Rocket win against the bull.Our first win
Since when does Duncan do anything flashy? Sorry, but the Finals MVP is not decided by spectacular plays. I was defending Tim throughout the first two games, but after he put up a few sub-par performances and Tony played incredible, it became evident that Tony deserved the award. It's mainly an offensive award anyway.
BTW, watch the Spurs 2003 DVD to see some amazing TP fake outs and ankle breaking.
Has this whole world gone ing crazy? Can any of you s read? Jesus ing christ.
Dude, the first sentence of mine you quoted had nothing to do with the paragraph that followed. It was a one sentence diversion form the real topic and argument that was taking place. And that was obvious if you actually read the preceding posts. Did you even read the ing thread or did you just jump in after reading one post like you somehow knew what the you were talking about?
Also, you mother ers are crazy. I can't believe that two of you ing idiots (cry havoc, spursindonesia) are trying to tell me that prototypical players don't exist and that I shouldn't use the phrase or ideology to describe them as such... Especially after I was complimenting Tony Parker by saying you don't have to be prototypical to achieve immense success. And furthermore, you had at udes about it. Jesus ing christ. ING. MORONS...
Last edited by balli; 12-23-2007 at 11:55 AM.
So I should ignore the part where you called TP boring and undeserving? LIke it didn't exist in your post?
I can't believe that a rockets thread has lasted this long without anyone asking who wants to sex Mutumbo.
Okay, I have not written the word "boring" in this thread. Not one time.
I haven't used a synonym of the word boring, or expressed the sentiment of boredom, or ever even come close to using it to describe TP. Not one time.
I did nothing to show or correlate the two seperate arguments I was having, in order to indicate that I thought the Finals MVP was about being flashy, like you attributed to me. Not one time.
In fact, I haven't used the word flashy, or the concept of flashiness, or applied it to anyone, including TP. Not one time.
I did call Tony Parker as Finals MVP, a disputed choice. I also named Tim Duncan as the player I would have chosen. In fact, it was disputed. And in every, single, media outlet available, that covers the NBA, the question was raised. I did not call him undeserving (or boring) or relate the two things together. Not one time.
All I did in this thread was say that TP is not a prototypical PG, but he is a very good, championship caliber pg nonetheless and used him as an example that teams don't need true pg's to have success both as a team and at the position itself. I said he had speed, shooting ability, finishing ability at the rim, acuity at getting by defenders and that there were several things he does better than traditional PG's. That's all I ing did.
Look, sprrs... I cannot keep coming back to this thread to set you straight, I'm ing sick of it. So here's what I want you to do:
Get your ing facts straight. Read the ing thread. Pull your ing head, out of your ing ass.
And then ing type, something like this-
fair enough - what i get for selective reading in this thread!
Last edited by balli; 12-23-2007 at 06:48 PM.
Let's review something else you stated.
Now, let's review what's wrong with this:I never see him break ankles or throw cool passes. In fact, I can't think of a single time I've seen Tony Parker deliver a jaw-dropping assist. He doesn't have great court vision. I haven't seen him make a dude fall on his ass though awesome ball handling or the ability to fake him out of his skin. I haven't seen him create his own outside shot. Call him a "true" pg if you want, but you're wrong.
Parker has shattered ankles before. And even if he doesn't, he's using his speed more than his ball-handling to blow by other players, which is every bit as effective (even you have noted this).
How many Spurs games do you watch? Parker was just featured on a top 10 plays of the week for a ridiculous spinning pass. Parker regularly forces a ball through a very tight lane to Duncan, or throws an excellent pass along the baseline to an open 3 point shooter. He fits passes through holes that have no business even existing. The fact that you cannot "remember" is no fault of Parker's.In fact, I can't think of a single time I've seen Tony Parker deliver a jaw-dropping assist.
Not to mention that you said nothing in your earlier posts had to do with flash, when in fact the post I'm citing is almost the polar opposite. 1 assist = 1 assist, whether it is jaw dropping or not.
Except for the part above where you talked about how his assists aren't "jaw dropping" enough for you.I did nothing to show or correlate the two seperate arguments I was having, in order to indicate that I thought the Finals MVP was about being flashy, like you attributed to me. Not one time.
In fact, I haven't used the word flashy, or the concept of flashiness, or applied it to anyone, including TP. Not one time.
No, you called it a " ing joke".I did call Tony Parker as Finals MVP, a disputed choice.
Good for you!I also named Tim Duncan as the player I would have chosen.
Agreed. I think it was a dead heat between Parker and Duncan, but Duncan's effect was less direct. Parker single-handedly dismantled the Cavs. Duncan would have been just as effective, but was happy handing the reins over for a series. Another example of the consummate teammate.In fact, it was disputed. And in every, single, media outlet available, that covers the NBA, the question was raised. I did not call him undeserving (or boring) or relate the two things together. Not one time.
Along with insulting everyone who disagrees with you. Seriously, are you 12? Can you possibly have civilized discourse on an issue? Or is everyone who disagrees with you a moron? This is a message board, not a M.A.S.H. unit (sorry, it's on TVAll I did in this thread was say that TP is not a prototypical PG, but he is a very good, championship caliber pg nonetheless and used him as an example that teams don't need true pg's to have success both as a team and at the position itself. I said he had speed, shooting ability, finishing ability at the rim, acuity at getting by defenders and that there were several things he does better than traditional PG's. That's all I ing did.). Stop treating it like it's life and death and dropping the f-bomb every 3 words because you think it makes your argument more convincing. Because frankly, it just makes you sound like this message board means waaaay too much to you. Lighten the up.
Iverson has started a majority of games at SG. Therefore, your comparison is moot. So to address the issue, Parker is fast, can shoot, has finishing ability, and is averaging 6.8 " ing" assists this year. He may not be a "prototype" point guard, but he certainly is the TRUE PG of the Spurs. My god, he's a shoot-first PG who's averaging 7 APG, so he's not "true"? I'll agree with the idea that he's not a pass-first point guard, but if you're going to get THAT worked up over semantics, I'm going to break it right the down. Maybe I can piss you off even more. Quite entertaining, by the way.And if you want to debate the notion that there aren't traditonal or "true" models for every position, go ahead, but it's a ing stupid thing to think. Especially when it comes to PG's. By your logic Allen Iverson is as much of a PG as John Stockton was. Give me a in break.
Just because something is "widely used" is not indicative of it's accuracy. Lining up behind others and using their rationale to justify something you said does not make it an unassailable statement. Parker is not a pass-first PG, but he is a TRUE PG, just the same as Steve Nash. A shoot first PG who gets a lot of assists is a true PG just as much as a pass-first PG. Allen Iverson is not, because he doesn't regularly start at the 1 or play like a 1, ever.In the future, don't challenge me on the employment of widely used vernacular and concepts. How embarrasingly stupid.
Raaaaaaaaar agree with me or I'll call you names more! Cause I'm an internet tough guy! Everything I say is true! Argue with me and I'll post pics of guys with guns!Get your ing facts straight. Read the ing thread. Pull your ing head, out of your ing ass.
And then ing type, something like this-
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 12-24-2007 at 01:07 AM.
@ the thread le....
no .
I apologize. I should have paid more attention. You didn't mention the words "flashy" or "boring" in your post. All you said was he's never delivered a jaw-dropping assist, doesn't have great court vision, or made a dude fall flat on his ass through awesome ball handling or the ability to fake him out of his skin. I don't see how I ever thought you implied "boring" through that.
Last edited by sprrs; 12-25-2007 at 07:26 PM.
He seemed to ignore that.
duncan said it should have been parker. "he carried us".
break ankles or throw cool passes. you get a lot of that in atlanta, but you are just getting to .500.I never see him break ankles or throw cool passes. In fact, I can't think of a single time I've seen Tony Parker deliver a jaw-dropping assist. He doesn't have great court vision. I haven't seen him make a dude fall on his ass though awesome ball handling or the ability to fake him out of his skin. I haven't seen him create his own outside shot. Call him a "true" pg if you want, but you're wrong.
he isn't a traditional pass first point guard. he's a get-the-defense on their heels, blow-by-you, pick-n-roll point guard. he's ranked in the top five by most analysts.I've seen him blow past some defenders with speed and finish in the paint. I've seen him come off some screens and knock down some jumpshots. I've seen him lob the ball into the post for Tim to isolate. Look Tony Parker is a very, very good player. But your out your ing mind if you think he's a traditional, pass-first PG capable of creating much for anyone else, or even himself besides layups. (at least in the way Nash, Deron, Paul and Kidd are capable)
you didn't stand up to the challenge. you tried, but failed.And if you want to debate the notion that there aren't traditonal or "true" models for every position, go ahead, but it's a ing stupid thing to think. Especially when it comes to PG's. By your logic Allen Iverson is as much of a PG as John Stockton was. Give me a in break.
*Edit*
What I find hilarious is that I just went to ESPN and checked out the Steve Nash analysis of other PG's. Here's what he said about Deron.
Here's what you said about the existence of "true" players
In the future, don't challenge me on the employment of widely used vernacular and concepts. How embarrasingly stupid.
LOL, if Parker was undeserving Finals MVP because of not being a prototypical pass first PG, then what was Dirk then ? Or KG ?
The thread on the Rockets turned into a discourse on Tony Parker.
Ballijuana is skilled at using the F word, very skilled. My New Years wish is he will learn other words to express himself in a more effective and adult manner in our ST community.
In the Finals, Tony Parker was the best (and most valuble) player on the floor. I saw every minute of the finals series and TP was most deserving of the award. Tim Duncan is the key to what the Spurs do and he is the biggest reason the Spurs have been at the top of the NBA the last decade. However, Parker was at the top of his game against the Cavs.
To say TP does not "break ankles" of defenders or "fake them out of their skin" or never - "Not even one time deliver a jaw dropping assist" is pure folly. People who actually watch the Spurs on a regular basis (as opposed to people who watch ESPN highlights which are by design not showing the SA Spurs) will have seen TP work with Ginobili on give and go passes at full speed that end up with easy layups. TP will also penetrate and kick the ball to open 3 pt shooters all the time - these passed are not easy to execute. The SAS do not have all the slam bam alley oop jam plays ESPN craves. However, ESPN is not the be all and end all for how basketball SHOULD be played. They love to promote the AND1 crapfest on their network.
Parker's speed is so devastating, he chooses when he gets to the basket, not the defender. Without "awesome ball handling skills", he would not be able to get to the basket at will and make the teardrop shot or the tough angle bank shot.
No, TP is not Jason Kidd (Mr. Traditional Point Guard) or Steve Nash (Point Guard Darling of the Free World) as far as court vision and passing the ball, but who would you rather have right now? How have Jason Kidd and Steve Nash fared going against Tony Parker in previous Playoff series? Not very well (0-4).
Steve Nash in particular does not do well against Tony Parker because he simply can't keep up with him defensively. The Suns cannot pressure the ball and the Spurs do what they want to do offensively against the Suns.
Over the last couple of years, Parker has entered his prime. Chris Paul and Deron Williams are really outstanding players, but Tony Parker deserves to be mentioned in the same conversation with those guys as top tier point guards - "traditional" or not.
Maybe Rockets could trade McGrady for Rudy Gay and fillers.
wierd, isn't it. there's a tony parker hater if i ever saw one. here's a cure for ballijuana - watch more Spurs game. recommended dosage - as many tony parker dribble drives as possible. joe smith lost his shoe.
I'm resurrecting this thread, because Tony Parker has been SHATTERING ankles as of late (he destroyed the poor man trying to guard him tonight) and has been doing it for about a week solid, completely burning his man.
Are you paying attention, ballijuana? Or are you going to come back and tell us how Parker just isn't " ing" flashy and doesn't have any " ing" court " ing" vision (9 assists tonight)?
And yes, the Rockets still suck.
Back on thread topic!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
