He had a true PG, not a shooting PG. I'm talking about a Ridnour, Kidd, Nash, Stockton, even Brevin Knight. Despite the fact that I like Parker better than any of these players, Duncan might be better off.
In no way do I want a trade or any like that--- this is more of just a "what if" thing.
Thoughts?
Kidd, Nash and Stockton... maybe.......
But Ridnour and Brevin Knight? No frickin way.
Tony Parker is a point guard and one of the best in the league. By the end of this year or next year, he will be the best. No doubts about it.
Tony Parker may become so big, little SA might not be able to keep him.
How so?
tony parker is a good player but until he can find a way to make himself somewhat useful when teams pack the lanes against him he's never gonna be the best pg in the league. i like the guy a lot and he's shown tremendous improvement but when the lakers beat us 4 straights game during the .4 series and this last game against chicago..you pack the lanes against TP and you stop TP. he isnt much of a playmaker as people think. he's great at penetrating but a lot of times he over penetrates
^^^ you're right about stopping Parker if you pack the lanes. That's why TP needs to really develop that outside shot. He needs to get it down almost deadly. I know he will do it. When he does, he will then be unstoppable.
This is what i said in other forums and also agree upon on, this guy is n when other teams clog up the lane. His got no other game to his repitoure, also if brent barry can penetrate the lane like kidd/nash then in my mind he be very good as a pure pg, too bad he doesnt do any of that, but still pretty good.
Ive seen sum dvd games when brent runs the offense the team plays more smoother and setting up their game plans n , unlike parker who likes to play 1 on 5 fastest down the court gets a free layup and misses flop and complain, or when he fails to outbound when stuck in traffic looks at the other player as if its there fault for not catchin the ball.
trade parker to NO for chris paulor to the wolves in a package for KG.
Sad but accurate both posts, Parker has great speed and dribbling, but due to his very limited resources and limited basketball IQ, he becomes too predictable...his lack of court vision and tempo handling are too awful for any PG, and it's worse the case when he's the starting PG of the NBA champion, don't you think?.This is what i said in other forums and also agree upon on, this guy is n when other teams clog up the lane. His got no other game to his repitoure, also if brent barry can penetrate the lane like kidd/nash then in my mind he be very good as a pure pg, too bad he doesnt do any of that, but still pretty good.tony parker is a good player but until he can find a way to make himself somewhat useful when teams pack the lanes against him he's never gonna be the best pg in the league. i like the guy a lot and he's shown tremendous improvement but when the lakers beat us 4 straights game during the .4 series and this last game against chicago..you pack the lanes against TP and you stop TP. he isnt much of a playmaker as people think. he's great at penetrating but a lot of times he over penetrates
Ive seen sum dvd games when brent runs the offense the team plays more smoother and setting up their game plans n , unlike parker who likes to play 1 on 5 fastest down the court gets a free layup and misses flop and complain, or when he fails to outbound when stuck in traffic looks at the other player as if its there fault for not catchin the ball.
trade parker to NO for chris paul
you guys are idiots
If you're against the opinions, why don't you debunk them with rational arguments and explanations based basketball knowledge, instead of just posting insults?
His contract will expire when he's 28. Holt balked at paying him $66M for 6 years. He'll be worth more than that next time.
Last edited by exstatic; 11-28-2005 at 08:23 AM.
Well, he would if there were any "rational arguments and explanations based basketball knowledge" (whatever the that is...your grammar needs work) to debunk.
Instead you (and the others he's referring to) just seem to make things up as you go along.
"Limited resources"? "Limited basketball IQ"? "Lack of court vision and tempo handling"? Where the does that come from? Or is it true just because you say so?
I always laugh when someone posts an unsupported argument and then demands someone try to prove him wrong...when he hasn't given any evidence that he's right to begin with. Sorry...that's not how "rational arguments" are conducted.
nice!! ownage!!
It should be "based on basketball knowledge"...however...We are here to discuss about BASKETBALL, NOT GRAMMAR.
If you lack BASIC basketball knowlegde to understand such concepts, how come you want to enter into these kind of discussions?"Limited resources"? "Limited basketball IQ"? "Lack of court vision and tempo handling"? Where the does that come from? Or is it true just because you say so?
Why don't you learn some basic fundamentals of strategy/tactics of basketball? this way, perhaps in the future, you'll understand that basketball is a little more than just evaluating players by their pure scoring?
O.K.
I will try to debunk your case with your level of ac en...
Here goes:
Tony Parker HAS good court vision and DOES NOT have low basketball IQ.
That was tough.
perhaps he has decent court vision and basketball IQ (good would be an exageration) if you compare him with all nba players of different positions, however talking about POINT_GUARDS, I seriously doubt that his court vision, basketball IQ and tempo management can be considered 'good'.
Anyway, in case you doubt of my opinion (something reasonable, cause you don't know me), ask any experienced basketball coach you know, ask him about this issue, and tell us the output analysis you get this way...
First of all...if you are incapable of the attention to detail necessary to correctly construct a sentence (which really isn't that hard), why should I take your "knowledge" seriously?
Secondly...once again, you make unsupported assertions and expect others to debunk them for you. To wit...you assume I am merely evaluating Parker by his scoring line. Also, and even more important, you implicitly claim knowledge of "basic fundamentals of strategy/tactics of basketball" while also denying that I possess any such knowledge. You haven't proven that either.
I do like 101A's response. It contains all the knowledge and support your original post did. Rational, succinct, and equally logical.
Dartherus is funny....
D.Us: Tony Parker has no Court Vision.
Me: Tony Parker has Court Vision.
D. Us: O.K. Tony Parker has decent court vision.
It's Lincoln-Douglas all over again!
First, when you write at chat speed, you can't ask to have perfect grammar (not everybody has as their main activity during the day to post correct grammar in spurts Forum, some people has extra-spurs activities)
First of all...if you are incapable of the attention to detail necessary to correctly construct a sentence (which really isn't that hard), why should I take your "knowledge" seriously?
What 'support' do you need? tons of lines would be useless if Parker ON COURT showed the opposite....you can see him uncapable of managing static attack, to control the tempo, he's a great road runner and finisher, but handling the tempo? when was the last time you saw parker doing that? in the latest playoffs, against the bulls? care to explain me?Secondly...once again, you make unsupported assertions and expect others to debunk them for you. To wit...you assume I am merely evaluating Parker by his scoring line. Also, and even more important, you implicitly claim knowledge of "basic fundamentals of strategy/tactics of basketball" while also denying that I possess any such knowledge. You haven't proven that either.
I do like 101A's response. It contains all the knowledge and support your original post did. Rational, succinct, and equally logical.
Same with his court vision, how many times a game you see him making great assists involving extremedly high Basketball IQ...
the absense of such plays is notorious...
it's like when people say god, fairies or werewolves exists (in this case you're saying Great Courtvision and tempo handling on TP exists)...you can't prove a negative, the only thing you can do is showing the lack of evidences of the existance....
In this case, I see lack of games were TP shows great courtvision, lack of games were TP made a great handling of the tempo....and of course you can prove me wrong if you show me games were TP did a great job with the tempo handling and the courtivision, I'd be pleased to be presented such evidences...will you do it?
Perhaps if you'd learned to read&comprehend when you were a kid, you'd noticed the "for any point guard" part of my first post.... ;-)
mega ownage
________
Live Sex Webshows
Last edited by san antonio spurs; 09-17-2011 at 10:32 AM.
Well, I've seen games in which Tony Parker descended from the heavens into the stadium, proving himself to be a god. Also games where Pop was busy on the sidelines signing pacts in blood with Satan himself. Also, the refs were pretty fairies dancing in tutus.
If you haven't seen that, prove me wrong by describing the games you've seen that aren't like that.
Stunning argument, my limited basketball fundamentals are reeling. Also, plenty of people take the time to edit their posts. It makes you look more intelligent.
About the only flaw in Tony's game is his shooting. If he was a better shooter, that might open up the paint for Duncan a little more. But that has nothing to do with being a "true" point guard...
Tony is a exelent players but , Gino and Timmy are the leaders of this team.
to remember in the final Billups I triumph with parker
LOGIC 101 (it seems that you must leanr not only basketball): The burden of the proof is on the side claiming the existance of something, not on the side showing the lack of evidences of existance...if you make such statements ("Pop was busy on the sidelines signing pacts in blood with Satan himself", the existence of TP courtivision and habilities to handle the tempo ;-) , it's you the one who sould prove them....not the one noticing the lack of existance of plays were TP shows great court vision ro tempo handling...that'w what you fail to get...
you can observe ABSENSE of plays, then the rebuttal would be easy, you could show me games of Tony handling the tempo quite well, or having shows of great court vision, but the one claiming absense of such skills, can only show that ABSENSE, because it's absense of such skills what I'm talking about, how could absense be 'showed', care to explain us?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
