?????Never said that, I used George Hill as an example because we can see the difference of what happens when you take a promising young PG away from the Spurs system. We'll never know how worse off Parker would have been on another team but he wouldn't have been a multiple all-star or ever been in the running for MVP
If you're a star player, the team system is pretty much built to maximize your talents... I don't know why this only applies to the Spurs... Pop and the Spurs get props because they transitioned from a system revolving around Tim Duncan to one around guard play and 3 point shooting triggered by TP when he was in his prime.
Sure you can say that for role players which Tony Parker would be on any other team. There's a ton of all-star we've seen under various systems so saying only 3 is just wrong and you know it.My point is you can say that about virtually any player lol. Why you only trying to knock Parker over it?
I mean, you maybe have 1, possibly 3 star players in the league right now that can work under any system (and even those players have ideal situations to maximize their skills), but the lazy ass "it's the system" critique is only ever used on star Spurs players.
Nah not saying that either, in his limited time people extrapolated his numbers if he would be a starter. He got a ton of praise for being another diamond in the rough find but he plateaued in development once he left the Spurs.?????
you're saying this like george hill fell off once he left the spurs
Sure you can say that for role players which Tony Parker would be on any other team. There's a ton of all-star we've seen under various systems so saying only 3 is just wrong and you know it.
I'm not wrong. So let me ask you. What specifically is the Spurs system and how specifically is it the only reason "role player" Parker was an All Star in his prime? I want to read your breakdown.
Can you even define the Spurs system from 2000 to now?
It's odd to see people discount Parker's talent. He was playing pro ball already at the age of 16 and came into the league at 17. World class speed and agility at the PG position.
That's exactly what I'm saying but you're somehow disagreeing with it. You take Parker off a team that optimizes his specific talents he's not the same player.
That's exactly what I'm saying but you're somehow disagreeing with it. You take Parker off a team that optimizes his specific talents he's not the same player.
But why would you not want to optimize his talents? That makes no sense.
I'm not wrong. So let me ask you. What specifically is the Spurs system and how specifically is it the only reason "role player" Parker was an All Star in his prime? I want to read your breakdown.
Now I'm curious...I'm trying to think of a player that has reached superstar status in spite of the team not trying to optimize their talents.
?????
you're saying this like george hill fell off once he left the spurs
But people who actually watch basketball know how good he is, how good he was in Indy and how baller he's been in UtahHe kind of did, at least from the public eye.
But why would you not want to optimize his talents? What coach would do that? That makes no sense.
You take any star player and put them in a sytem that doesn't optimize their specific talents and they're not the same player. I don't know what point you're trying to prove here. Every team has a system in place to optimize their best players' talents. That's basic basketball coaching.
But people who actually watch basketball know how good he is, how good he was in Indy and how baller he's been in Utah
Who cares about the public eyeHe kind of did, at least from the public eye.
stop posting trash dude, this is dumb.You think Kawhi is top 4 though...
No George Hill is way better than Tony Parker.This george hill being in the same breath as prime TP needs to stop ASAP. This is insane. It's almost as bad as kawhi not that good.
Most people doYou think Kawhi is top 4 though...
Now I'm curious...I'm trying to think of a player that has reached superstar status in spite of the team not trying to optimize their talents.
Now I'm curious...I'm trying to think of a player that has reached superstar status in spite of the team not trying to optimize their talents.
Umm the public eye is the only reason Kawhi is considered the 2nd best NBA player.Who cares about the public eye
stop posting trash dude, this is dumb.
Thinking for yourself is cool.Most people do
You think Kawhi is top 4 though...
Thinking for yourself is cool.
Good god stop feeding the trolls. TP is one of the smoothest players I've ever seen. To see this guy in real life is really something. Its like he just glides down the court.
Parker barreled to the basket and perfected those tear drop floaters. That's why he nearly shot 50% throughout his career because he got lay ups. He did this at top speed and could get away with it because he was fast enough and had the most versatile PF in the history of the game and a variety of shooters around him to back him up if he didn't get fouled.
Like a said earlier he would be similar to Kemba Walker. He'd be forced to take more jumpers and expected to create more offense on another team. But he's not your prototypical PG nor is he a SG that could carry a team in scoring. He lacked a 3pt shot most of his career maybe he develops differently under a another team. Could you build a team around that play style somewhere else and have the equivalent success without being a champion? Maybe, I don't know.
If Kemba Walker was hitting clutch shots in the finals for a decade on a championship level team don't you think his career would be vastly different? So why is it unreasonable to expect TP be a different player if you took that away? How would you built a team around TP 's talent, what would it look like that results in the same all-star praise?
SAC did it's best to ruin Cousins, if you want the most recent example.
Just because everyone says something doesn't make it true either. I personally think Xbox One is better than PS4, but I'm not going to stop those who believe Sony has the better console. I challenge everything for the most part, I don't want to be spoon fed info and take it at face value.Being contrarian is not equivalent to being smart. In fact it's usually really stupid.
But we see this all the time in the NBA. Look at how poorly constructed OKC is around Westbrook or how INDY just threw talent together in Teague, Young and Ellis and hope it would work out for George.
You can't just snap your fingers and have a team specifically designed around one players talents.
Those guys rise above poorly constructed rosters and shine. I personally don't think Parker would. He'd be a perpetual allstar snub that would only be mentioned when he hit clutch shots.
Tell me more about the flat earth.Just because everyone says something doesn't make it true either. I personally think Xbox One is better than PS4, but I'm not going to stop those who believe Sony has the better console. I challenge everything for the most part, I don't want to be spoon fed info and take it at face value.
What the hell are you even talking about lmaoUmm the public eye is the only reason Kawhi is considered the 2nd best NBA playerl.
The teams you just mentioned are designed around their best players' talents... I dunno a single team where this isn't the case. Other than Sac...
His own poll he created to back his bullshit upWhat the hell are you even talking about lmao
Show me one poll that backs this up
What the hell are you even talking about lmao
Show me one poll that backs this up
I challenge everything for the most part, I don't want to be spoon fed info and take it at face value.
Marc Stein was let go by ESPN.
I'm sorry whatThere is no poll, which is again going with public opinion.
It's basically what people who think the earth is flat say.This is such an idiotic world view, to keep it completely real.
Marc Stein was let go by ESPN.
Marc Stein was let go by ESPN.
I'm sorry what