Spurs running a clinic on winning without superstars....Rockets need to take a lesson

exactly, I would rearrange the order but thats correct

 

Would the spurs be as good without TD? He was the no1 pick.

The homerism on this board is getting absurd.

 

I would take a team of old seasoned, crafty, sly, cunning, veterans over a team of youth & exuberance almost every time.

 

Tony Parker is still considered an elite point guard. So that's crazy talk.

You are also failing to consider that they have played together for a decade and all were considered stars. And all three are still stars in my book.

Finally the spurs haven't dominated the thunder. They won their own games

The thunder will win game three. I think they figured out how to slow paper down a bit and had to work out their lineup. They cut a 22 point lead down to 6. That's impressive.

But to say we can take a lesson....dude, they have three HOF's on their team. We have Zero!

How can you compared? What these guys have put up in age, they are so smart and skilled, so versatile, and still hungry. There isn't a guy on our team that can break down a defense, pass, and score like Parker.

 

He's definitely still a top five big man.

Id would take Duncan over Gasol, Bynum, bosh, kg, amare. Duncan still blocks, plays great d, rebounds hard, and is a threat to score. He brings so much to the table that doesn't get measure in basic stats too.

Only Howard, love, and BG are clealy Above him...but even still he plays so much savvier.

 

Their players play like superstars. Are you saying Parker and Ginobili are superstars? TD is the only superstar they have, and he's old. The Spurs just did a great job of surrounding him wth you guys, for example Kawhi got 18 and 10 this game. We don goofed on that pick, although I'm pretty sure Pops and his crew have a lot to do with his development.

 

Future HOF does not equal current superstar. If you're a superstar you have to be one of the top players at your position. Parker is way behind CP3, Deron and Rose. I would argue he's around Nash/WestBrook level, elite but not superstar status.

 

This is just stupid. It's beyond stupid. Tony Parker was an MVP candidate and was arguably the best point guard in the NBA this year. Manu Ginobili is the 3rd best shooting guard in the league (you could argue him and Wade are 2a and 2b), and the ultimate 6th man. Oh yeah, there's a guy named Timmy who is the best power forward of all time, and is arguably still the best power forward today. He is an elite 2 way player that has genius level basketball IQ. He is their defensive anchor, he is the pick that allows Parker and Ginobili to roll, and he is the coach on the floor keeping everyone on the same page. Just because he doesn't have highlight reel dunks (had 1 tonight) and let his emotions pour out like other players doesn't mean he isn't an absolute star.

There's also some old white dude that yells at them a lot when they're not doing well. He's a superstar, too.

 

I dont know what you're smoking. Tony Parker was hands down the best PG in the NBA this year, look at the record he led his team to with reduced minutes from Duncan and plenty of missed games from Ginobili. Moreover, Tim Duncan had an off year stats-wise to most, but if you look at his per 36 AVG was pretty much identical to what its been EVERY YEAR of his career including every title year when he was a top 5 player, dont believe me?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html

Anyways Timmy D is playing at Top 5 level albeit for less minutes, and Tony Parker should have been MVP, and Manu is running circles around OKc bench, he seems to literally score or assist on every possession he touches. I would take Duncan and Parker as superstars, don't believe the hype the media projects because you're seeing first hand that although Russell Westbrook can dunk like crazy, and sell lots of jerseys, Tony Parker mister slow and steady mid range game is a clearly superior baller and on par with any top flight PG.

 

BG as Griffin? Kidding me. The Fundamental schooled this kid.

 

What? Parker's team has won 20 friggin games in a row, and he's a MAJOR reason why. He could drop 30 in ANY of the guys you named. There's not a PG in the NBA that can defend the guy. CP3, Deron, and Rose would win a popularity contest but Parker has more rings than all three combined.

What's the criteria for a "superstar"?

 

They are just about names. Tony Parker is not a French name, but he is a French superstar. They are still denying it.

 

For those who dont want to click the link her are Tim D per 36 numbers

Tim Duncan 2001-2002 season 1st MVP Season

22.6/11/2 blks on 51% shooting

Tim Duncan 2002-2003 season 2nd MVP season

21.3/12/2.7 blks on 51% shooting

Tim Duncan 2011-2012 season....when he's supposedly not a top 5 player

19.7/11.5/2 blks on 50% shooting

you're right the spurs have no top 5 talent except a guy performing at literally the same level as his MVP season on a per minute basis a decade later

 

The article is..."r****ded", but the thread is completely valid so that everyone can take notice of an idiotic mistake

 

The OP I assume thinks the Celtics have no superstars too.

 

You can at least argue about that. The Pistons approach.

3 aging stars and 1 young star.... You can argue if one or two are superstars

 

Spurs have been the team all season with tony parker leading the charge yet he's not a superstar?

 

The guy has been dismantling the opposition all year long, to be able to consistently break down defenses, that's greatness. Tony Parker is a great player, regardless of being labeled a superstar or not.

 

You guys keep proving you are the dumbest forum on Earth. No Superstars???

Tony Parker
Tim Duncan MVP candidates yearly?