Pacers ganna give Paul George give 5 years 90 million....

I don't think he's a LeBron/Durant/Paul superstar. Sue me.

 

His career PER of 16 prior to his 18 game streak means he's not a "superstar" to me yet. I'd argue that a 25 PER isn't even superstar level until you see it for multiple years, let alone 18 games to start a season. I'm just not ready to crown him the next LeBron/Durant/Paul, and to put him in that category. I don't know why that has posters so upset to the point the point me out specifically in their post. I don't find it to be an unreasonable opinion after 18 games of elite play.

 

Duncan and Parker have won multiple titles. Durant's last three playoffs: PERs of 24, 26, 27. That's superstar level play.

I do get the feeling that if George was a Blazer, instead of crowning him a superstar many of the same posters would be picking holes in his game, saying he shoots too much, how he disappeared against Miami, needs to elevate his game in the playoffs, etc. etc.

 

Fair enough, that makes more sense to me, I thought you were only using that one game as your sole criteria for your reasoning. We'll see if he can keep it up for the rest of the season, personally I think he can, but possibly you're right and he cannot, will be fun either way to see him play the rest of the season as that Pacers team seems to be pretty much for real.

 

That's just because many of the posters in here seem to loathe the Blazers more than love them, it's an interesting dichotomy in here.

 

I don't know of one regular poster in here that loathes the Blazers.

 

If I'm giving the impression that he isn't a very good player, that's not my intention or my sentiment. I'm only saying that I tend to want to see "superstars" play at a Top 5 level for a few seasons. I don't consider guys like LMA/Love/Deron Williams/Paul Pierce/Damian Lillard/Paul George to be superstar players at this point. Some because they may be not ready yet (George/Lillard), and others because they don't have the complete games to be true superstars (LMA/Love/Pierce/Williams).

Superstar is a subjective term, though. Maybe 3rd-team NBA = 'superstar' for some. For me, I look at a superstar as a perennial threat to win MVP.

 

Off the top of my head, I know of 3 regular posters who rejoice when the Blazers fail and make excuses when they succeed.

Of course, those three posters are actually only one person.

BNM

 

And yet another misguided expert who thinks Paul George is a superstar...

BNM

 

Typical PapaG. Things aren't going your way, so you change the argument. First, Paul George wasn't a superstar, not he's not on the same level as the top 3 players in the league. So, in your world can their only be 3 superstars at any one point in time?

BNM

 

Hmm ... I thought I posted this already.

 

Wow, that's one pretty tough standard. So, by your definition, most first ballot Hall of Famers, multiple time MVP winners and and members of the original Dream Team were not superstars. John Stockton, Steve Nash, Scottie Pippen and Clyde Drexler all had very long careers and were first ballot Hall of Famers, but between them, not a single PER => 25 season in their long storied careers. Gary Payton = ZERO PER => 25.0 seasons. Patrick Ewing => 1 PER = 25.0 season. Were NONE of these guys superstars in their respective primes? Not one of them meets your definition of a superstar. Even Kobe Bryant, one of the greatest players of his generation, only has 3 PER => 5.0 seasons in his 17 year career, and didn't have his first PER => 25.0 season until his 7th year in the league.

It's seems like you've created a deliberately unrealistic criterion just to bolster your argument. The problem is, that criterion excludes many all-time greats, who were clearly superstars.

BNM

 

And again, changing the argument. See my post above. Steve Nash won back-to-back MVPs, but by your own definition of needing multiple PER => 25.0 seasons, he doesn't qualify as a superstar - or does he?

In your opinion, how many superstars are there currently in the NBA? Who are they?

BNM

 

Are you saying Paul George is at Steve Nash's level?

 

And, right on queue, the PapaG strawman. You're more predictable than Mixum. Thread not going your way, change the subject.

BNM

 

I considered Clyde Drexler a borderline 'superstar', by the way. He was nowhere near the class of a Bird/Magic/Jordan/Barkley/Hakeem, but that's my subjective opinion.

 

"Thread not going your way".

I don't consider Paul George to be a "superstar" at this point. You can keep doing your cut/paste link thing, but it's not going to change my opinion of Paul George, as of right now, being a "superstar". Why do you act so irrationally when somebody dares to have a different opinion that yours?

Superstar is subjective. I've already stated that George is a "very good" player. I also said I had doubts about him after last year's playoff performance in Game 7. You rebutted with George Hill and David West. That wasn't a strawman by you?

 

No, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I'm saying by YOUR definition, Steve Nash was not a superstar. Neither as John Stockton, Scottie Pippen, Clyde Drexler, Gary Payton or Patrick Ewing.

BNM

 

I also said "perennial contender for MVP."

Ewing, Pippen, Stockton, and Payton aren't top-tier superstars to me, either, at the level of what I think are superstars.

 

But, in spite of ZERO PER => 25.0 seasons, you still consider him a superstar. Yes, I think most people would. He was a member of the original Dream Team, voted one of the 50 greatest players in the history of the NBA and was a first ballot Hal of Famer. Same for Stockton, Pippen and Patrick Ewing, but none of them meet your definition of a superstar having multiple PER => 25.0 seasons.

BNM