Tony Parker, top 3 point guard?

[Lurker]

And without Shaq where has Wade led his team?

Wade made a name for himself before Shaq's arrival.  Shaq got nowhere without Wade TWICE.  Only when Wade was on the team did they win a title, Wade pretty much carried his team to a championship, some would say he carried some refs as well but that's another story.

Sorry DWade played ONE season before Shaq showed up.  He did nothing overly impressive that season.  If the argument that Parker is better because Duncan opens up the lane then the same logic has to apply to Wade.

You could also argue that with a Finals MVP that Parker carried his team to the title.  But then that would be supporting the argument he belongs in the discussion for top PG after Nash & Kidd.

But then Wade is also a SG.  If we were comparing him to Kobe, Vince, Allen, etc then OK.  But Wade is not the Heat's point guard.  So hence shouldn't be in this discussion.

[Lurker]

Maybe if Parker were to lose Duncan, as Nash lost Dirk, his leadership qualities and overall talent would stand by itself and we all can truly see if Tony deserves placement within the ring of three top PG's in the League.

Not too mention losing Amare for an entire year, Nash is pretty amazing and should have won a 3rd strait MVP.

And NOWHERE have I...or anyone else here...tried to claim that Parker is on par with Nash.  Using him as a comparison isn't the right argument.

So maybe the best question is:  AFTER Nash & Kidd what point guard would you choose to run your team next season?  And please note: Iverson & Wade are SG.

[Reality]

And NOWHERE have I...or anyone else here...tried to claim that Parker is on par with Nash.  Using him as a comparison isn't the right argument.

So maybe the best question is:  AFTER Nash & Kidd what point guard would you choose to run your team next season?  And please note: Iverson & Wade are SG.

  Keeping in mind that Nashs coaches have been all O no D Don Nellie and D'Antoni.  So as Lurker reiterates Nash is certainly better and no one has tried to claim otherwise.
However using the theory of "who knows what Parker would do without co Finals MVPs Duncan and GNob along with Spurs team defense?" same could be theorized as to what Parker would do with a wide open Don Nellie offense on say Golden State.  Average 27 ppg and hand out 10 assists?

[Skandery]

The true question here when you're talking about Top anything is to really decide where would you feel comfortable selecting a player to build your team.  Let's say for instance there is a draft where the stipulation on all 30 teams is they must select a PG with their first round pick.  Not a combo-guard, not a point forward, not a shooting guard, a true PG.  In what order does one person really select the Point Guards not being assured of ANYTHING concerning your team makeup.  You're not assured of having a compliment like Shaq, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Amare Stoudemire, Carlos Boozer, etc.  You're not assured of anything.  All you know is everyone in the NBA has been thrown into a free agent pool and you have to make a PG selection with your first pick.  Steve Nash goes first, Jason Kidd goes second, is Tony Parker really the next selection?  Lurker selects Gilbert Arenas and said he would think about Tony Parker at #4.  Is that true Lurker?  You would really pass up Chris Paul's 17 points, 8 assists, 2 steals, and 83% free throw shooting (at the age of 22)?  How about Deron Williams 16 points, 9 assists, and one of the best man defenders at PG in the league (at the age of 23)?  How about Chaucey Billups' 17 points, 7 assists, career 88% from the line, career 38% (at 4.3 attempts/game) from three pointer, and one of the finest all around defenders.  How about Baron Davis 18 points, 8 assists, 2 steals, probably with the type of talent that is still yet to be unleashed due to injuries.  How about Stephon Marbury (and before I get laughed off the board), until 2 years ago, the man was a mortal lock for 20 points and 8 assists and he's only 30.  How about Mike Bibby and his 17 points and 6 assists, and terrific shooting percentages.  

With the exception of Stephon Marbury (because of his attitude), I would take every single person I've just listed before Tony Parker when the metal meets the grindstone and I'm pressed for a selection.  After those 8 point guards begins the real guess work of:  Is Tony Parker for real?  Is Raymond Felton ready to be a PG?  Is Mo Williams really that good or just a one year wonder?  Will Andre Miller regain the form that saw him average 11 assists a game?  Can Leandro Barbosa play point?  Will T.J. Ford, Luke Ridnour, and Jarrett Jack ever truly put it all together.  Now out of those players I would definitely understand making Tony Parker the highest selection, for my money I still would gamble on Andre Miller and might take Raymond Felton and then I would select Tony Parker.  That would make him my 10th overall selection and maaaaybe the 11th.  

And I don't much by into NBA Finals MVPs because quite honestly in 2004, when they handed the award to Chauncey Billups, I thought Tayshaun Prince was more deserving of the award.  I also didn't buy into the fact that Chauncey was a top Point Guard in the league back then, it took him performing the way he has for the last three years AFTER he got the Finals MVP for me to put him up there.  So its great and all that Tony Parker performed well enough in the Finals against a bad team to garner the award but he'll have to show me more to be elevated.  

Even though a players talent and basketball sense is much, MUCH more than mere statistics and I've offered many reasons why I would choose others over Tony Parker; I find it amazing the amount of value that is placed in Tony Parker concerning an endeavor that is nothing but statistics--namely Fantasy Basketball.  No one who plays Fantasy to win cares about names, intangibles, chemistry issues, fiancees, championships, attitudes, or anything except cold, hard statistics, numbers, and projections.  Even on this avenue where ONLY statistics matter, Tony Parker is consistently chosen out of the Top 10 amongst PG only.  Perhaps his performance in the playoffs have changed that, we'll see where he goes in this year's draft--but my feeling says he'll still toil around the 10th, 11th or 12th PG chosen.                          

[JoMal]

My point is that you said you would pick Wade (not a PG as discussed earlier) and Arenas based on their leadership.  My question is what proves to you that they have better leadership skills?  Arenas being the Washington offense (despite two all star forwards? ) doesn't prove leadership.  All it proved was he could get them to the playoffs in a weak East.

In that both have led their teams when few other options availed themselves and did so commendably. As you also stated, all star forwards in the weak East are not exactly stellar commendments of their talent either.

 

Then why downgrade Parker for poor playoffs in his younger years?  Billups "down" year came THIS YEAR when he is being touted as a top PG.  In a CONTRACT year where he proved that maybe the 2004 championship year was his peak?  Whereas Parker possibly..key word - possibly...just proved that he is still getting better?

I never downgraded Parker at all, and never indicated his earlier years in the playoffs were poor. I agree his best years are ahead of him as well. But none of this reflects his leadership abilities, unfortunately. None of your arguements lend themselves to convince me of his leadership abilities.

And until he demonstrates his abilities in the leadership department, he is not getting into the top echelon of point guards. The potential is there, just not the history.

[Lurker]

Steve Nash goes first, Jason Kidd goes second, is Tony Parker really the next selection?  Lurker selects Gilbert Arenas and said he would think about Tony Parker at #4.  Is that true Lurker?                        

No, I said I would include him in the group for the 4th selection.  And I also named all of those others as part of that group...except Marbury and Bibby.  But I did not say that he would be my #4 choice.

Also I noticed Skander that you managed to sidestep the issue again.  Who would you pick at #3?

[westkoast]

And without Shaq where has Wade led his team?

Wade made a name for himself before Shaq's arrival.  Shaq got nowhere without Wade TWICE.  Only when Wade was on the team did they win a title, Wade pretty much carried his team to a championship, some would say he carried some refs as well but that's another story.

Sorry DWade played ONE season before Shaq showed up.  He did nothing overly impressive that season.  If the argument that Parker is better because Duncan opens up the lane then the same logic has to apply to Wade.

You could also argue that with a Finals MVP that Parker carried his team to the title.  But then that would be supporting the argument he belongs in the discussion for top PG after Nash & Kidd.

But then Wade is also a SG.  If we were comparing him to Kobe, Vince, Allen, etc then OK.  But Wade is not the Heat's point guard.  So hence shouldn't be in this discussion.

I disagree 100% with you here Lurker.

That first season before Shaq showed up Dwayne Wade took his team to the second round.  On his back they actually made it a series against a Pacers team that had much more talented then they did at multiple positions.  Parker has never had to put a team on his back for an entire series nor has he really had to do things of that magnitude alone.  While he had an excellent finals series, getting him the MVP, he didn't have to put the team on his back to win like Wade had to do with Dallas the previous year.

[Lurker]

My point is that you said you would pick Wade (not a PG as discussed earlier) and Arenas based on their leadership.  My question is what proves to you that they have better leadership skills?  Arenas being the Washington offense (despite two all star forwards? ) doesn't prove leadership.  All it proved was he could get them to the playoffs in a weak East.

In that both have led their teams when few other options availed themselves and did so commendably. As you also stated, all star forwards in the weak East are not exactly stellar commendments of their talent either.

Funny that Parker's teammates are held against him but Jamison & Butler are downplayed to support Arenas.  If you want to use the weak east argument against the quality of Arenas' support then you have to also use the argument to say that Washington's record under Arenas' leadership is inflated.

So maybe Arenas isn't as good of a leader as you would like to believe.
 

[Lurker]

Sorry DWade played ONE season before Shaq showed up.  He did nothing overly impressive that season.  If the argument that Parker is better because Duncan opens up the lane then the same logic has to apply to Wade.

You could also argue that with a Finals MVP that Parker carried his team to the title.  But then that would be supporting the argument he belongs in the discussion for top PG after Nash & Kidd.

But then Wade is also a SG.  If we were comparing him to Kobe, Vince, Allen, etc then OK.  But Wade is not the Heat's point guard.  So hence shouldn't be in this discussion.

I disagree 100% with you here Lurker.

That first season before Shaq showed up Dwayne Wade took his team to the second round.  On his back they actually made it a series against a Pacers team that had much more talented then they did at multiple positions.  Parker has never had to put a team on his back for an entire series nor has he really had to do things of that magnitude alone.  While he had an excellent finals series, getting him the MVP, he didn't have to put the team on his back to win like Wade had to do with Dallas the previous year.

And I would argue that Eddie Jones and Lamar Odom were the leaders of that team.  Wade, again as a shooting guard was a key player but I'm not sure I would say he led that team.  He was the 3rd leading scorer and tied with RAFER ALSTON for assist leader.  Besides he only played 61 games for them that year as a rookie.  He showed flashes of his abilities but I'm not sure "putting the team on his back" is what he did that rookie season.

[WayOutWest]

Sorry DWade played ONE season before Shaq showed up.  He did nothing overly impressive that season.  If the argument that Parker is better because Duncan opens up the lane then the same logic has to apply to Wade.

I never really paid attention to Wade until the playoffs that year, he had everyone questioning their draft picks after his performances.  If I remember correctly he pretty much carried his team to the 2nd round.

You could also argue that with a Finals MVP that Parker carried his team to the title.  But then that would be supporting the argument he belongs in the discussion for top PG after Nash & Kidd.

No, Parker did not carry his team, but he was the best and most consistent player for the Spurs.  Don't go Reality on me Lurker, please.

But then Wade is also a SG.  If we were comparing him to Kobe, Vince, Allen, etc then OK.  But Wade is not the Heat's point guard.  So hence shouldn't be in this discussion.

IMO, Wade and Iverson don't really belong in this discussion because they can play point but they are more of a shooting guard but they are close to PG's.

[westkoast]

Sorry DWade played ONE season before Shaq showed up.  He did nothing overly impressive that season.  If the argument that Parker is better because Duncan opens up the lane then the same logic has to apply to Wade.

You could also argue that with a Finals MVP that Parker carried his team to the title.  But then that would be supporting the argument he belongs in the discussion for top PG after Nash & Kidd.

But then Wade is also a SG.  If we were comparing him to Kobe, Vince, Allen, etc then OK.  But Wade is not the Heat's point guard.  So hence shouldn't be in this discussion.

I disagree 100% with you here Lurker.

That first season before Shaq showed up Dwayne Wade took his team to the second round.  On his back they actually made it a series against a Pacers team that had much more talented then they did at multiple positions.  Parker has never had to put a team on his back for an entire series nor has he really had to do things of that magnitude alone.  While he had an excellent finals series, getting him the MVP, he didn't have to put the team on his back to win like Wade had to do with Dallas the previous year.

And I would argue that Eddie Jones and Lamar Odom were the leaders of that team.  Wade, again as a shooting guard was a key player but I'm not sure I would say he led that team.  He was the 3rd leading scorer and tied with RAFER ALSTON for assist leader.  Besides he only played 61 games for them that year as a rookie.  He showed flashes of his abilities but I'm not sure "putting the team on his back" is what he did that rookie season.

He did put the team on his back in the first round.  Not in the regular season.    Of everything we are talking about I clearly remember that when the games were close he was the one scoring in the crunch.  I also believe that we had a debate about the draft picks after that.  Two of the top picks that year didn't even make the playoffs while Wade was able to will his team to the second round.  Odom had a break out year and Jones is a leader but when the game was close I clearly remember Wade getting to the rim.  I'll have to look up stats or something to support that as I am going off of just memory here (and we all know mine is shotty lol)

I will say though, after reading some awesome posting from our members around here, that it is  as if Tony's playoff experience doesn't seem to be coming up as much as one would think.   I saw multiple mentions of having no ego and speed but nothing about playoff experience.  Skills fade eventually but as you can see in Robert Horry the experience makes a big difference.

[JoMal]

My point is that you said you would pick Wade (not a PG as discussed earlier) and Arenas based on their leadership.  My question is what proves to you that they have better leadership skills?  Arenas being the Washington offense (despite two all star forwards? ) doesn't prove leadership.  All it proved was he could get them to the playoffs in a weak East.

In that both have led their teams when few other options availed themselves and did so commendably. As you also stated, all star forwards in the weak East are not exactly stellar commendments of their talent either.

Funny that Parker's teammates are held against him but Jamison & Butler are downplayed to support Arenas.  If you want to use the weak east argument against the quality of Arenas' support then you have to also use the argument to say that Washington's record under Arenas' leadership is inflated.

So maybe Arenas isn't as good of a leader as you would like to believe.
 

How does Arenas' "inflated" record NOT indicate he has leadership qualities?

But then, we still have not heard from you how we should be rating the leadership qualities of the one person this thread has focused on - Tony Parker.

At least we can judge and compare the leadership qualities in Arenas, Kidd, Billups, Nash, Bibby (not so good, BTW) and other point guards - even Wades and Iverson, for that matter, though they are combo guards and not true PG's and as such you can compare what they do with Parker, because both have been used as point guards by their teams.

You see, their coaches must think they have this thing called "leadership" quality that transcends just being a shooting guard all the time. They apparently can handle the point as well, and do quite well doing it.

Because they have this thing called a proven "leadership" quality..... 

[rickortreat]

So Iverson isn't a point guard, but a shooting guard that plays the point at times?  Couldn't the same thing be said about Parker?

Is Tony really just a point guard, or is he a two pretending to be a one?

Based on assists and scoring he seems more like a 2 than a 1.  But compared with the other 2's in the NBA, he is clearly outclassed.

Point guards usually don't lead their team in scoring, their job is to distribute the ball. Tony thinks shoot first, pass second.  That makes him more like Iverson than Nash! Arenas is, IMO a 2 as well.

The NBA no longer distinguishes between a 2 and a 1, and seems to regard them as interchangeable. 

But no top of the line point only puts up 5 or 6 assists a game- crap if that's all you want out of the point spot, get rid of the one's and have a backcourt with 2 two's who can both shoot and distribute the ball.

Finley is clearly a 2, that couldn't serve as a 1, so the logic seems to be that makes Parker a 1.  But when I see him play, he is driving the basket trying to score like a 2. 

So before you exclude Kobe and AI and the others from the discussion, prove that Tony is really a 1!  Because the truth is Kobe could do a better job for the Spurs than Tony could ever do- and by that I mean get more assists.

[Lurker]

So Iverson isn't a point guard, but a shooting guard that plays the point at times?  Couldn't the same thing be said about Parker?

Is Tony really just a point guard, or is he a two pretending to be a one?

Based on assists and scoring he seems more like a 2 than a 1.  But compared with the other 2's in the NBA, he is clearly outclassed.

Point guards usually don't lead their team in scoring, their job is to distribute the ball. Tony thinks shoot first, pass second.  That makes him more like Iverson than Nash! Arenas is, IMO a 2 as well.

The NBA no longer distinguishes between a 2 and a 1, and seems to regard them as interchangeable. 

But no top of the line point only puts up 5 or 6 assists a game- crap if that's all you want out of the point spot, get rid of the one's and have a backcourt with 2 two's who can both shoot and distribute the ball.

Finley is clearly a 2, that couldn't serve as a 1, so the logic seems to be that makes Parker a 1.  But when I see him play, he is driving the basket trying to score like a 2. 

So before you exclude Kobe and AI and the others from the discussion, prove that Tony is really a 1!  Because the truth is Kobe could do a better job for the Spurs than Tony could ever do- and by that I mean get more assists.

First Iverson , then Wade, then LeBron, now Kobe.  So Rick you just want to throw the whole position thing.  In that case I choose Duncan.

[Skandery]

I don't know why people keeping arguing Dwayne Wade...people repeat after me:

Dwayne----Wade---- Is---- A---- Shooting----- Guard.  

D Wade, Allen Iverson, Joe Johnson, and any other combo guard have never been part of the discussion as far as I'm concerned.  Rick took off in that direction with this ill-conceived comparison...

Wade is better, Iverson is better, Nash is better, Kidd is better and Billups is better.  That's 5 guards who are clearly superior to Parker.

...and everyone on the board has been running with it, its actually kind of annoying.  

Also I noticed Skander that you managed to sidestep the issue again.  Who would you pick at #3?

All you had to do was ask Lurker.  Here are my Top 10 in order.  

1. Steve Nash
2. Jason Kidd (would be #1 if not for age)
3. Chris Paul
4. Gilbert Arenas (would be #2 if he had ego check and willingness to pass more)
5. Deron Williams
6. Baron Davis (would be #3 if not for injury proneness)
7. Chauncey Billups
8. Mike Bibby
9. Andre Miller
10. Tony Parker (knowing I'll probably regret not taking Raymond Felton)

I hate leaving Raymond Felton, Kirk Hinrich, T.J. Ford, and Mo Williams out of the Top 10, but at this point, they have more to prove to me than those guys on the list.