Reply With Quote
hehe...Rockets would get blown out same as the Spurs would get blown out by team USA.
The Rockets with Scola would beat Team USA easily.
hehe...Rockets would get blown out same as the Spurs would get blown out by team USA.
Once again, we've established who runs the household.Team USA would crush the Spurs.
In terms of running a team it's basically Cousy/Magic/Stockton/Kidd, and then everyone else.
And yet if you ask a lot of Spur Fans, Tony Parker is better than him because he scores more.
Sports-fiction, i like it.
The US team seem to have some good team work for moments. That's scary! Besides, they have no subs, they are all starters. In rotation times, Spurs would be crashed. We are talking about a team where the subs are Amare, Billups, Prince, Carmelo... that's too much for our B Unit. I say USA team in 5.
It's different when it's about the olympics. There are other factors involved: national pride, different rules, no series, etc. Argentina or Spain might beat the US team, but it doesn't mean they are better than the Spurs.
I don't think that wwas ever in question. The Rockets with Scola would beat a team with Jesus on it.
Not sure if Stockton fits the mold, really. He's more of a halfcourt specialist. Sure, he'd be a whole of a lot better than other points the US has tried to use, but he's not a fast break specialist like the other three on your list.
That's not taking anything away from Stockton. In a half court setting, Stockton might have been the best there ever was a being a playmaker.
All thing being equal, Kidd is still the better player. This new re-energized version of Kidd is awesome.
That said, I don't think he'd be as impressive on the Spurs. A team built on defense, half court offense and Tim Duncan doesn't really play to Kidd's skills at all. Kidd would turn into a jump shooter on the Spurs and that's by far the weakest part of his game.
Parker can score in the half court or can complete one-man fast breaks. And while Parker has like 5% of the court vision of Kidd, he's better than Kidd as far as penetrating and kicking to shooters. That combination of skills works perfectly for the rest of the personnel on this team.
P.S.
Am I the only one that thinks Kidd looks a lot healthier and in better shape since he split with his wife? It'd be a little too much of a coincidence that Kidd turns back into Vintage Kidd when he got out of that drama for anything else to be the cause.
I agree completely. Even more, Kidd already have the 2000 Olympics gold medal, and actually he never lost against a FIBA team in his entire life. And 2000 wasn't an easy ride, the game against Lithuania was tighter than a doll's ass.
I mean, Kidd's great or whatever, but that's beside the point.
The USA team starts Kobe and Lebron. Now, Bowen could do a great job on one of those guys. But he can't guard both of them at the same time. And who's left to guard Lebron (since you'd definitely want Bowen on Kobe because he's the only defender in the whole league who stands a chance against him)? Manu? FINLEY?
Seriously guys, the Spurs are the , no doubt, but this USA team is full of nasty all-stars. They would sweep the out of us. I don't care what Duncan does down low or how much Parker tears apart their weak ass defense. That team is like Phoenix on amphetamines.
I think Stockton was as capable of running an uptempo team as much as any of those guys, but he was saddled with a coach (and personnel) who weren't conducive for it.
First of all, if Kidd was on the Spurs, I think Pop would be smart enought to know what he had. Kidd would be given more freedom to run the team than any player in Pop's history, AJ included. C'mon, Kidd, Parker, and Manu in the lineup and you're not going to run?That said, I don't think he'd be as impressive on the Spurs. A team built on defense, half court offense and Tim Duncan doesn't really play to Kidd's skills at all. Kidd would turn into a jump shooter on the Spurs and that's by far the weakest part of his game.
Second, I think Kidd's value in a half court game is underrated. Yes, he's not a great shooter, but he still understand spacing and angles and knows how to get to ball to the right people at the right time. He'd force the coaches to get more creative in the half-court sets.
Anyhow, I'm biased when it comes to JKidd. I saw the game where he almost single handedly eliminated the 2-time defending champion Duke in the NCAA and then got to chat with him a little the day after (we were staying in the same hotel). And I've always been fascinated by a 6'4" guy who can dominate the game at both ends without taking a shot.
was this thread really necessary? are spurs fans really this full of themselves? i mean seriously, team usa would your world up.
Perhaps he could have thrived in an uptempo system but I guess we'll never know.
In my hypothetical world, I was replacing Parker with Kidd. Ironically enough, Parker might excel with Kidd the most compared to Duncan or Manu.
Duncan isn't really a running bigman ... at least anymore. He'd get some nice passes from Kidd but Kidd would be better suited next to an athletic running big like Amare or DHoward. Of course Duncan and Kidd together would work but Duncan needs the ball in his hands a good amount to be successful ... and that'd be less time that Kidd has the ball.
If the Spurs offense remained Tim Duncan oriented where he's the focus on the low block, teams would still force Kidd to hit jumpers consistently ... something he's never really done.
However, if Kidd came aboard and the Spurs replaced Bowen with a high flier and Ginobili with a big scoring, running wing, then perhaps the Spurs offense wouldn't be so Duncan oriented.
*has flashbacks of the threads back in 2002*
Yeah Kidd is one of the most uniquely talented players ever. Great court vision, great anticipation, good defender and can rebound like a bigman. Not much he doesn't do ... other than shoot.
It's more like Tony Parker was a better fit for this team and NBA style of play and season.
Kidd is tailor made for international play, tournaments and a bunch of athletic NBA bigs and a couple of A level shooters.
It's like Kidd is the equivalent of a months practice time together.
He's so smart about the game you can just give him the ball and let him run things, and with the talent he has around him...he'll dominate, he'll make them better...and the other teams won't know what hit them.
That recipe doesn't work quite as well in the NBA, where Kidd's shortcomings can be exploited, where he can be gameplanned, prepared for, and where's he's not going to have the talent edge in supporting cast that he will for team USA.
I mean there are teams that always scared the out of me picturing them if Kidd went to them...the Spurs just weren't one of them. Not enough talent...besides we don't need his ball distribution.
If we didn't have Tim Duncan Kidd would have been the better fit...
Oh God how I wish the Mavs had kept Kidd...
Oh God how I wish the Mavs had kept Nash...
fixed
Hopefully you were impressed with Kidd having to beg for mercy at the task of guarding a 20 year old Tony Parker...
He just didn't fit the team that well, especially for the $$$ it was going to take to get him...who is the going to pass the ball too? Tim Duncan?
If I am building an international Team Kidd is probably the first player I take...even to this day I might take him first. And Ray Allen would probably be the second guy I take, even to this day. Bust that freaking zone down.
But I wouldn't trade Tony Parker for either of those guys...or Nash if I am building an NBA Team....I wouldn't traded him for them 4 years ago(especially since that pre-dated Nash's emergence as an MVP).
Hmmm...I think you are just playing Devil's advocate.
I didn't exactly see you begging me to take Parker when I was offering you Kidd in the D-league last year either.
In fact I seem to recall the conversation being something along the lines of...don't even think about asking for Parker under any trade scenarios.
And Kidd's fantasy value is unquestionably greater than Parker's.
Absolutely !!!!!
Great thread by all! Many good points made. I'd pay to see it.
However, that is the weakest thing that's been said. I love Howard, he's a beast, and he's slowly improving, but he still can't even carry Tim's jock. Seriously.
The Spurs, like any NBA team, would stay close until the starters started cycling to the bench, when Duncan, Parker, or Manu sits, its lights out for the Spurs.
If the Spurs could manage to keep it close, I would like their chances in the closing minutes as Duncan is just as good as any player in clutch time ... Its in the staying close that would be the problem.
Bilups, Redd, Prince, Mello and Amare is the second team, compare that to Vaughn, Finely, Barry, Oberto, Horry.
Last edited by Dalhoop; 09-03-2007 at 07:53 AM.
No way i'd take Kidd over Nash any day as long as my favorite team isn't the Phoenix Suns.
Tim Duncan would be too much for this team USA... Spurs in a 7 game series would lose 1 or maybe 2...
If it is just one game, I think the Spurs have a chance playing Duncan and Parker almost every minute. And we're gonna need Bowen, Horry and Manu going maniac with the 3 pointers. Argentina-B lose by just 15 points, and they are way more worse than the Spurs. Ok, USA were having fun at the end of that game, but I think that lack of preasure improved their game. I have never seen Lebron hitting so many jumers and 3pts.
If it is a best of seven series, there's no chance for the spurs. USA Team is too damn unbelievable athletic and deep. Even "deepness" doesn´t apply as a methaphore, they're something else.
Spurs would beat this team like a drum.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
