Reply With Quote
TP was already better than Jason Kidd in the 2003 Finals, and he's smoked him in every game since.
I tell ya after the other night the Spurs may be wondering why they ever even bothered trying to get Jason Kidd two years ago in the offseason. To this day i still have no clue why Kidd did not want to come to SA since he is always whining about how bad he wants to win a le. However i think in time Parker will be even better, i don't even think he is far off right now. I have never seen Kidd take over a game like TP did the other night he looked like Jordan out there in the 4th qtr and overtimes it was like he couldn't miss a shot and everytime he shot you knew it was going in. Parker is still a little rough around the edges mainly with his free throws and his defense although solid could still use some work, but clearly this kid at just 22 is on the path to greatness. Have fun wasting what is left of your career in NJ Kidd we got TP and that's the way we like it.
TP was already better than Jason Kidd in the 2003 Finals, and he's smoked him in every game since.
Kidd would of come but he owed it to his wife not to.
Oh christ, not this argument again.....
I have never seen Kidd take over a game like TP did the other night
*thinking about first round of playoffs in 2000*
Rasho would look like Jordan if Montgomery let him ISO Fisher at the top of the key.
The guy is more useless than a metal Chair on defense.
Adidas 11 but look at this scenario for your team. Kidd comes, Spurs might have been better in short run (although hurt in long run). Parker bolts perhaps to the one team that still at that time could be matched with the Spurs = the Lakers. Spurs with Kidds massive contract don't have cap room for Manu, Barry and others. I would not have wanted that but kind of sucks for Lakers that didn't work out either!
Frankly (as I've said before), I can't understand why they even courted that bas - Jason Kidd. Yeah, he's one of the top PGs in the game - maybe of all time, but his career is clearly on the backside.
His contract and injuries would have handicapped this team greatly over the next several years. If you think Rose's contract was an albatross, try 7 years - 92 million.
Also, let's not forget the Spurs would've had to part with a couple of critical pieces (Parker, Rose, others).
I was just a bad deal all around. Thank your NBA gods the fool resigned with New Jersey.
Do you all really believe Tony would of demanded a trade had Kidd come here? Or would he have sucked it up and learned to play with Kidd? Who knows.
Tony would have bolted and appropriately so - he was then and is today a proud man and a heck of a player. At no time did he at least believe Kidd was better. He often owned Kidd. A case could be made the Marbury owned him but no one else.
Hopefully Parker will become part of the Spurs three headed snake of Duncan, Manu and himself that is fully capable and does take over a game on a consistent basis in the 4th quarter. That will be enough.
Tony's upside (as we're starting to see) was much more of a risk/reward than Kidd. At the time, Kidd game had pretty much maxed out. Yes, Tony owned his ass for the better part of the 2003 championship series.
Kidd was as good as he was gonna be. In fact, you're now witnessing the decline in him performance.
All n all, it worked out perfectly for the Spurs. They got a younger, better and less expensive player.
If you guys think Kidd sucks look at the way Carter's game has blossomed in Jason's offense.
I'm very happy with the way things have turned out, and I probably wouldn't change anything, but give Kidd his due. Carter's putting up 27 a game on 46% shooting, something he hasn't even come close to in 4 years. You think he magically became the same explosive player he was before the injuries overnight?
I give Kidd his due. He is a great point guard. But TP has been better than him for 3 years.
As for Carter's magical blossoming, yes, Kidd has made him better, but I think that's only half the story. The other half being that Carter is actually putting out effort. He admitted that he wasn't giving his all in Toronto.
Kidd and Parker aren't even close to being the same type of players. Parker's fast as heck and there's no way Kidd can keep up to him. Also, Parker is pretty durable, while Kidd hasn't played 70 games in two years. On the flip side, Parker will probably be more of a scoring PG than Kidd, sans the 7-9 APG. They're pretty different.
carter admitted he quit before
he said he would try now with the nets
ofcourse he is going to play better he wanted out
kidd played like crap when he got back
he is startign to play better but he is on wrong fall away from retirement
Apples and oranges.
Parker is already a better scorer than Kidd, and always has been.
Parker will never be the passer Kidd is. Kidd is one of the greatest of all time. Tony just doesn't see the court that way. He's a scorer by nature. Not that he won't be a great passer (he will be), but there are few who will ever be able to pass the ball like Kidd. His greatness isn't about what he does, it's about what he can get others to do. Parker's great at creating a shot for himself, Kidd creates for everyone else.
I think when it's all said and done, Parker will be the better all-around player, but Kidd will be the better point guard. Tony would have to grow leaps and bounds to come close to Kidd as a passer.
Tony's got the edge on defense, too, by the way.
like what parker said before..
"We dont need Kidd"
yup.. we really dont
Both in there primes, Kidd is 10 times better.
has parker even hit his prime yet ice?
He might now, but it's arguable. He certainly didn't three years ago. Parker will never be as good defensively as Kidd was in his prime.Tony's got the edge on defense, too, by the way.
Ah, the foolishness of a homer on a Spurs message board. Of course our never-has-been-to-an-all-star-game, arguably not even currently in the top three at his position, still inconsistent point guard will be better than the greatest point guard of our generation. Who could argue with that? I mean, Tony will clearly be better than one of the greatest passers in NBA history who took his team to the finals twice and defended with the best of them. Kidd's weakness is his outside shooting. But Parker has the same weakness.Parker will be better than Kidd
Kidd routinely led that Nets team to victory in fourth quarters. Parker had a good game, but he hasn't played well in the fourth quarter all season long. Pop has been ing about Tony's fourth quarter disappearing act.I have never seen Kidd take over a game like TP did the other night he looked like Jordan out there in the 4th qtr and overtimes it was like he couldn't miss a shot and everytime he shot you knew it was going in.
Technically, Parker wouldn't have had that option. I don't know what I think about this. It's possible that they could have coexisted quite well, but you're right - Parker probably would have wanted to be a point guard. And while it was clear that Kidd was the better player, it would have been difficult for Parker to give up control of the the team.Tony would have bolted and appropriately so - he was then and is today a proud man and a heck of a player. At no time did he at least believe Kidd was better. He often owned Kidd. A case could be made the Marbury owned him but no one else.
Now? Arguarbly. For three years? Not a chance. Kidd was still far and away the best point guard in the game two years ago.But TP has been better than him for 3 years.
Things worked out well for the Spurs. Kidd's decision to stay in New Jersey was a blessing. Tony is a good fit and he's a lot younger. But don't pretend that they are in the same class as players. We're talking about a player who finished second in MVP balloting, led his team to the finals twice as the franchise player, and will be regarded as one of the best ever. Will Tony continue to improve? Certainly. But he'll never be a franchise player and he'll never be able to dominate games with his court vision.
I know it's hard to admit for some around this place, but Manu and Parker aren't the second and third best players in the NBA behind Duncan.
This thread is increadible!!!
Even as a french, I would never pretend that Tony is better than Kidd and would even less say that he was better three years ago.
Just comparing him to Kidd is good enough. Kidd was the best PG since Stockton retired and Payton declined, Tony is a good PG, arguably in the top 5, but he didn't show yet that he could be a franchise player like Kidd is. Kidd has turned a team that almost never play in May into a championship contender, there isn't many players in the league who could do that.
As a Parker fan, I really hope he could become that kind of player because he is still young and PG can improve a lot with time, Kidd and Nash became MVP contender when they already had thirty.
Kidd vs Parker at same age, Parker's 4th ,Kidd's 2nd year in the league (stats adjusted to equal PT)
Pts - 16.6 - 18.4
FG% - .381 - .486
3 FG% - .336 - .278
FT% - .692 - .647
Ast - 9.7 - 6.8
TO - 4.0 - 2.9
R - 6.8 - 4.1
Stl - 2.2 - 1.3
I think the statistical comparison is useful, but it would be more useful to me to see their stats after they played a certain number of seasons. For example, comparing both players in their fifth season in the league. I think it's only fair because nothing else can really subs ute for NBA experience.
In addition, I don't think it's appropriate to adjust their stats for minutes. By doing so, you ignore the fact that the ability to play tons of minutes used to be a real strong point of Kidd's game. Kidd played more minutes in part because he was able to. Parker doesn't have the physical build to play those kinds of minutes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
