Reply With Quote
Porker slurpers.
Ya lucky anyone even responds to ya ty takes.
Hahaha he can't even validate one source. He has to reject the Kawhi position and confirm the Parker position...and then act like it's a reliable source.Only a moron like you believes any subjective list (even based on statistics) has any true merit. I guess that means 5 players are better than Kawhi Leonard going by this exact same list.
Clearly, anyone that watched the NBA last season knows that isn't the case, but the writers at SI believe so.
Porker slurpers.
Ya lucky anyone even responds to ya ty takes.
I guess you agree with SI that Chris Paul is better than Kawhi Leonard, then?Porker slurpers.
Ya lucky anyone even responds to ya ty takes.
And that Manu Ginobili is better than Patty Mills too?
Of course, you won't respond to any of that and will just post emojis like a 10 - year old kid......
Parker was pretty bad. I hope he can adjust to his game declining. He actually played pretty good defense on two-guards. I think he should start doing that full-time. If he can guard twos and hit threes, he can still be viable. Issue is going to be Pop allowing that to happen.
He was subpar in the regular season (good from November to January, bad from February to April) but bad in the postseason, yes.
He is on a continued rapid decline (just like Deron Williams and most PG's post 30 years old), but none of the guards played well enough to be mentioned on any "top 100" lists. Manu had a good regular season (on limited minutes and missing time) but was in the postseason (ran out of gas, again) while Danny never found consistency from three-point in the regular season. If Manu was a viable option to start (he isn't) Pop probably would have benched Danny at some point last season, but couldn't with so few (quality) options.
He did redeem himself in the postseason but that may not be indicative of how he performs this season. I would easily take two or three of the players (Derrick Rose, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Jeremy Lin & Harrison Barnes) they "snubbed" based on potential (which this list is about) to perform better than last season over Green or Ginobili.
FWIW I also thought Parker was doing fine on bigger players than him, though not sure about how much he did that last season and if it's a relevant sample size, but generally the Spurs have the perfect personnel to allow him to do just that next season. Besides, in the whole NBA there are very few good PG defenders ( as in defenders against good PGs ).
Green was the best defensive guard in the league last season. And even shooting as poorly as he did he did, he had a neutral net rating, which is what guys like Bowen averaged in their careers. He wasn't about to be benched for anything but an actual starting-level player.
I get that you are hyper-focused on his shooting, but I doubt the Spurs were. They were patient, and Green rewarded them by stepping up in the playoffs.
This truth bomb just hurt Manure's hamstring omfgAnyone that thinks 39 year old Manu Ginobili is top 100 player is on crack rock, plain and simple. Manu is still a great facilitator, but his offensive game (and defense) is nowhere near starter level at this point. That isn't even mentioning his lack or durability, stamina and inability to play heavy minutes. I love Manu and he has aged better than Tony, but he's been a secondary role player for going on 3 or 4 seasons.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if (like Timmy) the wheels fall completely off by January/February....
Top 100 player...
That isn't even mentioning Green who, unless he has a bounce back season, is in jeopardy of losing his starting job or being traded. You can't be a "3-and-D" player, yet completely lack the three-point shooting ability (while providing nothing else on offense).
Parker isn't a top 100 player either, but he still is competent in the pick-and-roll (LOL, needing "mistakes" but still being good/great in the P-N-R game) while having the ability to score efficiently as well.
He is a terrible defender and can't consistently score or penetrate like in his prime, though.
http://stats.nba.com/league/player/#.../ball-handler/
Parker had a better points per possession than everyone above him (with more points) except Chris Paul, Stephen Curry, James Harden and DeMar DeRozan.
Meanwhile, Manu Ginobili was terrible in pick-and-roll situations (0.69 PPP and in the 31st percentile), yet he is still a "top quality" player.
The Ginobili fanboys eat these horse "lists" up but will be mad salty when Parker is inevitably above him in all-time "lists."
I definitely think Manu is overrated in this list. His gaudy numbers were against benches. Produced only 20 minutes per game and sure his gambling defense and crafty play will shred bad teams benches. To me it was significant he didn't play well against any of the elite teams, actually making matters worse at times (remember the GSW and Cavs beatdowns, Manu didn't play well at all, and his chaotic style made matters worse at times). He was a ghost in the playoffs. He didn't stand out in the 2015 playoffs (I know Nono or somebody will come in to pull out some stats that show him shooting 42% or something in the Clippers series in general (not exclusive to the 3), but the bench was in fact saved by Marco's insane shooting and Mills getting hot with the occasional effort game from Diaw. Manu was a ghost that series. I think he's just done as an elite player, which listen he's 39. It's actually amazing he's still productive against 80% of the league. But whatever. I don't like to get on Manu, it just irritates me that some still posit he's this high a level compared to Tony, which he's not.
Bleacher report had Anderson over Mills (who was 200 in that list). Manu and Danny were both out of the top 100 for bleacher report too, in Danny's case bc his decline in 3 pt shooting was unacceptable to them when he's otherwise so limited offensively.
Anyways, I don't care about either list. My point is that these lists are just in the eye of the beholder. They are basically opinions. Which makes yours and mine opinions just as good.
Bleacher Report?
You are the first or one of the few who have name dropped that site.
It isn't about being "hyper focused" at all, but the fact that Danny really lacked his one contributing factor on offense. Without his shooting the team ( especially the starters) is much easier to guard on offense, while he becomes a player that can be outright ignored or the defender could "roam" off of him.
This is a tactic commonly used against Bowen when he was in a shooting slump or during the playoffs multiple times. So, it is a legitimate concern and not me being "hyper focused" but thinking about what Danny contributes overall.
Hopefully, his postseason shooting, and with eye surgery, was a sign of things to come.
Last edited by J_Paco; 09-20-2016 at 09:14 AM.
Green spaced the floor well despite not shooting well. If anything, his streakiness lent itself well to that. Teams knew that he could turn it on at any moment, and he hit just enough last year to where team couldn't play off him. There was an OKC game where Green had been missing all night. But the one time Westbrook finally decided "You know what, I'm not going to waste time guarding a cold player when I can freelance", Danny hit the back-breaking three.
If Green never scores again, it will indeed be hard to play him, as teams will eventually stop giving him respect. But that wasn't a problem last year. Pop wasn't looking to start scrubs over him, hyperfocus on shooting or not. Danny was just better than pretty much any two-guard the Spurs have started in a long time outside of Manu. Without his shot, it's debateable. But with it, it's no contest.
The Spurs still won 67 games with Danny's bad season. Spurs should have gotten past OKC. Duncan deserved a better exit than losing in the second round to those guys.
Bleacher Report?
You are the first or one of the few who have name dropped that site.
was gonna say something too.
if sagirl wants some advice... don't even click on their links.
tp didn't crack the top 15 PGs per the sporting news.
http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/list...kuexuo/slide/1
its as entertaining as the stuff here and they at least explain their takes. Some guys should look in the mirror honestly.
was gonna say something too.
if sagirl wants some advice... don't even click on their links.
you know what happens when i look in the mirror? i see someone who doesn't read that trash. read it all you want, citing it is pointless though.
It's a pretty terrible list, although I agree with the placement of Green(should be top 50-ish if he bounces back) and Manu..
First impression after a quick glance is that Steven Adams is crazy overrated
my advice is sound. who else on this forum is gonna defend that website?
i've only glanced at the list as well, it is spotty. i disagree with you on adams being crazy overrated. would definately take him (#40) over some of the people he beat out: derozan (#46), iguodala (#44), batum (#43), ibaka (#42).It's a pretty terrible list, although I agree with the placement of Green(should be top 50-ish if he bounces back) and Manu..
First impression after a quick glance is that Steven Adams is crazy overrated
Bleacher report is ing cancer. Have they even fixed their comments section?
was gonna say something too.
if sagirl wants some advice... don't even click on their links.
No respectable poster would ever cite the BR.
Not a surprise since he isn't a starting caliber PG, anymore. Probably would hover around 20 - 35 but nowhere past that.
i don't disagree.
Derrick Rose is and has been trash for awhile. Have seen him play most of his minutes the last few years (and it isn't much).
Would literally take Parker over him 10/10 times at this point. Rose is not very good anymore.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
