Better Playmaker Roy or Carter?

I don't consider him the type of player that makes his teammates better.

 

So you are the type that likes to avoid looking at recent facts. That is good to know.

 

If by "play-maker," we mean making plays for one's self or one's teammates, then Carter is the better play-maker. He's a superior individual scorer and a very good passer.

If we're solely talking about making play for one's teammates, I'd take Brandon Roy. Not by a huge margin, but while I think both have very good passing skills for non-point guards, I think Roy has superior court vision and decision-making skills.

I've been a fan of Vince Carter since he was a Tar Heel and been watching him his whole career, including with New Jersey. I think he's a very underrated player and a borderline Hall of Famer. But I think Roy is the slightly better creator for other people.

 

Are you intentionally trying to put words in my mouth?

Where in my post did I say a playmaker can't be a scorer as well? I said that, in my definition, playmaker does not mean scorer. Not "a playmaker can not be a scorer." So, to break it down Barney style for you so there's no misunderstanding, you are not a playmaker just because you can score. Clear?

My definition of a playmaker might be different than your definition, thus the reason why I said the term is vague. It can mean different things to different people. I would define a playmaker as someone who can set up his teammates. Chris Paul is a playmaker. Brandon Roy is a playmaker. LeBron James is a playmaker.

By that I mean, just because you can score doesn't make you a playmaker. That's my definition. A playmaker makes plays for his teammates. If Vince can do that, I apologize. You saw my original post in the 30 seconds that it was up before I changed it. I edited it because I realized the word playmaker can mean different things to different people.

 

Vince can do that.

 

Huh?

 

It makes sense.

He said if play-making means making plays for one's self or teammates. Ie. creating a shot for himself and scoring, as well as finding open shots for teammates. Then Carter.

However if playmaking meant, just finding teammates open shots, ie. not including creating a shot for oneself (scoring). Then Brandon Roy.

 

Here's my problem with threads like these--they become semantic in nature rather than focusing on the attributes of the two players.

 

Are you an anti-semantite?

 

Oh, read it as a mutually exclusive choice. My bad.

 

It depends what you mean by "anti"

 

vc is better than roy. period. maybe not for long, but right now.

 

I'd take be BRoy right now in a heartbeat! So would 30 other GM's.

 

<table class="tborder"><tbody><tr valign="top" align="right"><td class="alt1">$3,084,240
<center> TO </center></td> <td class="alt1">$3,910,820
<center> </center></td> <td class="alt1">$5,217,030
<center> QO </center></td></tr></tbody></table><table class="tborder"><tbody><tr valign="top" align="right"><td class="alt1">$14,749,200
<center> </center></td> <td class="alt1">$16,150,800
<center> </center></td> <td class="alt1">$17,552,300
<center> TO </center></td></tr></tbody></table>
Not very difficult to see why.

 

I think Brandon Roy being compared to Vince Carter is great.

If the Blazers had Vince Carter at 24, I would be very happy with that. Is Roy the next Carter, I don;t think so, they have different games. But sure is exciting having Roy when they are comparing him to the likes of a Vince Carter.

I obviously agree with Blazer fans, if the choice is today, who would take . . . without hesitation, Roy.

 

If you think their salary is what I'm talking about, you don't know hoops. Give them the same salary and I still think they all take BRoy.

 

If I'm a GM, I take age and salary into the equation. Roy is younger, cheaper, and has a much better change of improvement. Obviously you'd want Roy.

 

vc at 24 years old would be picked 10 times out of ten over broy.

 

Disagree.

 

Give them the same age and salaries, I think almost all GMs take Carter.