timmy is the engine that makes this ship go.
But how many players could have been swapped with Parker for us to win the championship? Not more than 5-6 definites. The others are borderline.
Manu is the X factor on top of those two. We need him as much as we need Stephen Jackson to be reckless in crunch time, to launch those 3's like he doesn't know the game is on the line.
Still, Tony, for most games, is the second, little engine besides our powerhouse Timmy.
Well, who is les replaceable?
Who is potentially less replaceable?
Manu has shown skills. If he could get his shot off a little better, he's be a complete player.
There is not one thing Parker can do that Manu can't do better, except score. Manu can defend better, he can create plays better, and he can rebound better.
Parker is a better scorer, is faster, better ball-handler, better in-between game, better fullcourt defender, better clutch shooter, is more coachable, etc.
Must I go on.
The backup QB is always the most loved person in town.
Manu could be replaced by many many guys.
He averagd 7.5 points, 2 rebounds, and 2 steals in 20 minutes.
Decent, but not that good.
For the playoffs he averaged
9.4 pts on 39% shooting, 3.8 reb, and 2.8 assists.
Again, decent, but not that good.
Tony carries the spurs at times, while manu will simply give us little things that will help us.
There are tons of guys that would be better.
To name just a few:
D.A , Bonzi, Kobe, Finley, J. Rose, A. Houston, Penny Hardaway, T-Mac, Rip Hamilton, Vince Carter
Pretty much any starting 2-guard in the league could give us a lot of what we get with Manu. But he has streaks of greatness I must admit, that very few in those starting two guards could match.
Yes.Parker is a better scorer
Yes. But does that make you better?is faster
Yeah, but Manu can handle the rock.better ball-handler
Yeah, just the teardrop. Manu has the inbetween game, too.better in-between game
No. How many times have you seen Parker flying out of no where to block a shot at the rim on a fast break? Manu can cover a bigger area andd wreak havoc in the open court.better fullcourt defender
Yeah, but Manu has hit several clutch shots himself. He has not had the opportunities Tony had.better clutch shooter
What makes you say that? Pop only gets after Manu when he tries to do too much. Parker is always getting yelled at for the mistakes he makes. Parker takes it well, but the sheer number of times Parker gets yelled at should tell you something. What makes you say Parker is more coachable? It's a fact that there are some Spurs that don't like Parker because he doesn't pass them the ball (sometimes on Pop's orders).is more coachable
Yes!Must I go on.
Tony is good, but it should say a lot that Manu is a better playmaker than your PG.
PS:
It's so funny how I try to bring up a subject involving Parker, and if my take is not "Parker will be the best PG in two seasons", I might have well have started a "Tony" sucks thread.
We'll find a gra area one of these days. Tony is not an all-star, and he doesn't suck. But those are the only takes you hear here, and your take is usually twisted into one ofthose two categories.
You guys are leaving out a very important stat of Manu's....which is steals.
Tony is not an all-star, but he is a top ten point guard. Even the very sparing Pop says so.
Manu is not anywhere consistently near that.
You are blinded by Manu's flashes of brilliance, though I don't blame you.
Much like Parker, manu needs more consistency (much more in his case).
Parker had a terrible playoffs. Some games he was God. Other games he was a bench warmer. Parker is the second youngest point-guard to ever lead his team to a championship. Don't be fooled by an incosistent playoffs. He is that good.
Manu can also be great, but almost all other times you barely notice he is on the floor.
I dont think Manu has shown his REAL GAME yet. You all speak about his inconsistency but the guy BARELY took any shots the entire season on a hobbled ankle.
I think Ginobili attempted less shots than Mike Dunleavy and other rookies who got comparable minutes.
It's not as if Manu has played 30mpg and not produced -- the guy played 20mpg and got better from March and ON.
Parker on the other hand has WAY more opportunities and despite his two years of NBA experience-- I still say manu is smarter and a better passer.
I can't wait to see what Manu does next season -- if he gets around 30mpg+ I think his REAL game should eventually come out and he will show his true versatility.
The guy came out and hustled his ass off and made a difference -- how many games did Parker make a HUGE DIFFERENCE if he wasn't scoring 20pts? As a matter of fact Parker was flat out AWFUL when he wasn't scoring the ball on certain nights -- yes hes young and he will get better. But lets not forget Manu's bad healthy at the start of the season and lets not forget that he is a great player not just some ENERGY guy.
If thats how you guys view him, than I dont see why you think we even need him on our team? Wouldnt the Spurs be better off getting some schmuck who can hit threes and play some D?
Was Tony Parker that consistent his first year? No.Tony is not an all-star, but he is a top ten point guard. Even the very sparing Pop says so.
Manu is not anywhere consistently near that.
OK, first off, I am never blinded by anything. I take offense to that. I know hoops. I have learned from my mistakes, and I am not easily star-struck by players. Make no mistake, Manu flashes are not just uncommon occurances, that's his game. His game, like Argentina's style, is team-oriented. And he can play defense no no international player I've seen.You are blinded by Manu's flashes of brilliance, though I don't blame you.
Sure, but how consistant can you be coming off the bench?Much like Parker, manu needs more consistency (much more in his case).
Parker didn't lead his team to a championship, Duncan did. That's like saying Scottie Pippen led the Bulls to six les. Parker was an important part, but you can't credit the le to him, just like you can't credit Pippen with six les. I agree Parker is very good. And that should tell you what I think of Manu. Someone will pay him big bucks, and he'll most likely be gone next season. I'm afraid of that.Parker had a terrible playoffs. Some games he was God. Other games he was a bench warmer. Parker is the second youngest point-guard to ever lead his team to a championship. Don't be fooled by an incosistent playoffs. He is that good.
Yeah, unless you're not paying attention. His man has a very difficult time getting open. That's where Manu makes the biggest difference.Manu can also be great, but almost all other times you barely notice he is on the floor.
These whole hollow argumentation won't exist if only the Spurs could land a BIG this summer ( may it JO ) rather than Kidd.
I always envision both TP & Manu starting for our backcourt tandem of the future.
TP is a scoring PG.
Manu is a SG with great court vision and passing capability.
Both have the talents and drive to be better
A projection of Spurs BIG three with TD, TP, and Manu isn't out of question.
That's a truly IDEAL scenario for both of them to START TOGETHER, and developed into the best starting backcourt our team ever had in the future. There's no reason to expect a 20 pts 8 assts version of TP, and a 18 pts 6 assts 5 rbs 2 stls version of Manu -factoring we don't land any superstar this summer. With JO, the numbers could still be in the neighborhood of 16 pts 7 assts for TP & 15 pts 5 assts 4 rbs 2 stls for Manu. Both would be eligible for SEMI MAX ( 65-75% of it ) kinda money from us.
Too bad, that vision would never happen with Kidd's arrival looming ahead.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote