Reply With Quote
and ?
Brazil is a Spurs fan from France.
never get old
One thing is for sure SAS forum is going to be boring when TP will retire especially during the off season...
Brazil is a Spurs fan from France.
and ?
Brazil is a Spurs fan from France.
Spurs fans are pretty dumb. TP is elite. That doesn't mean he doesn't have his flaws. That doesn't mean that some of the arguments against him aren't valid. He is an elite PG, the best the Spurs have had and even though he didn't step up this playoffs, he is still a top PG in the league.
Now some may want to argue semantics of what defines "elite", most would probably say top 5 is the cutoff. But over the past few years, TP has definitely been in the elite conversation. It's not really his fault the Spurs have morphed into a PG reliant offense which makes it difficult to win les. Even with all that offensive responsibility he has done extremely well.
It just makes everyone a little su ious of you motives, just like Manu fans from Argentina.
Not to say that you were wrong, but that is what he was getting at.
The same thing could be said bout US fans towards a french/non U.S player...
This is not an argument and shouldn't be taken into acount unless you think we're in war or something
This is what I thought but he could also have been curious.
Concerning TP being elite or not, people are putting non realistic expectations, he is not a franchise player, never been one, never will. He cannot take over a serie when the opponent frontcourt is packing inside and is destroying our own frontcourt. Yes he played a subpar PO, happens (and there is surely a lot reasons for that but bottom line, he didn't play at expected level) but he is not the reason we lost that serie anyway, Grizz was the better team, that's it.
He was just the perfect fit for the spurs because him and Tim are playing perfectly together, problem is: Tim isn't dominating anymore.
Nevertheless a 17-18 pts 50%FG with a good assists/steals/TOs ratio PG who can resist 10 years at Pop is still very valuable in the NBA.
tbqh, Conley did more than just that. More specifically, the Spurs decided Tony needed to go under the screen every time. And Conley pretty much made the Spurs pay every time. He made clutch baskets. And it wasn't only Conley, Gervais Vasquez walked in like a boss. They didn't miss a beat, and really played well.
It's easy to say they just brought the ball up and dumped it on the post. But they did hit clutch, crazy shots and defended well too. You would think it's not easy for a rook to keep pace with a seasoned vet like Tony.
That's a fact
Well that's really all we are doing.
TP is a great player, but IMO an average distributor with average vision and passing. His offensive efficiency compensates for that for the Spurs' system, but vision/passing is too big of a role (AKA the primary role) for point guards for me to call him elite, when there are others that are more complete PGs like Williams, Paul, and Nash. A younger J.Kidd belongs there too obviously. Then you have guys like Derrick Rose and Russell Westbrook, who both more or less share similar offensive qualities with Parker, but Westbrook at least is relatively strong on defense. I rank these types of players a notch below the "elite". Parker at his best was an average defender and a really good scorer that happens to be 6'1"/6'2" and thus play the PG position. But that doesn't mean he isn't a great player, because that's undeniable.
But I revert to the same thing, it's also undeniable that Parker does not have the vision and passing of Williams, Paul, Nash, etc. TP's offense is not superior to that of these players, and even if it were, it still doesn't compensate for the fact that distributing the ball is a primary role for PGs, and those players are way better in that regard. That's why I don't have him in the first-tier, elite category. That's my criteria, and being 2nd-tier with other studs like Rose isn't such a bad thing in the "point guard era", with all of the talent at the position in the league. It's not like I'm considering 2nd-tier as average, or ranking somewhere between 8-12 top PGs in the league...he's still a damn good player
I agree with that logic and it's a very good well-thought out way of looking at it IMO. I disagree with Westbrook, but the point you make remains.
I agree with Alvarez6's take too, and I also agree with you about Westbrook.
He had some of the most horrible play I have ever seen from a PG in last season's playoffs. Oklahoma might have gone further if it wasn't for his horrible boneheaded plays. There is no way I would ever allow him to take 30 shots a game with KD on the team.
I can see both sides (with Westbrook). He and Parker have a lot of the same fundamental offensive skills, and you're absolutely right about his performance in last year's postseason. He was ing atrocious with his decision making. But he had great numbers in the regular season, as did Parker, and he's a young PG with limited experience in the playoffs. It's not like Parker didn't make a lot of bonehead plays against Memphis...he had some bad shot selection, costly turnovers, and fell asleep on D in the clutch. The two players had similar situations, sort of.
But I am in no way trying to argue for Westbrook's sake against Parker, I hate Westbrook and would never choose him over Parker. They are relatively similar though in ability. Of course, Parker is older and is a proven winner.
Tony Parker is being debated as to whether he is HOF worthy. This le is bs. He's already proven he was an elite pg. Is he elite now? probably not, but he took his team to the playoffs as the #1 seed. Thats successful enough for me... No way does it all go on Tony's shoulder. In hindsight, you have to look at Pops decision to go all out for #1 seed in the NBA as ridiculous considering they had the West already lockedup. Timmy's bum ankle, Manu's fractured elbow, there was not much Tony could do against that physical Memphis team. He is still a top 7 pg imo.
1. Chris Paul
2. Deron Williams
3. Derrick Rose
4. Rajon Rondo
5. Russell Westbrook
6. Steve Nash
6. Tony Parker
Derrick Rose is a lot like Tony in that they can be an offensive force, but Rose simply can finish with much more authority around the basket than Tony ever could. A much, much more athletic guy, who has a tremendous upside, and it's much harder to cover. I thought the league MVP trophy was well deserved.
I also agree with those saying Westbrook is overrated, at least at the moment. He has a lot to learn about the game.
Not only that, but I'd say the majority of his limitations are his pathetic at ude. His actions on the court imply that he thinks he's just as good of a player as Durant and that he should be shooting just as often. A lot of us know that OKC veteran player(s) think the same thing. He has just about all of the physical attributes to be a great NBA point guard..he's 6'4", quick, explosive, extremely athletic in general. All of these things give him a clear advantage on offense and defense. If he stops being a , knows his role, and like you say understands the game better, he could be a perennial all-star.
It's going to be hard to "finally expose" Tony Parker, since he has done enough in his career to be called a great player. Anybody who doubts that is a clear hater in my view.
On the other hand he's obviously not perfect. He's been considered one of the bests at his position for most of his career, but never seemed to be able to go to the superstar level. That doesn't suddenly make him a scrub either.
Re: the argument that comes up very often that he was "destroyed" by Mike Conley in the last playoffs, I have a few points to make:
- first of all he wasn't "destroyed". It's not like his stats or contribution dropped significantly (actually he scored more than in the RS). It's not like his opponent suddenly became Superman either--just check Conley's RS stats vs playoffs, actually the most significant difference was that his shooting was absolutely dreadful in the playoffs (below 40%). I guess what people actually mean is that Parker didn't destroy Conley, as some apparently expected he would. Which leads me to my next point.
- Parker isn't a typical PG. He has his own style and his own strengths and weaknesses, which are actually quite unique in the NBA. He is certainly a member of a VERY small group of PGs who could finish that well in the paint. The main issue with a player like that is that either the coach/team play around that, and things will be great; or they try to fit a square peg into a round hole and things are suddenly not going to be so nice any more. Tony needs a decent presence inside and a sharpshooter from the perimeter to be able to express himself. When the Spurs get dominated inside the way they were against Memphis, and the sharpshooters take a week off, then he struggles. It was exactly the same with France against Spain: the point is not who is the opposing PG and how good he is. It's all about inside presence and 3-pt shooters. In this respect I'd say Tony did what he could against Memphis, but it was a bad matchup for his style of play, and that has ZERO to do with Conley.
- the last point is specifically re: Conley, though. People seem to be surprised that some players on the other team can actually play... I guess they're supposed to just roll over when they play the Spurs? Conley is a young guard (23) with 4 seasons in the league and only 1 playoff run. It's not like he's a proven scrub. His contribution has increased steadily since he joined the NBA, and there's nothing pointing to the fact that he will never be an excellent player. In a way this reminds me of Rondo: when he was playing well in the playoffs, instead of saying that people were saying that the opposing PG sucked. With time, Rondo showed he actually deserved some credit for that. the same might well happen with Conley.
Conley did destroy Tony Parker but it was in the playmaking and making teammates better departments which happen to be the primary roles for a PG.
Parker also had nearly as many turnovers as the entire Grizzlies did in one of the games (7 versus 8). In that same game, Conley had 7 assists and just 1 turnover while Parker had 7 turnovers and just 1 assist.
For the series, Parker totaled 20 turnovers and just 31 assists. Conley had just 13 turnovers and 37 assists. Thats a pretty significant difference
In that Grizz series Parker even had trouble just bringing up the ball and got it easily swiped away which is seen in his relatively ty assist/turnover ratio.
Earlier in the season NBA fans laughed at Conley's relatively lucrative contract. Spurs fans expected Finals MVP Tony Parker to have his way with Conley but Conley's superior playmaking made it a much more even matchup. That was one of the few matchups that should've been in the Spurs favor and they really needed Parker to play at an elite level to carry them in the first game but it didn't happen.- the last point is specifically re: Conley, though. People seem to be surprised that some players on the other team can actually play... I guess they're supposed to just roll over when they play the Spurs? Conley is a young guard (23) with 4 seasons in the league and only 1 playoff run. It's not like he's a proven scrub. His contribution has increased steadily since he joined the NBA, and there's nothing pointing to the fact that he will never be an excellent player. In a way this reminds me of Rondo: when he was playing well in the playoffs, instead of saying that people were saying that the opposing PG sucked. With time, Rondo showed he actually deserved some credit for that. the same might well happen with Conley.
Parker used to be a top 3-5 PG but to me he's been declining for the past couple of seasons (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153976) and thats the way it goes with score-first guards that rely on athleticism like Parker's fading quickness. His shooting, defense, and other skills really haven't been improving much to make up for his decline either which has been disappointing to watch.
Parker can have his way with some of the older slow guards like Kidd but against younger guards that are competent defensively...he's not going to have that Finals MVP advantage even though he's the youngest and healthiest member of the Big 3. even some old PG's like Andre Miller can give Parker a run for the money. In the recent international games, even Jose Calderon lit Tony Parker up and Parker again had turnover issues.
Last edited by Cane; 09-27-2011 at 09:08 AM.
Alot of good points. I think the consensus is that Parker's style of play can be detrimental if he's not scoring efficiently or the other team is packing the paint and the shooters can't make them pay. That is the reason for all the mentioned playoff failures of TP such as in 2004. Like you said Memphis had a good game plan. They stayed with him on the drives by dropping into the paint and ran the shooters of the 3 point line. At that point it became a battle of wills and the Grizzlies just fought harder.
The problem I have with the first round exit is that sometimes if you see your players can't play any harder you have to change the strategy to give them a chance. At the very least the element of surprise can make a difference in a close series. If Parker was struggling in the half court they needed to speed up the tempo. He's still one of the best fastbreak players and it would likely have helped RJ.
That assist to turnover ratio speaks volumes. Having a ball hogging player at the point is more detrimental than any other position because it makes it harder for anybody else to get going. Parker's ball hogging worked with Bruce Bowen because he didn't need any touches. He was fine with standing in the corner and knocking down 3's and playing lockdown defense. Players like him and Shane Battier are hard to find. Most players need touches to be involved on offense and defense. It's alot easier when you get a pass in a position ready to score. Parker either needs to play more like a point or they need to exchange Jefferson for Battier. To his credit he did show some flashes of being able to get everyone involved (particularly RJ) at the beginning of last season. I think he was averaging around 8 assist per game.Conley did destroy Tony Parker but it was in the playmaking and making teammates better departments which happen to be the primary roles for a PG.
Parker also had nearly as many turnovers as the entire Grizzlies did in one of the games (7 versus 8). In that same game, Conley had 7 assists and just 1 turnover while Parker had 7 turnovers and just 1 assist.
For the series, Parker totaled 20 turnovers and just 31 assists. Conley had just 13 turnovers and 37 assists. Thats a pretty significant difference
In that Grizz series Parker even had trouble just bringing up the ball and got it easily swiped away which is seen in his relatively ty assist/turnover ratio.
Earlier in the season NBA fans laughed at Conley's relatively lucrative contract. Spurs fans expected Finals MVP Tony Parker to have his way with Conley but Conley's superior playmaking made it a much more even matchup. That was one of the few matchups that should've been in the Spurs favor and they really needed Parker to play at an elite level to carry them in the first game but it didn't happen.
Parker used to be a top 3-5 PG but to me he's been declining for the past couple of seasons (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153976) and thats the way it goes with score-first guards that rely on athleticism like Parker's fading quickness. His shooting, defense, and other skills really haven't been improving much to make up for his decline either which has been disappointing to watch.
Parker can have his way with some of the older slow guards like Kidd but against younger guards that are competent defensively...he's not going to have that Finals MVP advantage even though he's the youngest and healthiest member of the Big 3. even some old PG's like Andre Miller can give Parker a run for the money.
To the French/Parker apologists:
Noone is saying Parker is a complete scrub just that hes always been overrated. Hes a great scorer especially in the regular season but too often hes been contained in the playoffs, and the Spurs have been outed as a result. We arent just talking about 2011 either, Parker has been costing the Spurs series since he first came into the league because hes never been able to develop a solid outside shot.
Another problem with Parker's "court vision" is that, generally speaking, it is very dependent upon his teammates making shots. With his ability to get in the paint, Parker's most prominent type of assists are going to be to drive, suck the defense in, and kick out to open shooters, but that doesn't actually become an assist unless the shooter hits his shot.
Parker isn't the type of point guard to rack up assists on alley-oop lobs, hitting cutters, or spoon-feeding post players. Those types of plays are converted like 70-90% of the time, as opposed to the 30-50% that a jump-shooter might hit his shots.
At the beginning of the season, when the offense was clicking and the Spurs had like 3-4 guys hitting threes at a 50% clip, it made Parker shine. Compare that to the playoff series against Memphis, where they did a good job closing out on shooters (and shooters didn't do a very good job even when they were open), Parker suddenly started to look a lot more mediocre (albeit in a much smaller sample size), as evidenced by that atrocious assist/turnover ratio.
Unfortunately, that's how the playoffs work, and that brings me back to my original point: When the big lights come on, shooters better hit their shots, because otherwise one of the Spurs' main strengths (Parker's drive-and-dish ability) becomes one of their weaknesses (lots of missed longballs which fuels the opponent's break).
Well, he does have a point
He has been useless in series against teams who could stop his penetrations
Well, he does have a point
He has been useless in series against teams who could stop his penetrations
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
