Frye, "I'm Not Soft!"
- Thread starter Shapecity
- Start date
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
02civic
JBB JustBBall Rookie Team
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2004
- Messages
- 1,213
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting j0se:</div><div class="quote_post">You have to be a moron to think Marbury isn't a PG, since when point guards can't score? most of the greats were scoring point guards.
Marbruy is a top 5 point guard in the world, without question.</div>
i dont know about "without question". Kidd and Nash are hands down better while Arenas, Francis and B. Diddy are certainly capable enough to challenge for a top 5 list. Then there's Bibby and Parker who many would rather have over Marbury.
I'll say he's a top 10 pg, but personally i'd rather have any of the above mentioned PG's other than Bibby.
Marbruy is a top 5 point guard in the world, without question.</div>
i dont know about "without question". Kidd and Nash are hands down better while Arenas, Francis and B. Diddy are certainly capable enough to challenge for a top 5 list. Then there's Bibby and Parker who many would rather have over Marbury.
I'll say he's a top 10 pg, but personally i'd rather have any of the above mentioned PG's other than Bibby.
bbwTwinTowers
BBW Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2004
- Messages
- 1,759
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
Well Frye grabbed 11 boards the other day if he keeps this up than the "soft" label will be long gone.
j0se
JBB Banned Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 978
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 16
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting 02civic:</div><div class="quote_post">i dont know about "without question". Kidd and Nash are hands down better while Arenas, Francis and B. Diddy are certainly capable enough to challenge for a top 5 list. Then there's Bibby and Parker who many would rather have over Marbury.
I'll say he's a top 10 pg, but personally i'd rather have any of the above mentioned PG's other than Bibby.</div>
Bibby? Marbury beats him in every stat except 3pt %, Marbury's 3pt % is 35.4 Bibby's is 36.0...Marbury is much more atheletic faster, stronger than Bibby, and has superior PG skills. Bibby has so much talent to work around with like Brad Miller, Peja, and Webber, half court players, players who if Marbury had, Steph would average 10 assist with these guys, cause Marbruy gets most of his assist in the half court, Marbury is elite at breaking down the defense. , Parker is very inconsistant, and isn't close to an all star level
Francis lost his PG spot to Jameer Nelson, and even putting at Francis at PG is a diaster, cause he's not very good at running an offense.
Arenas is a combo guard, first of all, he's a great scorer, one of the best in the league, I'll give you Arenas.
lol Baron Davis? The guy can't even shoot 40% FG, Marbury shoots 47%, and does everything Baron does except ball hogs and jack up 3's like if its a 3pt contest, Knicks announcers use to eat up Davis for hogging the ball so much, when his man was open
This is the top 5 list
Kidd
Nash
Iverson
Arenas
Marbury
I'll say he's a top 10 pg, but personally i'd rather have any of the above mentioned PG's other than Bibby.</div>
Bibby? Marbury beats him in every stat except 3pt %, Marbury's 3pt % is 35.4 Bibby's is 36.0...Marbury is much more atheletic faster, stronger than Bibby, and has superior PG skills. Bibby has so much talent to work around with like Brad Miller, Peja, and Webber, half court players, players who if Marbury had, Steph would average 10 assist with these guys, cause Marbruy gets most of his assist in the half court, Marbury is elite at breaking down the defense. , Parker is very inconsistant, and isn't close to an all star level
Francis lost his PG spot to Jameer Nelson, and even putting at Francis at PG is a diaster, cause he's not very good at running an offense.
Arenas is a combo guard, first of all, he's a great scorer, one of the best in the league, I'll give you Arenas.
lol Baron Davis? The guy can't even shoot 40% FG, Marbury shoots 47%, and does everything Baron does except ball hogs and jack up 3's like if its a 3pt contest, Knicks announcers use to eat up Davis for hogging the ball so much, when his man was open
This is the top 5 list
Kidd
Nash
Iverson
Arenas
Marbury
Skiptomylue11
JBB JustBBall Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,671
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 38
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting j0se:</div><div class="quote_post">Bibby? Marbury beats him in every stat except 3pt %, Marbury's 3pt % is 35.4 Bibby's is 36.0...Marbury is much more atheletic faster, stronger than Bibby, and has superior PG skills. Bibby has so much talent to work around with like Brad Miller, Peja, and Webber, half court players, players who if Marbury had, Steph would average 10 assist with these guys, cause Marbruy gets most of his assist in the half court, Marbury is elite at breaking down the defense. , Parker is very inconsistant, and isn't close to an all star level</div>
I disagree that Marbury would average 10 assists with Sacramento, because it is a unique offense where ball-handling duties are shared throughout multiple positions.
Bobby Jackson is an excellent back-up PG
Brad Miller has the ball a lot
Christie had the ball a considerable amount of time.
Chris Webber had the ball quite a bit
I've heard of Marbury's arrogance, and seems to be selfish, although he seems to be improving with age.
For a chemistry stand-point I think that Bibby is a better choice for Sacramento than Marbury. Sacramento seemed to do well without egos until Webber got injured and he still thought he was the #1 man in Sacramento.
I think that Bibby spreads the defense better with his career 3pt % being 4% higher. Bibby also takes a lot of buzzer-beats. He is their clutch guy, because Peja sort of fades in those situations and can't get open.
Overall better athlete - Marbury, better chemistry maker and better fit for Sacramento - Bibby.
Parker is pretty bad and totally disapeared during this years playoffs.
I disagree that Marbury would average 10 assists with Sacramento, because it is a unique offense where ball-handling duties are shared throughout multiple positions.
Bobby Jackson is an excellent back-up PG
Brad Miller has the ball a lot
Christie had the ball a considerable amount of time.
Chris Webber had the ball quite a bit
I've heard of Marbury's arrogance, and seems to be selfish, although he seems to be improving with age.
For a chemistry stand-point I think that Bibby is a better choice for Sacramento than Marbury. Sacramento seemed to do well without egos until Webber got injured and he still thought he was the #1 man in Sacramento.
I think that Bibby spreads the defense better with his career 3pt % being 4% higher. Bibby also takes a lot of buzzer-beats. He is their clutch guy, because Peja sort of fades in those situations and can't get open.
Overall better athlete - Marbury, better chemistry maker and better fit for Sacramento - Bibby.
Parker is pretty bad and totally disapeared during this years playoffs.
02civic
JBB JustBBall Rookie Team
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2004
- Messages
- 1,213
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting j0se:</div><div class="quote_post">Bibby? Marbury beats him in every stat except 3pt %, Marbury's 3pt % is 35.4 Bibby's is 36.0...Marbury is much more atheletic faster, stronger than Bibby, and has superior PG skills. Bibby has so much talent to work around with like Brad Miller, Peja, and Webber, half court players, players who if Marbury had, Steph would average 10 assist with these guys, cause Marbruy gets most of his assist in the half court, Marbury is elite at breaking down the defense. , Parker is very inconsistant, and isn't close to an all star level
Francis lost his PG spot to Jameer Nelson, and even putting at Francis at PG is a diaster, cause he's not very good at running an offense.
Arenas is a combo guard, first of all, he's a great scorer, one of the best in the league, I'll give you Arenas.
lol Baron Davis? The guy can't even shoot 40% FG, Marbury shoots 47%, and does everything Baron does except ball hogs and jack up 3's like if its a 3pt contest, Knicks announcers use to eat up Davis for hogging the ball so much, when his man was open
This is the top 5 list
Kidd
Nash
Iverson
Arenas
Marbury</div>
comparing stats between different players in differenet situations on different teams isnt the best way to prove who's better than who. Especially when what you say is inaccurate, Bibby has better rebounding, steals and blocks with slightly lower ppg and assists while playing 1.5minutes less per game. Not exactly a blowout when you consider that Marbury is much more "THE KNICKS" than Bibby is "The Queens"
First off Marbury COULDNT work in the Sac offensive role. Its works around big men handling the ball alot of the time not head strong PG's looking for thier shot first second and third. Bibby is necessary in their system Marbury would be a disaster. That said i still think Marbury is a slightly better PG than Bibby overall, its my opinion, though him being "without question" better is wrong.
Same goes for Francis, Arenas and Parker (both of which i think are better than Marbury) and B. Davis, Bibby who are probably slightly weaker overall. I dont look at Iverson as a PG but then i guess he's as much one as Marbury so in that case i'd have to go
1)Kidd
2)Nash
3)Iverson
4)Arenas
5)Parker
6)Francis
7)Marbury
8)B.Diddy
9)Bibby
Francis lost his PG spot to Jameer Nelson, and even putting at Francis at PG is a diaster, cause he's not very good at running an offense.
Arenas is a combo guard, first of all, he's a great scorer, one of the best in the league, I'll give you Arenas.
lol Baron Davis? The guy can't even shoot 40% FG, Marbury shoots 47%, and does everything Baron does except ball hogs and jack up 3's like if its a 3pt contest, Knicks announcers use to eat up Davis for hogging the ball so much, when his man was open
This is the top 5 list
Kidd
Nash
Iverson
Arenas
Marbury</div>
comparing stats between different players in differenet situations on different teams isnt the best way to prove who's better than who. Especially when what you say is inaccurate, Bibby has better rebounding, steals and blocks with slightly lower ppg and assists while playing 1.5minutes less per game. Not exactly a blowout when you consider that Marbury is much more "THE KNICKS" than Bibby is "The Queens"
First off Marbury COULDNT work in the Sac offensive role. Its works around big men handling the ball alot of the time not head strong PG's looking for thier shot first second and third. Bibby is necessary in their system Marbury would be a disaster. That said i still think Marbury is a slightly better PG than Bibby overall, its my opinion, though him being "without question" better is wrong.
Same goes for Francis, Arenas and Parker (both of which i think are better than Marbury) and B. Davis, Bibby who are probably slightly weaker overall. I dont look at Iverson as a PG but then i guess he's as much one as Marbury so in that case i'd have to go
1)Kidd
2)Nash
3)Iverson
4)Arenas
5)Parker
6)Francis
7)Marbury
8)B.Diddy
9)Bibby
j0se
JBB Banned Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 978
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 16
Steve Francis is a cancer, if he left Orlando right now Dwight Howard would average 20 and 10, and Orlando would make the 7th seed.
Tony Parker is just a role player on the Spurs, he'll never be all star caliber, just a good starter. Parker does nothing better than Marbury
Marbury and Davis is debetable, but I don't understand who would want a PG who's not even going to shoot 40% for your team.
Tony Parker is just a role player on the Spurs, he'll never be all star caliber, just a good starter. Parker does nothing better than Marbury
Marbury and Davis is debetable, but I don't understand who would want a PG who's not even going to shoot 40% for your team.
Bobcats
JBB JustBBall Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
- Messages
- 4,843
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting j0se:</div><div class="quote_post">Steve Francis is a cancer, if he left Orlando right now Dwight Howard would average 20 and 10, and Orlando would make the 7th seed.
Tony Parker is just a role player on the Spurs, he'll never be all star caliber, just a good starter. Parker does nothing better than Marbury
Marbury and Davis is debetable, but I don't understand who would want a PG who's not even going to shoot 40% for your team.</div>
Yeah, I mean, who wants Jason Kidd right?
Tony Parker is just a role player on the Spurs, he'll never be all star caliber, just a good starter. Parker does nothing better than Marbury
Marbury and Davis is debetable, but I don't understand who would want a PG who's not even going to shoot 40% for your team.</div>
Yeah, I mean, who wants Jason Kidd right?
Kwan1031
JBB JustBBall Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2004
- Messages
- 1,745
- Likes
- 2
- Points
- 38
Indeed. Since, when fg% becomes a important measure of PG's importance? Scoring is just a part of PG's duty. Also, considering how both Marbury and Davis attempted exactly 16 per game, does that make Marbury a ball hog as well? The real duty is how PG can organize the team and make them more effective, and unfortunately that aspect of the game doesn't show up on stat sheet. Despite not so brilliant stats, Nash turned lottory team into no. 1 team in regluar season, and that's how he got MVP. Also, with Davis, players like Dunleavy, Pietrus, and Foyle upgraded their games considerably, and consequently, Davis turned 16-38 team into 18-10, including 14-5 when he started. That's the mark of being a great PG...
og15
JBB *********
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Messages
- 6,594
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
The main thing I don't like is the part about Bibby. Does anyone else remember when Bibby averaged 8 APG on a dismall Grizzlies team? Bibby is a great passer, and very underatted now as a passer because of the Sacramento offense, and people just looking at his assists numbers as opposed to watching how he and his team plays.
bbwTwinTowers
BBW Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2004
- Messages
- 1,759
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
I guess the real name of this thread is best PGs in the league.
Mr. J
Triple Up
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 9,912
- Likes
- 19
- Points
- 38
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TwinTowers:</div><div class="quote_post">I guess the real name of this thread is best PGs in the league.</div>
Haha, I guess so. Since this topic has drifted off so far, we should talk about Frye again?right after I give my opinion.
I personally think Marbury is a top 5 point guard in the league. The third or second best depending on whether you consider Iverson a point guard.
Baron Davis ? obviously he has done good things for the Warriors so far, but I feel it is unfair to judge a team based on a 28-game performance. There?s tons left to do in the season and it could have been a hot streak in which the Warriors were in.
Gilbert Arenas ? the man doesn?t remind me of a point guard at all. I know he is a passing point, but he simply doesn?t come across at all as a point guard. He is more of a scorer that only racks up 5 assists per night while turning the ball over 3 times. The Wizards when healthy with Jamison were a good team and I don?t know if Arenas was mainly responsible for the turnaround like Nash was Phoenix.
Tony Parker ? in no way, shape, or form is Tony Parker on the level of Marbury. Perhaps eventually although I highly doubt it. Marbury is the better passer, the better scorer, and pretty much the better everything over Parker. May someone please tell me how Parker is a better point than Marbury?
Steve Francis ? he?s not better as a point guard than Marbury; Plain and simple. He?s a slightly better scorer than him, but in terms of passing ? a statistic that really counts for point guards, he is not on Marbury?s level. Francis has a terrible assist to turnover ratio. Over the course of his career, he averages 6.5 assists while turning it over 3.7 times.
Mike Bibby ? I think we already established Marbury was a better point guard than him although Bibby is not a pushover. The fact Sacramento plays a more passing oriented game where everyone has the ball, lowers his assists numbers, but I still think Marbury is a better passer and scorer.
I can accept Iverson, Kidd and even Nash as being better point guards, though I do believe Marbury could rack up 10+ assists playing with Q and a much improved Joe. I think Marbury is a very underappreciated point guard the way people are talking. He?s always criticized for being ?selfish? when he gets you 8 assists a game. Anyway, we?re done. Let?s stick on topic, guys.
Haha, I guess so. Since this topic has drifted off so far, we should talk about Frye again?right after I give my opinion.
I personally think Marbury is a top 5 point guard in the league. The third or second best depending on whether you consider Iverson a point guard.
Baron Davis ? obviously he has done good things for the Warriors so far, but I feel it is unfair to judge a team based on a 28-game performance. There?s tons left to do in the season and it could have been a hot streak in which the Warriors were in.
Gilbert Arenas ? the man doesn?t remind me of a point guard at all. I know he is a passing point, but he simply doesn?t come across at all as a point guard. He is more of a scorer that only racks up 5 assists per night while turning the ball over 3 times. The Wizards when healthy with Jamison were a good team and I don?t know if Arenas was mainly responsible for the turnaround like Nash was Phoenix.
Tony Parker ? in no way, shape, or form is Tony Parker on the level of Marbury. Perhaps eventually although I highly doubt it. Marbury is the better passer, the better scorer, and pretty much the better everything over Parker. May someone please tell me how Parker is a better point than Marbury?
Steve Francis ? he?s not better as a point guard than Marbury; Plain and simple. He?s a slightly better scorer than him, but in terms of passing ? a statistic that really counts for point guards, he is not on Marbury?s level. Francis has a terrible assist to turnover ratio. Over the course of his career, he averages 6.5 assists while turning it over 3.7 times.
Mike Bibby ? I think we already established Marbury was a better point guard than him although Bibby is not a pushover. The fact Sacramento plays a more passing oriented game where everyone has the ball, lowers his assists numbers, but I still think Marbury is a better passer and scorer.
I can accept Iverson, Kidd and even Nash as being better point guards, though I do believe Marbury could rack up 10+ assists playing with Q and a much improved Joe. I think Marbury is a very underappreciated point guard the way people are talking. He?s always criticized for being ?selfish? when he gets you 8 assists a game. Anyway, we?re done. Let?s stick on topic, guys.
VinKanaddy
JBB JustBBall Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,170
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">Haha, I guess so. Since this topic has drifted off so far, we should talk about Frye again?right after I give my opinion.
I personally think Marbury is a top 5 point guard in the league. The third or second best depending on whether you consider Iverson a point guard.
Baron Davis ? obviously he has done good things for the Warriors so far, but I feel it is unfair to judge a team based on a 28-game performance. There?s tons left to do in the season and it could have been a hot streak in which the Warriors were in.
Gilbert Arenas ? the man doesn?t remind me of a point guard at all. I know he is a passing point, but he simply doesn?t come across at all as a point guard. He is more of a scorer that only racks up 5 assists per night while turning the ball over 3 times. The Wizards when healthy with Jamison were a good team and I don?t know if Arenas was mainly responsible for the turnaround like Nash was Phoenix.
Tony Parker ? in no way, shape, or form is Tony Parker on the level of Marbury. Perhaps eventually although I highly doubt it. Marbury is the better passer, the better scorer, and pretty much the better everything over Parker. May someone please tell me how Parker is a better point than Marbury?
Steve Francis ? he?s not better as a point guard than Marbury; Plain and simple. He?s a slightly better scorer than him, but in terms of passing ? a statistic that really counts for point guards, he is not on Marbury?s level. Francis has a terrible assist to turnover ratio. Over the course of his career, he averages 6.5 assists while turning it over 3.7 times.
Mike Bibby ? I think we already established Marbury was a better point guard than him although Bibby is not a pushover. The fact Sacramento plays a more passing oriented game where everyone has the ball, lowers his assists numbers, but I still think Marbury is a better passer and scorer.
I can accept Iverson, Kidd and even Nash as being better point guards, though I do believe Marbury could rack up 10+ assists playing with Q and a much improved Joe. I think Marbury is a very underappreciated point guard the way people are talking. He?s always criticized for being ?selfish? when he gets you 8 assists a game. Anyway, we?re done. Let?s stick on topic, guys.</div>
Yes, he won two rings and he knows how to feed Duncan and Ginobili the ball.
I personally think Marbury is a top 5 point guard in the league. The third or second best depending on whether you consider Iverson a point guard.
Baron Davis ? obviously he has done good things for the Warriors so far, but I feel it is unfair to judge a team based on a 28-game performance. There?s tons left to do in the season and it could have been a hot streak in which the Warriors were in.
Gilbert Arenas ? the man doesn?t remind me of a point guard at all. I know he is a passing point, but he simply doesn?t come across at all as a point guard. He is more of a scorer that only racks up 5 assists per night while turning the ball over 3 times. The Wizards when healthy with Jamison were a good team and I don?t know if Arenas was mainly responsible for the turnaround like Nash was Phoenix.
Tony Parker ? in no way, shape, or form is Tony Parker on the level of Marbury. Perhaps eventually although I highly doubt it. Marbury is the better passer, the better scorer, and pretty much the better everything over Parker. May someone please tell me how Parker is a better point than Marbury?
Steve Francis ? he?s not better as a point guard than Marbury; Plain and simple. He?s a slightly better scorer than him, but in terms of passing ? a statistic that really counts for point guards, he is not on Marbury?s level. Francis has a terrible assist to turnover ratio. Over the course of his career, he averages 6.5 assists while turning it over 3.7 times.
Mike Bibby ? I think we already established Marbury was a better point guard than him although Bibby is not a pushover. The fact Sacramento plays a more passing oriented game where everyone has the ball, lowers his assists numbers, but I still think Marbury is a better passer and scorer.
I can accept Iverson, Kidd and even Nash as being better point guards, though I do believe Marbury could rack up 10+ assists playing with Q and a much improved Joe. I think Marbury is a very underappreciated point guard the way people are talking. He?s always criticized for being ?selfish? when he gets you 8 assists a game. Anyway, we?re done. Let?s stick on topic, guys.</div>
Yes, he won two rings and he knows how to feed Duncan and Ginobili the ball.
VinKanaddy
JBB JustBBall Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,170
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting j0se:</div><div class="quote_post">Thats not such a hard task VinKanaddy
</div>
Oh wait, his girlfriend is someone named Eva Longoria, and Marbury's isn't!
Now that's a hard task!
Oh wait, his girlfriend is someone named Eva Longoria, and Marbury's isn't!
Squishface
JBB Ministering Fools
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,757
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 38
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">I think you?re the only one who feels this way, Ignignot. The Knicks despite having a plethora of injuries last season won 33 games and their roster that they have currently is better than their previous one last season.
He?s a shoot-first point guard and to that, I say so? A vast majority of the NBA?s point guards are shoot-first and Marbury being yet another one doesn?t mean he is less of a player. Regardless of his style of play, he?s always found a way throughout his career to rack up 8 assists per game. You also mentioned him taking ?bad shots?. This season, Marbury hasn?t taken many bad shots and his FG% has skyrocketed. He shot at a career high 46% which is excellent for a guard and also a career high 35% from downtown. This season, he?s also had a career low of 2.8 turnovers a game too. Marbury has also looked for his teammates much more this season and probably the most throughout his entire career and now that he has more help offensively, you can look for him to pass much more this season. The only negative about him is his lackluster defense, really; that?s it.
I don?t know what to say about this comment. I haven?t noticed their shooting mechanics being as slow as you say they are. The fact of the matter is regardless of their ?slow shooting?, I?m sure they aren?t known for consistently getting blocked. Both of them are good shooters when taking good shots and hopefully with Marbury penetrating, it should increase their shot selection.
Well, the offseason is not over yet and if the Knicks sign Swift, James, or Hunter, it will be much less than what you?re saying. In addition, you don?t know how Lee or Frye will turn out not to mention our veterans like Malik Rose and Jerome Williams who can cause havoc to a team with their energy and hustle.
You?re mistaken on this. Isiah?s original intentions were for Crawford to play as a 6th man for the team, however, when Allan Houston got injured again, Crawford was the best available to fill in that void at shooting guard. He?s flubbed every draft? What about the 1995 one where he drafted the Rookie of the Year, Damon Stoudamire or the 1997 one where he drafted the superstar Tracy McGrady, or the 2004 one where he drafted Trevor Ariza with the 43rd pick. I do agree with you in Isiah might not be the best GM around, but give credit where credit is due.</div>
Clearly, I must show respect and dub you quite obviously far more informed when it comes to the operations of the New York Knicks. And for that, I give you the utmost credit. I now find myself wrong on several of these counts, and can excuse myself only by saying that I was tempted to unnecessarily bash Isiah Thomas. I think that's not entirely useful anymore, and I apologize for that. He's worth a knock now and again, but not all the time, and I abused that privilege. Thank you for setting me straight and I'll wait for far more obvious excuses to harangue him in the future.
He?s a shoot-first point guard and to that, I say so? A vast majority of the NBA?s point guards are shoot-first and Marbury being yet another one doesn?t mean he is less of a player. Regardless of his style of play, he?s always found a way throughout his career to rack up 8 assists per game. You also mentioned him taking ?bad shots?. This season, Marbury hasn?t taken many bad shots and his FG% has skyrocketed. He shot at a career high 46% which is excellent for a guard and also a career high 35% from downtown. This season, he?s also had a career low of 2.8 turnovers a game too. Marbury has also looked for his teammates much more this season and probably the most throughout his entire career and now that he has more help offensively, you can look for him to pass much more this season. The only negative about him is his lackluster defense, really; that?s it.
I don?t know what to say about this comment. I haven?t noticed their shooting mechanics being as slow as you say they are. The fact of the matter is regardless of their ?slow shooting?, I?m sure they aren?t known for consistently getting blocked. Both of them are good shooters when taking good shots and hopefully with Marbury penetrating, it should increase their shot selection.
Well, the offseason is not over yet and if the Knicks sign Swift, James, or Hunter, it will be much less than what you?re saying. In addition, you don?t know how Lee or Frye will turn out not to mention our veterans like Malik Rose and Jerome Williams who can cause havoc to a team with their energy and hustle.
You?re mistaken on this. Isiah?s original intentions were for Crawford to play as a 6th man for the team, however, when Allan Houston got injured again, Crawford was the best available to fill in that void at shooting guard. He?s flubbed every draft? What about the 1995 one where he drafted the Rookie of the Year, Damon Stoudamire or the 1997 one where he drafted the superstar Tracy McGrady, or the 2004 one where he drafted Trevor Ariza with the 43rd pick. I do agree with you in Isiah might not be the best GM around, but give credit where credit is due.</div>
Clearly, I must show respect and dub you quite obviously far more informed when it comes to the operations of the New York Knicks. And for that, I give you the utmost credit. I now find myself wrong on several of these counts, and can excuse myself only by saying that I was tempted to unnecessarily bash Isiah Thomas. I think that's not entirely useful anymore, and I apologize for that. He's worth a knock now and again, but not all the time, and I abused that privilege. Thank you for setting me straight and I'll wait for far more obvious excuses to harangue him in the future.
Squishface
JBB Ministering Fools
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,757
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 38
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting j0se:</div><div class="quote_post">You have to be a moron to think Marbury isn't a PG, since when point guards can't score? most of the greats were scoring point guards. </div>
Last time I'll say anything on here. That's certainly true, the best ever could score, but they weren't shoot-first, that's for certain, and that's what qualifies Marbury as more of 2 than a 1. And more than anything, the best ones ever were guys that made their teammates better. Marbury most certainly doesn't do that. I'm not saying point guards can't score, but at the very least, they should make scoring at least an option for the rest of their team. "Starbury" doesn't pull that off, at all.
The best ones ever weren't shoot first, and only in a very specific and meaningful role are shoot first point guards necessary or even useful. The Nets of the Mid-90's were a good example. Kenny Anderson made that offense go with his ability to shoot first and dish at the basket. Some of you may not remember that part of his career, but he personified that role, and made it even worth mentioning in that era. Sleepy Floyd was a good example, but only when he felt like it. Sam Cassell early on with the Rockets, offensive rebounds drove that offense. But Marbury's mantra hasn't fit with any team he's played with, and as a result, he hasn't amounted to jack squat.
Tell me among the best ever where "shoot-first" fits in.
Cousy
Magic
Isiah
Kidd
Stockton
Calvin Murphy
Jerry West
Maybe GP
Nowhere in that list (more or less indisputable) does it include shoot first point guards, with the possible exception of Isiah, and he still made his teammates a hundred times better, unlike a certain cancer in NY I know of.
Last time I'll say anything on here. That's certainly true, the best ever could score, but they weren't shoot-first, that's for certain, and that's what qualifies Marbury as more of 2 than a 1. And more than anything, the best ones ever were guys that made their teammates better. Marbury most certainly doesn't do that. I'm not saying point guards can't score, but at the very least, they should make scoring at least an option for the rest of their team. "Starbury" doesn't pull that off, at all.
The best ones ever weren't shoot first, and only in a very specific and meaningful role are shoot first point guards necessary or even useful. The Nets of the Mid-90's were a good example. Kenny Anderson made that offense go with his ability to shoot first and dish at the basket. Some of you may not remember that part of his career, but he personified that role, and made it even worth mentioning in that era. Sleepy Floyd was a good example, but only when he felt like it. Sam Cassell early on with the Rockets, offensive rebounds drove that offense. But Marbury's mantra hasn't fit with any team he's played with, and as a result, he hasn't amounted to jack squat.
Tell me among the best ever where "shoot-first" fits in.
Cousy
Magic
Isiah
Kidd
Stockton
Calvin Murphy
Jerry West
Maybe GP
Nowhere in that list (more or less indisputable) does it include shoot first point guards, with the possible exception of Isiah, and he still made his teammates a hundred times better, unlike a certain cancer in NY I know of.
j0se
JBB Banned Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 978
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 16
Jerry West averaged 27 ppg his whole career................................................are you serious? He was a good passer, but his best attribute was scoring
Calvin Murphy was a scorer more than a guy who's going to jack up 10 assist a game
Calvin Murphy was a scorer more than a guy who's going to jack up 10 assist a game
Squishface
JBB Ministering Fools
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,757
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 38
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting j0se:</div><div class="quote_post">Jerry West averaged 27 ppg his whole career................................................are you serious? He was a good passer, but his best attribute was scoring
Calvin Murphy was a scorer more than a guy who's going to jack up 10 assist a game</div>
Again, scorers don't necessarily mean shoot first, and Marbury is shoot first, not just a scorer.
Calvin Murphy was a scorer more than a guy who's going to jack up 10 assist a game</div>
Again, scorers don't necessarily mean shoot first, and Marbury is shoot first, not just a scorer.
j0se
JBB Banned Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 978
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 16
Marbury is a creator period. He can create his own shot, and create for his teammates.
I understand Marbury doesnt have the Kidd-Nash like ability to allow his teammates step their level up, cause Marbury in his whole career never had confidence in his teammates, and I'm the first one in this forum to get on Marbury about that.
I understand Marbury doesnt have the Kidd-Nash like ability to allow his teammates step their level up, cause Marbury in his whole career never had confidence in his teammates, and I'm the first one in this forum to get on Marbury about that.
Skiptomylue11
JBB JustBBall Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,671
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 38
I agree with ignignot about the fact that Marbury plays more a SGs game than a PGs. Marbury has a more similar game to A.I. than that of Nash, Kidd, Stockton, Magic, etc.
I think that Marbury should be compared more to scoring pointguards or 2 guards. So he should be compared to a Baron Davis, Steve Francis, or Allen Iverson.
I think that Marbury should be compared more to scoring pointguards or 2 guards. So he should be compared to a Baron Davis, Steve Francis, or Allen Iverson.
j0se
JBB Banned Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 978
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 16
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting SkiptoMyLue11:</div><div class="quote_post">I agree with ignignot about the fact that Marbury plays more a SGs game than a PGs. Marbury has a more similar game to A.I. than that of Nash, Kidd, Stockton, Magic, etc.
I think that Marbury should be compared more to scoring pointguards or 2 guards. So he should be compared to a Baron Davis, Steve Francis, or Allen Iverson.</div>
Marbury doesn't play the 2, or isn't a 2, saying that because he able to score whenever he wants doesn't make alot of sense.
He's averaged 8 - 9 assist yearly, constantly, he creates in every possible way you can ask from a man on offense, breaking the defense down, and he's a great half court passer, even though he struggles in the full court fast break.
Marbury and Iverson are different players, different styles.
Iverson is the toughest plater in the league, the fastest, and the hardest to stay infront of. Iverson the most physical contract considering his size of 6 feet and 170lbs Iverson isn't passive, he's not afraid to jack up shots.
Marbury is opposite, he's careful with proctecting the ball, he doesnt turn it over, and has a very good to assist to turnover ratio. Marbury is 202, Marbury is a bulldog, he's so strong, when you try to foul him, he doesnt move left or right, he just moves straight at you, you can't move Marbury, or force him to flop, he's that strong.
Marbury doesnt fit at the 2, he should carry the ball up the court every play, every minute, he's a PG, he doesnt have to jack up 10 assist a game , 8 is great, and impressive. Marbury isn't a pure PG, but that doesnt mean you say he's a SG, all Point guards are different.
I think that Marbury should be compared more to scoring pointguards or 2 guards. So he should be compared to a Baron Davis, Steve Francis, or Allen Iverson.</div>
Marbury doesn't play the 2, or isn't a 2, saying that because he able to score whenever he wants doesn't make alot of sense.
He's averaged 8 - 9 assist yearly, constantly, he creates in every possible way you can ask from a man on offense, breaking the defense down, and he's a great half court passer, even though he struggles in the full court fast break.
Marbury and Iverson are different players, different styles.
Iverson is the toughest plater in the league, the fastest, and the hardest to stay infront of. Iverson the most physical contract considering his size of 6 feet and 170lbs Iverson isn't passive, he's not afraid to jack up shots.
Marbury is opposite, he's careful with proctecting the ball, he doesnt turn it over, and has a very good to assist to turnover ratio. Marbury is 202, Marbury is a bulldog, he's so strong, when you try to foul him, he doesnt move left or right, he just moves straight at you, you can't move Marbury, or force him to flop, he's that strong.
Marbury doesnt fit at the 2, he should carry the ball up the court every play, every minute, he's a PG, he doesnt have to jack up 10 assist a game , 8 is great, and impressive. Marbury isn't a pure PG, but that doesnt mean you say he's a SG, all Point guards are different.
Skiptomylue11
JBB JustBBall Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,671
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 38
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting j0se:</div><div class="quote_post">Marbury doesn't play the 2, or isn't a 2, saying that because he able to score whenever he wants doesn't make alot of sense.
Marbury doesnt fit at the 2, he should carry the ball up the court every play, every minute, he's a PG, he doesnt have to jack up 10 assist a game , 8 is great, and impressive. Marbury isn't a pure PG, but that doesnt mean you say he's a SG, all Point guards are different.</div>
I think Larry Brown and I disagree.
Marbury doesnt fit at the 2, he should carry the ball up the court every play, every minute, he's a PG, he doesnt have to jack up 10 assist a game , 8 is great, and impressive. Marbury isn't a pure PG, but that doesnt mean you say he's a SG, all Point guards are different.</div>
I think Larry Brown and I disagree.
