Gilbert Arenas or Tony Parker? Who is better? This is a tough one. Arenas scores more, but Parker has a smoother game and shoots a higher FG %. To hard for me to decide. What do yall think?
They are two totally different players. If this thread is asking who is the better individual player and who is the most talented, then you would be mindless to choose Parker over Arenas. But like I said, they are two totally different players. Arenas is an excellent scorer, with a score-first mentality. Parker is more of a point guard, and he runs an offense better (and also plays more efficiently and plays better defense). But Gilbert Arenas is one of the most talented players in the NBA. So, basing this off what you asked in the opening post: "Who is better?" You answer is Gilbert Arenas, no question.
It's Gilbert Arenas. He is just on another level scoring wise than Parker. I don't care if Parker has a very high percentage, Gil is the better scorer. Gil has that outside shot that Tony does not have. They both love attacking the rim, but Arenas can also shoot the ball very well. Tony Parker may be a little bit better passing wise, but hey, I'd take a 30 ppg guy rather than an 18 ppg guy who will pass the ball only a little bit better.
Wow, this is offensive towards Gilbert Arenas. Arenas is one of the top 10 players in the league and can score at will. Hes not the best shooter but neither is Parker. Most importantly Gilbert Arenas is the center piece of his team and is constantly double teamed, while Parker is the second or third option.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tmgbball15 @ Dec 22 2006, 10:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wow, this is offensive towards Gilbert Arenas. Arenas is one of the top 10 players in the league and can score at will. Hes not the best shooter but neither is Parker. Most importantly Gilbert Arenas is the center piece of his team and is constantly double teamed, while Parker is the second or third option.</div>I don't think it's as much of a slap in the face as you might think. If I was to be starting a team, I would take a Tony Parker type point guard over a Gilbert Arenas type point guard just about any day of the week. Parker is better on defense which goes a long ways at the point guard spot. He shoots a higer percentage, is better at attacking the rim than Arenas because of his speed. Parker is a smarter offensive player than Arenas, because Parker won't just settle for bad shots. His shot selection is ten times that of Arenas's, which makes me like him better as a point guard.Parkers passing and court vision are top notch, he can go off for 15 assists on nights where he is playing playmaker like that. It just so happens that in that offense, they don't have one person acting as play maker like that, they have ball movment set up by his penetration and Tim Duncans ability to draw double teams. They don't do what some of these offenses do and just have the player shoot as soon as they get the ball off of a kickout from Parker. The guy that gets the ball off of the kick out, then continues to move it around until the Spurs get the best possible shot. If they played the one kick out and shoot type game, you best believe that Parkers assists would be way up. So I will take the better attacker, defensive player, passer, and the smarter player in Parker over Arenas for my team any day.
It's all a matter of team needs. Tony is needed to be a setup man on San Antonio, so he looks like a great PG. Gilbert is needed to score in Washington, so he looks like a great PG. If you were to put Parker on Washington and Arenas on San Antonio, I think Arenas would do better in Parker's spot than Parker would do in Arenas's spot.Gilbert Arenas is the better all around point guard b/c when worse comes to worse and the game is tied with 5 seconds to go, if you tell me you'd rather have Tony Parker than Gilbert Arenas, you are CRAZY.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rodenbo @ Dec 22 2006, 11:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's all a matter of team needs. Tony is needed to be a setup man on San Antonio, so he looks like a great PG. Gilbert is needed to score in Washington, so he looks like a great PG. If you were to put Parker on Washington and Arenas on San Antonio, I think Arenas would do better in Parker's spot than Parker would do in Arenas's spot.Gilbert Arenas is the better all around point guard b/c when worse comes to worse and the game is tied with 5 seconds to go, if you tell me you'd rather have Tony Parker than Gilbert Arenas, you are CRAZY.</div>It doesn't matter what situation I am in, I would rather have Tony Parker as my starting point guard for any team than I would want Arenas. Arenas would be more likely to take a bad shot, over three people in that sitation than Parker is. Parker would be more likely to find an open player on his team for an open shot than Arenas would be. I completely disagree, I think Arenas would ruin the chemistry that the Spurs have with Parker. His wanting to come down the court, and shoot alot more often would impact the ball movement and ability of this Spurs team on offense. Meanwhile, if Parker was sent to Washington, I think he would fit in nicely with that running scheme they have there. Parker has proven in the past that he can be a running point guard, his speed in the open court and with the ball would help him get the ball down court faster than Arenas could, and he would be able to hit the whole. In the half court, he would be able to set up the offense with alot of open shots because they have other talented scorers on that Washington team besides Arenas. Parker would also help to bring a little bit more defense to that Wizards team, than they have now.
Arenas is one of the best slashing guards in the NBA, aside from Allen Iverson. The amount of shots he takes overshadows that but when Arenas drives, he either scores or draws a foul. If he could learn to cut the long shots down slightly, he could be the biggest threat in the NBA, b/c he can hit the long ball but would cut more often, which would make guys back off of him, and he'd be open for those treys.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tmgbball15 @ Dec 22 2006, 11:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wow, this is offensive towards Gilbert Arenas. Arenas is one of the top 10 players in the league and can score at will. Hes not the best shooter but neither is Parker. Most importantly Gilbert Arenas is the center piece of his team and is constantly double teamed, while Parker is the second or third option.</div>What? Arenas is a very good shooter.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rodenbo @ Dec 22 2006, 12:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Arenas is one of the best slashing guards in the NBA, aside from Allen Iverson. The amount of shots he takes overshadows that but when Arenas drives, he either scores or draws a foul. If he could learn to cut the long shots down slightly, he could be the biggest threat in the NBA, b/c he can hit the long ball but would cut more often, which would make guys back off of him, and he'd be open for those treys.</div>Arenas is one of the best, but Tony Parker is perhaps the best slashing point guard in the NBA. There is hardly anyone that can stay in front of him when he tries to get by them. Tony Parker is so fast, and has such good handles, he beats most everyone off of the dribble. That is what helps get this San Antonio offense going alot of the time, his ability to slash and kick out to get the ball in movement.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (valo35 @ Dec 22 2006, 12:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Arenas is one of the best, but Tony Parker is perhaps the best slashing guard in the NBA. There is hardly anyone that can stay in front of him when he tries to get by them. Tony Parker is so fast, and has such good handles, he beats most everyone off of the dribble. That is what helps get this San Antonio offense going alot of the time, his ability to slash and kick out to get the ball in movement.</div>No no no no no. Tony Parker is the 2nd QUICKEST maybe (Allen Iverson still has him there), but Allen Iverson, Steve Nash and Gilbert Arenas are all FASTER than him. There is a difference. Quickness is speed off the dribble, and yes Iverson #1 and Parker is #2, but Parker is not faster than Arenas. Gilbert has great handles as well, he crosses people up just as often, if not more often than Tony Parker.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Dec 22 2006, 01:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What? Arenas is a very good shooter.</div>I was thinking the exact same thing lol. He has stroke for days.ANYWAYS, I'd take G.A. over TP anyday. Tony's okay, but Gilbert is on a whole nother level.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rodenbo @ Dec 22 2006, 12:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No no no no no. Tony Parker is the 2nd QUICKEST maybe (Allen Iverson still has him there), but Allen Iverson, Steve Nash and Gilbert Arenas are all FASTER than him. There is a difference. Quickness is speed off the dribble, and yes Iverson #1 and Parker is #2, but Parker is not faster than Arenas. Gilbert has great handles as well, he crosses people up just as often, if not more often than Tony Parker.</div>Being able to cross people up is just fine, Tony Parker is not trying to completley cross people up. Arenas is alot more of a show boat in that department, where Parker is just trying to beat his man off the dribble. Steve Nash is not faster than Parker, and I have serious about whether Arenas is faster than Parker. As far as pure speed and quickness, there are not many in the NBA as fast as Parker. Devin Harris, maybe Leandro Barbosa, Allen Iverson can be in there. Arenas and Nash are no where near in there for speed or quickness.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (valo35 @ Dec 22 2006, 12:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Being able to cross people up is just fine, Tony Parker is not trying to completley cross people up. Arenas is alot more of a show boat in that department, where Parker is just trying to beat his man off the dribble. Steve Nash is not faster than Parker, and I have serious about whether Arenas is faster than Parker. As far as pure speed and quickness, there are not many in the NBA as fast as Parker. Devin Harris, maybe Leandro Barbosa, Allen Iverson can be in there. Arenas and Nash are no where near in there for speed or quickness.</div>I don't know which Tony Parker you've been watching if you think he is faster than Steve Nash, Allen Iverson, and Gilbert Arenas. And as far as saying Devin Harris and Leandro Barbosa are "maybe" faster than Parker, but AI and Arenas aren't, what are you smoking?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rodenbo @ Dec 22 2006, 12:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know which Tony Parker you've been watching if you think he is faster than Steve Nash, Allen Iverson, and Gilbert Arenas. And as far as saying Devin Harris and Leandro Barbosa are "maybe" faster than Parker, but AI and Arenas aren't, what are you smoking?</div>Did you watch the conference finals two years ago when Parker was faster than Nash, and they had to keep trying to put other people on Nash because Parker kept taking Nash off the dribble? In the open court, the Spurs were able to run with the Suns for a couple of games that series and win, because of how much faster Parker was than Nash. Your trying to make me look bad, but you have no proof for that claim that Nash is faster. Last year in the semi-finals Parker had Harris on him and didn't out run Harris at all. Harris was able to keep up and stay in front of Parker most of the series. Both of those two are faster than Nash. Every time Parker comes to Orlando, he is the fastest player on the court by a mile. That is compared to Arenas who is just barely faster than Nelson and Francis was. So before you want to go calling people out and asking what they are watching, you need to evaluate what you have watched.
Whoa whoa, I wasn't trying to call you out or make you look bad. That was more of a playful "what are you smoking." Like I said, Tony is QUICKER than them, but as for just plain speed I'd go with Arenas and Nash. Speed is running, if they are running without the ball, Arenas and Nash are faster.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rodenbo @ Dec 22 2006, 01:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Whoa whoa, I wasn't trying to call you out or make you look bad. That was more of a playful "what are you smoking." Like I said, Tony is QUICKER than them, but as for just plain speed I'd go with Arenas and Nash. Speed is running, if they are running without the ball, Arenas and Nash are faster.</div>First off, being quicker with the ball helps you be much better at slashing to the rim. It's hard to stay in front of someone that is faster with the ball.Second off, Parker is widely considered one of the fastest if not the fastest players in the NBA. Even without the ball he is one of the fastest players in the NBA. If you remember, all of the people last year kept saying how they would want to line Harris, Parker, and Barbosa up and have them sprint to see who is fastest. Nash is not that fast as far as pure speed goes.
You may be right about the Nash in that aspect as the greatness of his passing may be twisting my mind. But I still have to say Arenas is faster, I'm sorry.
