Because Rondo is.
Printable View
Because Rondo is.
[QUOTE=DuMa]its a PG superstar league now. the only safe thing you can say is that no one is the best. theres always someone you can argue that is playing better at the moment.[/QUOTE]
yep. It really depends on what you value in a PG.
I usually like the PG's like Paul and D Will the most. Because they are great floor general-dime droppers first BUT can will a team to victory and become alpha dogs. I put Parker more in the group with Rose and Westbrook. And that is pure alpha dog type scorers who happen to play PG. In other words Tony is more of a scoring PG or some would go so far to say a combo guard. Though I prefer to say lead guard who can really ring up the points and is a very good passer. But Tony, Rose, or Westbrook aren't that TOTAL PACKAGE PG in terms of balancing great scoring and great floor generalship-passing.
Rondo is more of the Stockton, Kidd, Mo Cheeks, Mark Jackson style of PG. But Rondo is doing the J Kidd triple double act at 6'1, which is unheard of. But in any event u have three style of PG's who can all be great players. U have the Paul-DWill model, the Rose-Parker-Westbrook model, and the Rondo model. In all three groups, u have guys who project to HOF status. On certain teams either on the three kinds of PG's can be a better fit for that particular team. Even though I think Paul and D Will (like Magic, Big O, Isiah, Payton, peak Nash, Frazier, Tiny) can adapt to any situation.
I'm completely sure Rondo is playing like the best PG so far.
51% FG for a guy that can't shoot. #1 :lol
13 APG with an old starting lineup and some decent bench players. #1 :roll:
#3 in rebounds in guards at only 6' 1''. :bowdown:
Walking triple double. :bowdown: :bowdown:
He has 1 3PLDL and flirted with triple doubles numerous times already. He was 1 rebound away from a 15 assist triple double tonight. :applause:
Top 5 PG are all very good and interchangable depend on team needs, fitting.
In no particular order:
CP3
Rondo
Rose
Westbrook
Parker
Tony Parker is not shabby but don't sleep on Steph Curry either. Why do I say that? Number wise he's getting about as many assists and is rebounding as well. Scoring as many points, and when it comes to field goal percentage, you gotta remember that Steph takes and makes a lot of 3 pointers and that has a higher expected value than someone who just makes field goals. Spurs are good, but were also 15 and 7, not too shabby either.
[QUOTE=Bigsmoke][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Popm1PvCTX4[/url][/QUOTE]
:oldlol: Nice push off and charge.
Check this one out:
[url]http://youtu.be/OZDOJhdfrKI?t=1m12s[/url]
[QUOTE=Whoah10115]Paul is better than Parker and it's [B]beyond obvious[/B]. There's no question. There's really no argument for Parker being better than Rondo either. The only argument against Nash is that he's a 39year old who hasn't made the playoffs the last two years...and he's not playing now. But those three should be considered the top 3. They are the three best PG's in the league.[/QUOTE]
Yep, it's [B]beyond obvious [/B]that a player who's never been past the second round of the playoffs and has missed the playoffs several times in his short career is way better then a Finals-MVP, 3 time-champion, who has beat Chris Paul's team both times they've met in the playoffs, this past year in an EMBARRASSING sweep.
Like I always say, when Chris Paul or Steve Nash are coming to town (especially for the playoffs), it's a good thing in San Antonio, trust me.
Even the NBA doesn't recognize his floater shot.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqdOPAlI4iM[/url]
Tony Parker's one of my favorite players but I have to admit playing with the Spurs with already established stars like Duncan made his transition to the NBA different from CP3.
CP3 was a lottery pick and already had higher expectations placed on him as a rookie.
Tony Parker did great his rookie year but any mistakes he does Duncan and other veterans pick up the slack.
Tony Parker and Rondo both were lucky to have been with great players their first 2 years in the league.
[QUOTE=9512]Tony Parker's one of my favorite players but I have to admit playing with the Spurs with already established stars like Duncan made his transition to the NBA different from CP3.
CP3 was a lottery pick and already had higher expectations placed on him as a rookie.
Tony Parker did great his rookie year but any mistakes he does Duncan and other veterans pick up the slack.
Tony Parker and Rondo both were lucky to have been with great players their first 2 years in the league.[/QUOTE]
I've always said Tony Parker will never get more respect unless he went to a bottom feeder and stat-padded.
The guy has has as complete a game as any PG in the league (scoring, passing, can take over games, has a shot that is nearly unguardable in the floater, can finish at the rim as well as anyone, can hit game winners, is a good [yet underrated] defender, and now later in his career has improved his range significantly...add to that his resume of never missing the playoffs, 3 championships, being in the MVP discussion, continuing to lead his team to the best record in the league year after year, and even winning a Finals MVP in a sweep)...but like I said, it's always "diluted" because he has a great supporting cast & coach. This is why no matter how much team success he has (or even individual success for that matter), it will always be credited to his support (as some of it rightly should be).
His only chance of being regarded as the best is if he goes to a first-round exit team (or one that doesn't even make the playoffs) like Chris Paul and runs up stats at the expense of team success. I'm not saying Chris Paul should do anything different...I just don't think he's doing anything Parker couldn't do in his situation.
Tony Parker always had good stats, maybe even better than now. Just a couple years ago, people were saying he's too old. Now because the Spurs are winning even more, all of a sudden he's the best point guard? I'm not saying he's not, Im saying how good his team is dictates people's perception
[QUOTE=ninephive]
Like I always say, when Chris Paul or Steve Nash are coming to town (especially for the playoffs), it's a good thing in San Antonio, trust me.[/QUOTE]
I like Parker and always have. It's not about stats, but Paul is a better player. Parker has become an elite one tho. Like better than Billups when Billups was at his best. But Paul is a guy who could be the best player in the conference when he plays up to his own standards. It's not about stat-padding. His decision-making and control are the reasons.
[QUOTE=SacJB Shady]Tony Parker always had good stats, maybe even better than now. Just a couple years ago, people were saying he's too old. Now because the Spurs are winning even more, all of a sudden he's the best point guard? I'm not saying he's not, Im saying how good his team is dictates people's perception[/QUOTE]
If anything his time in the league and the Spurs culture dictates perception and the perception is often that he's a player in the system. I think he was the best guard in the league last year and the 3rd best player overall. I think he's playing even better this year, tho he's not the 3rd best player so far. Curry has been all-star caliber but Parker has been MVP-caliber.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115]I like Parker and always have. It's not about stats, but Paul is a better player. Parker has become an elite one tho. Like better than Billups when Billups was at his best. But Paul is a guy who could be the best player in the conference when he plays up to his own standards. It's not about stat-padding. His decision-making and control are the reasons.[/QUOTE]
In your mind, what could Parker do (as a Spur) to prove he is as good as / better than Paul?