Reply With QuoteWhy don't you argue about which wheel on your car is most important for a while.
I don't get why people say Parker has more upside than Manu. Just cause he is 21 doesn't mean he has more upside.
Paker has been given every chance to shine in the Spurs system while Manu is barely an spectator sometimes in the offense.
Manu has the chance to be a very special player, he has shown he can do everything our team needs to win while Parker has shown he is a great shooter, nothing more.
Bottomline is, next year when Manu gets the chance he deserves this won't be even an issue, you'll see.
Why don't you argue about which wheel on your car is most important for a while.
Fizzar, I don't about the other people arguing..but to me it's pretty obvious Manu has more skills and higher basketball IQ. I mean Manu can score, pass, block shots, rebound..
All we know about Tony is that he can score very well(and I think he can pass too he just hasn't been required too yet).
But who knows how good Tony is going to be? He's just turned 21, most players are beginng their rookie season at 21...Tony is a 2 year starter for an NBA champ at the hardest positon to learn in the NBA.
I think both of these guys haven't gotten anywhere near as good as they are going to be, we really haven't seen every thing from either of them..because of Manu's injuries and because of Parker being a baby still, so for me it's harder to compare them than it is say..DROB and Tim for example.
Whott, I know that, but everyone seems to believe that Parker has more upside just because he is younger and less polished and I don't agree with that. Using that logic the Spurs made a mistake when they drafted TD, a senior with little upside.
Potential is measured on many things, not just age.
Manu homer.
:tyson
Quote: "Potential is measured on many things, not just age. "
I've seen this time and time again, at all levels of sports, where people look at someone's age and assume that there is this automatic learning curve that increases with that age.
For example, there is Michael Owen, of Liverpool. He's the starting striker on the English National team (this is soccer). He broke through into the Premier league at the age of 17, and took the league by storm, leading the league in goals that year. At 18, he was playing in the 1998 World Cup, and scored a goal against Argentina. Listening to all of the American sportscasters, they automatically assumed that since he was doing all of these great things at the age of 18, that as he would get older, he would re-write how the game of soccer was played. Well, now Owen is 23 years old, and still a stud. But he is hardly what you would consider one of the best strikers in the world, and definitely not the best striker in the English Premier league. He's had trouble with injuries, and while he has become a smarter player, by no means has he exponentially improved performance-wise.
There are a myriad of examples that I could pull from that are very similar to this. As far as I'm concerned, age has nothing to do with it, unless you severely physically mature from this point. Yes, Tony Parker will probably improve his decision making, shooting percentage, etc. But to make the assumption that because of his age, he will be vastly superior many years from now, is shaky at best.
At last!!!, Adidas and I agree on something!!!
The apocalypsis is coming... :wacko
Quote :"At last!!!, Adidas and I agree on something!!!"
I was going to say the same thing too, Fizzar.
Parker doesn't need to develop anything but consistency, and then only in the playoffs.
You could not have asked for anything more from a second-year point guard, regardless of age.
Perhaps, the same could be said of his playoffs performance too.
Parker can become a better passer, playmaker, he can hit the weights more to become a better defender, he could work on his jumpshop....
That's just off the top of me head.
Parker's nowhere near the distributor that Kidd is. Parker's never had to carry a team on his own.
My point was not that he is perfect. Even all-stars have weaknesses.Parker can become a better passer, playmaker, he can hit the weights more to become a better defender, he could work on his jumpshop....
That's just off the top of me head
Tony just plays really well right now.
He doesn't need to be able to carry a team, he needs to be able to score in the playoffs when Duncan is being taken out of the game.
And he has yet to prove that he is the legit second star this team needs.
That argument was much more convincing before we won a le.
How is it any less convincing? He got to kick back and watch someone else run the Spurs' O when the le was on the line. The moment that the Nets focused on defending him he ceased to be a factor. Kidd faced the focus of the NBA's best defense for the entire series and led his team to 2 victories against it.
And Parker had a Tim Duncan on the court to help him out.
Oh that's horse , he was instrumental in the scoring surge in game 5. He pretty much took over the 3rd quarter.
They were pressing him in game 6 and coming at him from different angles...he didn't play any worse than Jax did in the first half. If he hadn't come back in game 6 he would have been there in game 7. Tony got the job done every time he had too. To say otherwise isn't accurate.
Tony has bad games just like everyone else..he never missed as many shots as Kidd did though in spite of out scoring him a few times..
You just want Kidd here...Parker could walk on water and you are still gonna diss him.
Parker's a Spur we don't win the le this year without him. That's the bottom line. I know you think those who are not crazy about Kidd are just Parker homers...but that's not true..I wouldn't mind Payton and I really think Brand is the best guy we could get, and we should do every thing in our power to get him, this year or next.
I'm sorry if you hate to hear the truth. The kid is just too damn inconsistent to justify passing on a player of Kidd's caliber with no other similiar talent on his way.
Oh I can handle the truth..but the truth is also that Parker is already a more consistent scorer than Kidd is and he isn't as TO prone.
You just wait till Kidd has one of those 10 TO games.
You want consistency at the PG spot? Go get Payton, he fits better in a half court offense, he can score, and he won't require a long term deal(and **** him if he does).
**** this weak shooting PG man..You say you don't want to relive the 90's..me either and I saw enough of mother ing guards who couldn't shoot back then to last me a lifetime.
Duncan gets people open...you want to win a le get some SOB's that can hit those open shots, not MF'ers that are barely 40% career shooters.
We don't have a problem getting people open...we haven't had that problem for nearly 15 years.
Kidd shot 34% from beyond the arc last season on more attempts than the kid and his blistering 33.7% or whatever.
Yeah, the Spurs had a point guard with no ability to get a jumper off on his own with AJ. TP shoots a set shot as well.
Of course you fail to address Kidd's superior rebounding and steals ability. The Spurs have always given up more than their fair share of offensive boards to their opponents due to weak rebounding from the backcourt.
As well you totally ignore the Spurs cap situation and the limitations they will face going forward to add great talent to this team. This offseason we have seen that other Western contenders are not content to sit back and allow the Spurs to make lateral moves such as just bringing in another decent big to replace DRob. Over the next 5 years we will see the emergence of young teams in the west such as Phoenix and Houston.
I am going to say this again. Parker is NOT the reason the Spurs won. They were a good team. If Parker was not there then Speedy would have stepped up like he did when Parker was playing like . Parker is not the die all. He has played his part and helped. No doubt. But not the reason they won.
^^He's a huge reason why the Spurs won^^
More so than any other player on the team, except Tim Duncan.
I assume you mean transition defense? If so, them read my answer again.Do you know what fullcourt defense is?
If Parker is extremely coachable, why is Pop always yelling at him? Is it a different subject every time?Parker is extremely coachable. Pop yells at him, but Parker always responds. He also talks to Pop on and off the court more than any other player. For example, whenever they are on one of their charter, Parker and Pop discuss basketball for the first 45 minutes. Every flight, every time.
No, listen to me. There are two players that I know don't like Parker. That's a fact. This isn't candy land where everyone loves everyone. Parker may be liked by some, but Parker isn't liked by everyone in the lockerroom.BS.
Every point guard has players mad at them because EVERY player wants the ball all the time. That's how this sport goes.
Why? Because he can score? Parker lacks some very fundamental skills a PG must have.What's funny is if people can't realize the difference between talent and flash. Parker is the real deal.
IO'm not fooled by anything. I wasn't fooled by Antonio Daniels (like many were), I wasn't foolwed by Chris Carawell (like many were), I wasn't fooled by Corey Hightower (like many were).The coin is two-sided. When people don't praise Manu as the best thing since sliced bread, Spurs fans go off about how great he is and how great he will be.
If you are going to jump on a player's bandwagon, make sure you pick the right one.
Don't let the bright lights and ESPN highlights fool you.
Parker is a good point guard. But he's not a player you build around. At least not yet. Manu has talents Parker wishes he had. I listed them out there for you. Can Parker jump into a crowd he doesn't belong in and steal a rebound? (Kidd, can, too, but that's another story.)
Parker can't lock his man down.
Parker doesn't play the passing lanes like Manu can
Parker can't make plays like your garden variety PG can and Manu can.
But Parker can beat his chest after scoring on Gary Payton, so that makes his a complete player.
Manu is a complete player. All he need to do is figure out how to score. Parker is not a complete player.
how many nba players are complete players? half? 1/4? most of them?
Oh so that excuse only works for Parker and no one else.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions