PDA

View Full Version : Tony Parker: Would he be as good if we had drafted him?



SycamoreKen
04-30-2008, 04:57 PM
Since Parker seems to be coming into his own and the draft is the rage right now, I'll throw that question out to all. If we had drafted Parker instead of Tins would Parker had grown into the player he now is?

My answer is no. He went into the perfect situation for a young player to grow in. A coach that relates well with his players, but still is hard nosed and expects them to do well. A superstar that is easy going. A bunch of vets that accept their roles and work hard as a team. It also didn't hurt that as a group his team mates are pretty low key.

SoupIsGood
04-30-2008, 05:11 PM
He'd probably be hurt all the time.

Roaming Gnome
04-30-2008, 05:20 PM
Too bad our local columnist didn't take into account that the situation here and in San Antonio were a little different at the time of that draft before he started knocking the franchise for not selecting Tony Parker over Tinsley.

1. We were not seriously looking at drafting forign players at that time.

2. Parker was only 18... We were looking for a possible starter.

So, can you imagine the Pacers passing on a point that most of us had seen play at Iowa St. A guy that looked like he was nearly ready to start for an 18 year old from France that no one has ever heard of...

The reaction would have been...ugly!

But hell, Hindsight is always 20-20.

As for your question about would Parker have developed the same? I don't remember if Parker started that year there as the starter or did he learn behind someone for a season or two before he took off.

When Tinsley got here, he was better then Travis Best right out of the gate, would Parker have the same ability right at 18?

grace
04-30-2008, 05:30 PM
He'd probably be hurt all the time.

He wouldn't be married to Eva Longoria.

AesopRockOn
04-30-2008, 05:34 PM
He's kind of a system point guard. Who knows how he would have adapted to our system? He might have gotten beaten up in the brawl though....

SycamoreKen
04-30-2008, 05:36 PM
During his rookie season Parker started 72 out of the 77 games he played. Antonio Daniels was the other point guard of note on the team He started 14 games. Parker averaged 9.2 points, 4.3 assists, and 2 turnovers a game. He was the second leading scorer in the playoffs at 15.5 with 4.2 assists. He was 19.

The info. is from Basketball reference .com

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2002.html

CableKC
04-30-2008, 05:37 PM
The answer is yes.

Any Starting quality PG that averages 77 games a season easily helps us more then one that 59 games a season.

Heck....even for this season, I would have lived with Tinsley evenly splitting time with Diener ( even after the Phoenix incident ) then being forced to watch Flip run the point.

The issue isn't the difference between Tinsley and Parker....the issue is that we would have had a Starting quality PG running the offense on a consistent basis.

SycamoreKen
04-30-2008, 05:37 PM
He wouldn't be married to Eva Longoria.


And isn't that what really matters?;)

maragin
04-30-2008, 05:44 PM
Alright. Would Tinsley have won a ring with the Spurs as their point guard? Would Pop and Duncan have kept him in line?

CableKC
04-30-2008, 05:48 PM
Alright. Would Tinsley have won a ring with the Spurs as their point guard? Would Pop and Duncan have kept him in line?
Assuming that they decided to keep him for that long.....I think they would have had a better chance at keeping him in line then Zeke/Carlisle and JONeal.

Putnam
04-30-2008, 05:56 PM
No.


I think KStat says yes because he's answering a different
question. He's answering the question, "Would Parker playing for the Pacers have been as good as (or better than) Tinsley playing for the Pacers?" But I think SycamoreKen is asking, "Would Parker playing for the Pacers have been as good as Parker playing for the Spurs?"

Again, no. The Pacers have been dysfunctional for 3-4 years and until this past season, everybody in the organization suffered -- performing less well here than they were capable of. The only people who could be said to have been better off with the Pacers are Courtney Sims and the other guys who wouldn't have been with any NBA team at all if not the Pacers.

Anthem
04-30-2008, 06:09 PM
I've had this exact same thought in the Granger-Pippen debate.

I'd go with "no." Being on the Spurs had allowed Parker to develop in a different way than he would have if he'd been a Pacer.

Hicks
04-30-2008, 06:27 PM
One of the announcers this week was saying that when the Spurs drafted him, Pop wasn't sold on him at all, so it's not like he was some sure-fire star waiting to happen. I think he'd have been scrutinized by Indy fans had we taken him.

Would have have panned out? I don't think we can know.

Doddage
04-30-2008, 07:49 PM
Things are much better when you have a HOF big man on your team.

SycamoreKen
04-30-2008, 07:52 PM
We had JO and Brad Miller when he was drafted. Oh wait, you did say HOF.

Major Cold
04-30-2008, 10:30 PM
I love this line of thinking. It is in the same line as if Jim Brown was running in the NFL today he would suck.

BlueNGold
04-30-2008, 11:14 PM
Generally I doubt it matters much where a player starts versus how he approaches his profession. It's about talent which is generally a fixed asset and effort which can be variable. It comes down to how hard someone is willing to work to get better. Look at Garnett or Reggie Miller.

Unlike Tinsley, Parker has gotten better over the years....particularly after his 4th year. Don't know if he's a hard worker, but I bet he spent more time with Eva and less time at the clubs.

In any event, I doubt his improvement was due to osmosis from TD. That's like saying Magic is Majic because he got to play with Kareem.....I don't think that's how it works.

skyfire
04-30-2008, 11:25 PM
At the end of Parker's first season Popavich wanted to sign Jason Kidd, only for Kidd to back out at the last moment. This shun also spurred Parker to win over the trust of his coach and become a better player.

I'd say fairly unlikely that he becomes as good, but possible.

Roaming Gnome
05-01-2008, 12:13 AM
During his rookie season Parker started 72 out of the 77 games he played. Antonio Daniels was the other point guard of note on the team He started 14 games. Parker averaged 9.2 points, 4.3 assists, and 2 turnovers a game. He was the second leading scorer in the playoffs at 15.5 with 4.2 assists. He was 19.

The info. is from Basketball reference .com

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2002.html

I honestly didn't know that. I couldn't remember if he was thrown directly into the fire or not.


Any Starting quality PG that averages 77 games a season easily helps us more then one that 59 games a season.

Didn't Tinsley play a majority if not all of his rookie season? Anyway, at that time we didn't know that we would have chosen an injury prone malcontent.

Unclebuck
05-01-2008, 07:54 AM
Too bad our local columnist didn't take into account that the situation here and in San Antonio were a little different at the time of that draft before he started knocking the franchise for not selecting Tony Parker over Tinsley.

1. We were not seriously looking at drafting forign players at that time.

2. Parker was only 18... We were looking for a possible starter.

So, can you imagine the Pacers passing on a point that most of us had seen play at Iowa St. A guy that looked like he was nearly ready to start for an 18 year old from France that no one has ever heard of...

The reaction would have been...ugly!

But hell, Hindsight is always 20-20.

As for your question about would Parker have developed the same? I don't remember if Parker started that year there as the starter or did he learn behind someone for a season or two before he took off.

When Tinsley got here, he was better then Travis Best right out of the gate, would Parker have the same ability right at 18?


I disagree that the reaction would have been ugly. It was at the end of the first round and back then the Pacers had a lot of good will in the city , so I don't think anyone would have been too upset.

Starting Tinsley right off the bat might have been the worst thing for Jamaal. It gave him a sense of entitlement that he still has to this day. He never had to earn the starting job. Huge mistake by Isiah.

Back to the question at hand. A big yes he would have. A talent like that always rises to the top

Fool
05-01-2008, 08:54 AM
A talent like that always rises to the top?

There are plenty of guys with equal or more talent that didn't rise to the top.

count55
05-01-2008, 09:33 AM
I disagree that the reaction would have been ugly. It was at the end of the first round and back then the Pacers had a lot of good will in the city , so I don't think anyone would have been too upset.

Starting Tinsley right off the bat might have been the worst thing for Jamaal. It gave him a sense of entitlement that he still has to this day. He never had to earn the starting job. Huge mistake by Isiah.

Back to the question at hand. A big yes he would have. A talent like that always rises to the top

I can remember in Tinsley's rookie year, after he'd had that huge game against Jordan's Wiz, people talking about him (JT) being good, but that most of the scouts were sure that Tony Parker would be better.

Hindsight's 20-20, and I agreed (and was happy with) the Tinsley pick at the time. However, in a do-over, I'd take Parker, and I think he'd be pretty close to as effective as he is now. Regardless, we'd be in much better shape.

Unclebuck
05-01-2008, 09:56 AM
A talent like that always rises to the top?

There are plenty of guys with equal or more talent that didn't rise to the top.

Like who

QuickRelease
05-01-2008, 10:11 AM
He's kind of a system point guard. Who knows how he would have adapted to our system? He might have gotten beaten up in the brawl though....

Naw...he's French. He would've surrendered! :rimshot:

QuickRelease
05-01-2008, 10:17 AM
I think any player will better himself if the franchise truly demands it (like Pop does). I don't think you could go to San Antonio and do half the crap Jamaal does. With that being said, I think Parker is partly (because he is very, very good; despite the rules) a result of the NBA's current direction. The rules are set up to favor quicker players. However, Parker also works on his game. He's a better shooter than when he came in. All that to say, yes, I think he would have been just as good.

Putnam
05-01-2008, 10:52 AM
I think any player will better himself if the franchise truly demands it (like Pop does). I don't think you could go to San Antonio and do half the crap Jamaal does. With that being said, I think Parker is partly (because he is very, very good; despite the rules) a result of the NBA's current direction. The rules are set up to favor quicker players. However, Parker also works on his game. He's a better shooter than when he came in. All that to say, yes, I think he would have been just as good.


But, don't your statements point in the other direction? If Parker had developed while playing for Carlisle's Pacers, he'd have been locking into an offense that didn't demand very much improvement and restricted speed for the sake of ball control. And he'd have been passing inside to Jermaine O'Neal instead of Tim Duncan. I just don't see it. When I look at the Spurs, I see not just a better team than the Pacers have been, but an altogether different kind of team.

Maybe somebody can come up with a name to satisfy Unclebuck's request for a top-talented player that didn't rise to the top. But I'd suggest that we can't expect to know their names. If they didn't rise to the top, we won't know about them. There is more talent in every field than gets noticed. There are more pretty cheerleaders than heywoode has photographed. And Dr. Goldfoot probably plays bass as well as John Entwistle ever did. In the very restricted field of the NBA, there is no certainty that all the players with the greatest potential get an equal chance to develop it. No certainty at all.

count55
05-01-2008, 11:20 AM
But, don't your statements point in the other direction? If Parker had developed while playing for Carlisle's Pacers, he'd have been locking into an offense that didn't demand very much improvement and restricted speed for the sake of ball control. And he'd have been passing inside to Jermaine O'Neal instead of Tim Duncan. I just don't see it. When I look at the Spurs, I see not just a better team than the Pacers have been, but an altogether different kind of team.

Maybe somebody can come up with a name to satisfy Unclebuck's request for a top-talented player that didn't rise to the top. But I'd suggest that we can't expect to know their names. If they didn't rise to the top, we won't know about them. There is more talent in every field than gets noticed. There are more pretty cheerleaders than heywoode has photographed. And Dr. Goldfoot probably plays bass as well as John Entwistle ever did. In the very restricted field of the NBA, there is no certainty that all the players with the greatest potential get an equal chance to develop it. No certainty at all.

Of course, you have to realize that he would've started out for Isiah Thomas' Pacers. If we substitute Parker for JT during that stretch, it's not unreasonable to think the Pacers might've been able to get past New Jersey in the Playoffs. That the second half collapse in 2003 might not have been as bad. That Rick might not have been hired in the summer of 2003.

You're absolutely right that there may be guys schlepping boxes for UPS who have the same level of talent of Tony Parker, but never got the break. However, I think Parker would still be a very good point guard if the Pacers had taken him.

kerosene
05-02-2008, 02:09 AM
Parker wouldn't be the player he is now without Pop to break him down then build him back up. I think even Parker has acknowledged this.

Midcoasted
05-02-2008, 05:58 AM
Im with Uncle buck on this one. Who else? That's the million dollar question.

If ur questioning his talent then u are crazy. He would have been a superstar no matter where he went. If the Spurs didn't have him they wouldn't have beat Phoenix.

The thing I've learned is the NBA is nothing like the NFL. The Colts have a great farm system. Pretty much anyone who is semi-talented can succeed. In the NBA this is not true.

People just ain't giving Parker enough credit. not that long ago I was questioning if we had ever even seen a PG like Rose before in the NBA, and found my answer in Tony Parker. Dude is a beast. If we had him this year we would probably be advancing to the second round right now, that simple.

It might not be that easy, but if you inserted the best PG in the NBA on our team this year we wouln't have had any talks of loosing for the lottery. We would have been talking winning for home court advantage.

Rajah Brown
05-02-2008, 07:35 AM
Two words, Tim Duncan. Parker is a very good PG. But the presence
of Duncan makes everyone on that team better.