<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/w0k2RhGPZhY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Parsons game is a lot smoother but I think dekker will be a much better defensive player than him. Parsons has turned into a really good offensive player from a scoring standpoint. He's getting 20 ppg on the regular with high effecincy. He's just not a good defender at all anymore. It's strange because he was so good his rookie year.
Parsons was very good defensively his rookie year; it's why he got PT. It just fell off after that(thinking a Harden influence here).
this guy isn't the next parsons. parsons earned minutes as a rookie drafted in the second round and replaced battier as the starter in his second year. dekker was drafted mid first round and is unlikely to make the rotation next year, let alone replace ariza as the starter.
Firstly Parsons replaced Budinger, Parsons and Battier never played on the same team. Secondly we don't know if Dekker could have beaten out a player of Budingers caliber if healthy because he had surgery. Ariza is better then Budinger was as well, Parsons probably wouldn't have started over Ariza his rookie season. Thirdly Dekker will be a rookie basically next season, a rookie coming off of back surgery, he shouldn't be judged until his 3rd year, if Parsons was coming off of back surgery his rookie year he probably wouldn't have had anywhere near the year he had. Dekker and Parsons have a very similar game, body build, and athleticism. Look at their college numbers, look at their pre draft measurements. Look at videos of them playing in college. Again I'm not comparing Dekker and Parsons because they're 6'9 white guys. They actually have a similar games. Parsons of course has far developed his a lot since being drafted, but rookie/college Parsons is as good of a comparison for Dekker then anybody else.
my fault about assuming it was battier. i thought parsons was a rookie one year earlier when we still had shane. dekker and parsons have similarities in their style of play, but parsons was ready to contribute in year 1. surgery or not, dekker was not ready to contribute this year. the rest is yet to be seen. hopefully dekker will be better than parsons, but based on how lost he looked early on, plus the back injury, he's off to a really shaky start.
You guys forget Parsons had a season in France (he was awful there) because of the lockout before he played an NBA game. That experience against pros was very beneficial for him. Fans always forget that Chandler didn't just walk into a rotation spot as a rookie. Fans think Dekker should just be good without playing basketball.
i'm not saying he should, could, or would be good. i'm saying he's not right now. i hope he will become good, but i'm very skeptical about how shaky he looked and about his back surgery.
