Why does one have to win a ring to solidify his position as being the best??? Did you see CP3 in the Olympics??? That doesn't mean anything?? Come on man!
Cp3 hands down is best pg. Rose can't compare our bring as much to the table. Playing the ol he didn't win in the playoffs card op? Don't make me tortch yah
Just stating this again. OP trolling. He thinks Rose's FG% against the Heat was 45% on: Game 1: 10/22 (45.5%) Game 2: 7/23 (30.4%) Game 3: 8/19 (42.1%) Game 4: 8/27 (29.6%) Game 5: 9/29 (31%) No coherent argument. Just trolling. Guy is as dumb as what.
You might want to look up the word facts. It doesn't mean wild, borderline r****ded speculation. So you're saying when all is said and done, a guy that has never made so much as an All Star team, or a playoff appearance is going to be in the pantheon of top centers in history? While the guy that has made a finals appearance, multiple DPOY, NBA first team, multiple all star teams will be the footnote in history.
My stat was actually his whole playoffs that year. My mistake. Still, your argument pertains to a mistake I made. Please direct it towards why a team with a ball dominant pg who plays too passive isn't going to win a championship. If he plays like last night every night, the Clippers are a championship team, but averages suggest he is much more of a 18 and 9 guy.
CP3 has had all of his teams built around him. I am saying you can't have a team built around a guy who is an 18 point 9 assist guy. Derrick Rose who is more aggressive and being the ball dominant player, is built for better playoff success because of his aggressive demeanor. Chris needs to change the way he plays, or he will never get past the second round.
TP is pretty ball dominant.... Ball dominant and not the best player on his team is two-fold breaking ur questions.
Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true. It's another one of your many opinions unsupported by facts. Like I've said many times before, Chris Paul is a complete pg with no weaknesses. And because he's so versatile, he's able to compensate for his teammates deficiencies. When they're shooting well, he focuses on facilitating. When they're shooting poorly, he becomes more aggressive offensively. However, he's not good enough to compensate when the majority of his team plays poorly. Look at his playoff numbers last year. His usage, percentages, and overall efficiency all increase while his teammates numbers decreased. He ended up with a PER of 29.2. And in case you forgot, you've repeatedly called this performance "underperforming." 29.2 PER. Underperforming.
Its amazing how just about everything you say is factually incorrect. You must be trolling. The only way that someone could be so wrong so often is if he's doing it intentionally. You've trolled us all, right? How are the Clippers built around Paul when both Blake Griffin and Deandre Jordan were Clippers before Paul was?
They have virtually the same numbrs and Thomas did most of his scoring in an era with a much higher pace. But keep saying it and it might come true.
Are you trolling? How were the Clippers built around him when he was one of the final pieces to come after all of the draft picks? Please (this goes for other posters as well) stop basing players are better because they went further in the playoffs. 1. Its about match ups 2. Its a team sport 3. Most importantly if you want to add a loss/win as another point to win your argument....make sure you go out of the rock you were living in and realize which CONFERENCE that player played in. It makes a ton of difference. I have mentioned this countless times in other threads, the East is or was far weaker then the West for the longest time. The crappy Cavs made it to the Finals one year and in the last 5 years the bulls and Heat just walked right through. 6 games below .500 team (bucks) made the playoffs last year. Enough with Rose is better because he got to the ECF. His MVP is a second thought because his team made it to the semis without him.
the premise of this thread is just flat out wrong. The reason Paul needs the ball in his hands so much is because there isn't another starter on that team who can create their own shot. CP3, is clearly the best pure point guard in the game. He is not an impediment to his team's success.
Clippers big problem is defense CP3's usage rate is fine. Lakers second unit attacking DeAndre Jordan over and over in the paint isn't
All that lobbing is great in the regular season all that lobbing is fine. In the the playoffs when the game slows down Griffin and Jordan are are not as effective
Ive said many times that ball dominant PGs do NOT win championships. The formula, generally, is star wing + star big However the OP's positions are flawed You most certainly can win with an 18-9 PG. And Chris Paul is not THAT "flashy" a pg. He is not Kyrie Irving, Rajon Rondo, Derrick Rose. His skills aře just THAT good where he makes plays look flashy. I wouldnt associate the term "passive" with Paul. Derrick Rose and Jeremy Lin are more more passive than Paul though they are scoring pgs. Paul is one of the clutchest competive 4th quarter players in the league maybe ever. By my measure, Chris Paul is top 5 player. But about top 15 who id want to build a title team around, because even with the PG explosion im just not sold that ball dominant PGS are title recipe. (I thought Rockets approach of Tmac+Yao was right approach but wrong health)
I probably should have noted that I thought he can't win a championship being 1a. He needs to be the second best player on the team.
CP3 may or may not be good enough to win a championship based on your criteria, but I would say put Kobe on any of CP3's teams, and he would have zero rings at this point. Blake Griffin and David West are a bit step down from having Gasol/Bynum or Wade/Bosh on your team. On the flip side, if CP3 joined the Rockets this offseason and we go into the season with Howard//Parsons/Harden/CP3/Beverley, we'd be favorites to win a championship and technically(according to all national media rankings) CP3 would be the best player on that team.
