What's new
By:

But...like really.....how the **** are we gonna get a star?

Cyrone Torbin said:
Wade.

Lebron.

Durant. (When Westbrook is there).

Duncan.


You know, anyone super-star who actually plays with a good team and not one that is utterly reliant on that player to carry them every night.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming youre pulling this out of your ***-- you have any proof of the teams of these players' having a 80% win percentage over a stretch of ten games while they average those stats?


Also, when is the last time that Westbrok, Durant, and Lebron averaged 3APG over 10 games?
 
Doublea said:
Which is mainly because of the coach?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I don't expect Paul George to coach the basketball team, draw plays, write scouting reports, do thing coaches do.

Again, having a good coach and a good team doesn't make you a worse player. It's pretty funny that we want to dock points from George because he plays on a good team.
 
Here is how i see it.
Offense is weighed more heavily than defense in the nba.

Tony allen... great defender, not a superstar. Same with sefalosha. Same with hibbert.
Even a two way player like marc gasol. Not a superstar.

I think you need to be able to carry a team in big games offensively to be a superstar for the most part. Paul pierce, kevin garnett, cp3, nowitski, kobe, wade, lebron, durant, iverson, are all guys that i have seen take over games on the offensive end in the playoffs and carry thier teams to victory.

Guys like irving, harden, lillard, curry, rose, westbrook etc are guys that i can picture carrying thier teams to victory in playoff games.
George is still young so its not like he cant get there (and im not saying that i would take lillard or irving over george right now) but right now i just cant imagine george scoring 20 pts in a 4th quarter playoff game to will his team to a win.


Now i do believe that you can be considered a superstar based off defense but it just takes more years of great defense to get thier since great defense is sometimes harder to quantify. Guys like scottie pippen, ben wallace, and dennis rodman are guys that could be considered superstars due to great defense over a large number of years.
 
dalamon said:
I'm assuming youre pulling this out of your ***-- you have any proof of the teams of these players' having a 80% win percentage over a stretch of ten games while they average those stats?


Also, when is the last time that Westbrok, Durant, and Lebron averaged 3APG over 10 games?
Click to expand...

I thought you were asking hypothetically, like could anyone average that and have their team win right now. Not going to go through and look at the stats. Can it happen?

Yes. Fo-Sho. Is it sustainable over a long period of time and will it help them achieve playoff success? No. Look at the Bulls last year. They did pretty good without Rose. They probably had some stretches where they played damn good in the regular season, but overall they failed without him. Same **** would happen to the Pacers.

But Rose probably ain't a super-star in your eyes and Curry is.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
It's pretty funny that we want to dock points from George because he plays on a good team.
Click to expand...

It's not docking points-- it's putting the success of him with his team in context. Playing on a superb team masks his flaws-- imagine how exposed George would be if he played for someone like the Kings.
 
fishonjazz said:
Here is how i see it.
Offense is weighed more heavily than defense in the nba.

Tony allen... great defender, not a superstar. Same with sefalosha. Same with hibbert.
Even a two way player like marc gasol. Not a superstar.

I think you need to be able to carry a team in big games offensively to be a superstar for the most part. Paul pierce, kevin garnett, cp3, nowitski, kobe, wade, lebron, durant, iverson, are all guys that i have seen take over games on the offensive end in the playoffs and carry thier teams to victory.

Guys like irving, harden, lillard, curry, rose, westbrook etc are guys that i can picture carrying thier teams to victory in playoff games.
George is still young so its not like he cant get there (and im not saying that i would take lillard or irving over george right now) but right now i just cant imagine george scoring 20 pts in a 4th quarter playoff game to will his team to a win.
Click to expand...

Good post.


Now i do believe that you can be considered a superstar based off defense but it just takes more years of great defense to get thier since great defense is sometimes harder to quantify. Guys like scottie pippen, ben wallace, and dennis rodman are guys that could be considered superstars due to great defense over a large number of years.
Click to expand...

I'd also throw a caveat in there, and say that defensive superstars tend to be big-men, more than wings. So unless Paul George becomes Scottie Pippen (which simply aint happening IMO) then I don't see how we can call him a superstar based on his defense, when guard/wing defense isn't hard to come across, and shouldn't demand max-money. If we can grip an Allen, or Sefalosha for only a couple million, why consider the max just in context of perimeter defense?
 
fishonjazz said:
Guys like irving, harden, lillard, curry, rose, westbrook etc are guys that i can picture carrying thier teams to victory in playoff games.
Click to expand...

Sorry guys, I forgot to include Alec "slick pimp" Burks in that group ;)
 
I would argue that in the regular season, Paul George is a very good, not great player. Where he becomes really valuable, however, is in beating either the Thunder or the Heat. Over the course of the regular season, great offense is much more valuable than great defense for one reason - half the time, the guy you're guarding kinda sucks anyways. Who gives a **** how great your defense is when you're locking down Mike Dunleavy?

The difference is that right now in the NBA, you MUST be able to beat at least one of Durant and Lebron in a playoff series, and going forward I think there's a pretty decent chance you will have to beat both. This alone makes George uniquely valuable and I think helps to explain why he would be extremely valuable, even if he would maybe impact your regular season record less than say Steph Curry.

This makes sense to me - Curry's absurd scoring ability should help your regular season record because he helps you beat the bad teams that can't really score very very consistently. That's certainly not worthless, and when he's hot he can do it in the playoffs too so please don't misunderstand me, Curry is awesome. George's value is MUCH greater in a series against 2 of the top contenders in the league right now, and in some ways I think that makes him more valuable than his regular season stats would suggest.
 
Pro tip: Maybe if people keep saying you have gone full retard you need to take a step back and double check whether or not you have indeed gone full retard.
 
If George isn't a 'superstar' by today's standard (and how this standard is determined is beyond me), it's pretty clear he will be in the near future judging by his level of improvement from season to season. He'll also be good for quite a while considering his age. Sounds like a good player to have.
 
LazyD said:
If George isn't a 'superstar' by today's standard (and how this standard is determined is beyond me), it's pretty clear he will be in the near future judging by his level of improvement from season to season. He'll also be good for quite a while considering his age. Sounds like a good player to have.
Click to expand...

Good post LazyD
kumbaya
repped
 
Off topic but i just want to say that im feenin for some jazz basketball right now guys.
Despite this season being a strange one and in some ways a disaster, i still love to watch each and every game and i cant wait for the next one.

It helps with my excitement that Burks emergence/improvement is kind of the main storyline for the jazz currently, but even if that weren't the case i would still be itchin for a jazz game right about now
 
I think George can be an efficient closer at this point (in the sense that he can get enough buckets in the end to win the game) mostly because he plays for Indiana and their defense is so good. If he had to do it on a different team I'm not sure he'd be able to do it at this point.
 
That was quite a run of posts by UGC/STDers in the jazz forum.

Good work guys
 
You mean to tell me that there are really people who don't think George is a super-star? ****.

And no, Hayward would not be just as good, or even close to as good as George if he could miraculously switch teams/situations. Which is a stupid argument because we can't switch those scenarios. If George is coached by a better coach (and he is), should I discredit skills he learned from that coach just because other players haven't gotten that opportunity? Hell no.

When you grade whether a player is a super-star or not, you have to do it based off of position, and how he performs in comparison to other players. Paul George is a super-star, and anybody who says otherwise is a fool.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top