Re: How is Tony Parker not the best PG in the game?
Paul is better than Parker and it's beyond obvious. 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.
Re: How is Tony Parker not the best PG in the game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
Paul is better than Parker and it's beyond obvious. 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.
Re: How is Tony Parker not the best PG in the game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
Paul is better than Parker and it's beyond obvious. 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.
Re: How is Tony Parker not the best PG in the game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
Paul is better than Parker and it's beyond obvious. 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.
I like the reasoning here. Very in depth analysis.
Re: How is Tony Parker not the best PG in the game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuffaloBill
Lol Westbrook is the only player who can be a 42% FG shooter and still be the best PG. Any other player would get ripped apart by ISH with that kind of number.
in your original post, you already said westbrook may be the only one who has a case over him
Re: How is Tony Parker not the best PG in the game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FKAri
fail. And lol @ Nash being top 3 this year.
Umm, did I say that or do you just read what you wanna read? There are a few posts here where I say very clearly that Parker has been the 2nd best PG in the league this year and has been better than Paul. That doesn't make him a better player. So when I say top 3, I don't mean this year. I'm aware that Nash got hurt in the second game man. Seriously.
And someone whining to me about no in-depth analysis...like the guy I was responding to really got into it.
Last edited by Whoah10115 : 12-12-2012 at 01:42 PM.
Re: How is Tony Parker not the best PG in the game?
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.
Re: How is Tony Parker not the best PG in the game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuffaloBill
Lol Westbrook is the only player who can be a 42% FG shooter and still be the best PG. Any other player would get ripped apart by ISH with that kind of number.
westbrook is struggling with his shot a bit but his defense and wbilty to get to the line compensates for that
Re: How is Tony Parker not the best PG in the game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by I.R.Beast
westbrook is struggling with his shot a bit but his defense and wbilty to get to the line compensates for that
I wouldn't say he's struggling. He's shooting around his career average 43%. This is typical Westbrook. This is why we love him, his athleticism is what sets him apart from the rest. We at ISH worship athleticism.
Re: How is Tony Parker not the best PG in the game?
If I was building a team with current NBA players, I wouldn't touch Westbrook. I would probably go Paul or Parker and Rondo on my bench. The PGs job is to get the team the best shot every time. God I miss Stockton.