Where am I? tony parker is better than steve francis? i'm assuming that cato=bum is just stirring things up a bit because this is far beyond ridiculous. tony parker is good but there is no way he could even lead the rockets to double-digit victories. please tell me no one thinks we'd actually win more games with him as our pg. he's a complementary player to a very good team and one of the best players in the game, that's it. other than sean elliot what crazy mofo would pick parker over francis? what were steve's numbers again, 21, 7, 6?
Ok Tony Parker is a pretty good point guard, but anyone who saw the last game will know that the reason he went off for 27 was because Payton just didn't respect him and was constantly cheating to help on Duncan. Basically, the Sonics didn't think he had any game, no one guarded him and he rightfully went off. I'm thinking that Payton will completely dominate him next game; we'll see how he does when the opponent takes him more seriously.
Which is more ridicules: #1) Tony Parker is total crap, E. Recasner would be 3x as good on a Duncan-lead team. #2) Tony Parker is or will be better than Stevie Francis. I would call it a "tie" in ludicressness. Parker is a good rookie, but I would wait until Parker beats a team that doesn't double off him before the Spurs even cross half court (e.g., Lakers next series) before crowning him the next Isiah. As another said, Maloney about 5 years ago and Derrick Fisher currently look like "all-world PGs", but wait until the opponents are good enough defensively so they don't have to totally neglect him or even better see what happens if he plays with a sucky frontline before comparing him to the best in the league.
