Originally Posted by ninephive
Anything with substance besides just "he looks to be better." I think that mentaility is the same mentality responsible for All-Star voting. I'm arguing that I think this is why he's regarded by most as the best point guard in the league...because his demeanor seems to exude "winner" without actually having to win.
I am on the other side of this argument being a Cowboys fan. Most "fans" want Romo traded, yet I argue he is a very good quarterback. I can use the fact that coming into this season he had the 2nd highest QBR of all-time. But he hasn't been able to lead his team deep into the playoffs, which means I would NEVER argue he is the best in the league if he can't. I think some of his potential is held back by the fact that 1 out of every 10 shotgun snaps goes over his head or hits the ground before it gets to him. I could argue that his O-Line is terrible, he's never had a quality RB who could stay healthy and so he has to pass 62 times a game, and that his "best" receivers often lead the league in dropped passes. All of that sucks and could be reasons why Romo could have the most potential of any QB in the league and never be the "best." But I won't argue he is unless it comes together for him.
But for some reason in basketball, where individuals are even MORE important to team succes, a guy could be in the league for this long and never make a deep playoff run, yet still be considered the best year after year after year? (I know you're not arguing he's the best PG every year, but most do).
Wow, you're really twisting words. I've already said Parker has been clearly better this year and that I even think he was better last year. If you think him being the PG on a winning team makes him the best then like what you like and accuse me of whatever mentality you want. You want substance? You're not giving any. Chris Paul does more to help his team win. Not more things, more in actual impact. Tony Parker isn't in the same stratosphere as far as passing. Both do a great job of controlling the game but I take Paul there. He's the better defender. He makes more plays. I've said all this. And you're telling me about substance. All you're saying is that Tony Parker is a great player on a great team that has had more playoff success than Paul's teams.
If you think Parker is better, that's fine.