# Since Marbury Proclaimed he is the Best Point Guard



## showstopper496 (Nov 28, 2003)

The Knicks are 1-9 and Jason Kidd is averaging 13 PPG, 9.9RPG, 9.3 APG. Marbury should just keep his mouth shut


----------



## thegreatnero (Jan 8, 2005)

Yeah, look like JKidd hasn't slowed down much. Just needed someone to light a fire under his ***, and Marbury was the one to do it.


----------



## Turkish Delight (Mar 17, 2004)

I don't get it really, didn't the reporter ask him if he's the best point guard? What is he suppose to say? No?
Come on, give the guy a break.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Turkish Delight</b>!
> I don't get it really, didn't the reporter ask him if he's the best point guard? What is he suppose to say? No?
> Come on, give the guy a break.


Actually, that would have been a damn admirable thing to do. To see a big name player actually show humility and admit that he has never proven to be the best point in the NBA, that would have been resfreshing.


----------



## Crossword (Jun 7, 2002)

Well he coulda been a bit more humble about it... just a bit.


----------



## Debt Collector (Mar 13, 2003)

knicks just cant get a break


----------



## Charlie Brown (Oct 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Turkish Delight</b>!
> I don't get it really, didn't the reporter ask him if he's the best point guard? What is he suppose to say? No?
> Come on, give the guy a break.


JKidd usually responds to such questions with the.."Well there are a lot of great PG's out there, Dwayne Wade is playing great, etc...". 

Starbury was just being Starbury.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PSUmtj112</b>!
> 
> 
> JKidd usually responds to such questions with the.."Well there are a lot of great PG's out there, Dwayne Wade is playing great, etc...".
> ...


Starbury was just being honest. 

Don't you think when Jason Kidd was asked questions like that, he didn't truly believe he was the best PG? Please. 

I'd much rather someone say what they truly feel than be fake and dance around a question.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
> 
> 
> Starbury was just being honest.
> ...


Being humble isn't necessarily being fake. Marbury could learn a thing or two.


----------



## Charlie Brown (Oct 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
> 
> 
> Starbury was just being honest.
> ...


It's called tact.


----------



## Debt Collector (Mar 13, 2003)

if steph ever realizes he's at best an average three point shooter, he'd instantly become the best PG in the game


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PSUmtj112</b>!
> 
> 
> It's called tact.


It's called playing the media. I've always thought that was weak. Say what you truly feel.

This is similar to when T-Mac called himself a top 5 player in the league. So many people got on him for saying what was essentially true. It was silly to get on him for the same reason it's silly to get on Marbury for his comments. 

Now I'm not saying that Marbury is the best PG, but it certainly is arguable, so I don't see why him stating his opinion should be held against him.


----------



## Turkish Delight (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
> 
> 
> It's called playing the media. I've always thought that was weak. Say what you truly feel.
> ...


Exactly, let him say what he wants, at least he answered the damn question.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>jmk</b>!
> 
> 
> Being humble isn't necessarily being fake. Marbury could learn a thing or two.


It's a form of being fake. If you flat-out know that you're the best, and you're asked who the best is and you start talking about other players, you're being fake. Right?

I'm not saying go around and brag that you're the best if you feel you are. But if you believe you are and you're asked the question, shouldn't you say what you truly feel? Isn't honesty the best policy?


----------



## LuckyAC (Aug 12, 2004)

TMAc is a top 5 player, Marbury's just a joke.


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LuckyAC</b>!
> Marbury's just a joke.


:yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: 

He's a scrub as John used to say. :yes:


----------



## Charlie Brown (Oct 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
> 
> 
> It's called playing the media. I've always thought that was weak. Say what you truly feel.
> ...


Saying what you truly feel is not always the best way to appoach a situation/question...*especially when you have a huge ego*.

Moreso, the difference in the way Kidd and Starbury answered the question also reflects on how each point plays the game. Starbury is not afraid to "speak his mind" or "play his game", even if it isolates teammates. Kidd is more willing than to deflect attention to others and/or let others shine.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PSUmtj112</b>!
> 
> 
> Saying what you truly feel is not always the best way to appoach a situation/question...*especially when you have a huge ego*.


Sure, sometimes white lies or jumping around a question are necessities in life. This isn't one of those times.

The best thing Marbury could've said is: "There are a lot of great points out there, but I feel that I'm the best." That would've been both tactful and staying true to oneself. But he didn't.

However, I much prefer Marbury's "I'm the best PG, period" to Kidd's "Well, there are a lot of point guards out there playing very well...."

Both feel they're the best, but only one says so. Yet he receives the criticism?



> Moreso, the difference in the way Kidd and Starbury answered the question also reflects on how each point plays the game. Starbury is not afraid to "speak his mind" or "play his game", even if it isolates teammates. Kidd is more willing than to deflect attention to others and/or let others shine.


Marbury's a very willing passer. You don't average 8+ assists for your career unless you're looking to pass, no matter how much you dominate the ball. He's just had the bad luck of having had to do a lot of scoring for pretty much every team he's played for.

It's always seemed to me as if the scoring point guards never get the proper due they deserve, simply because it people feel that since they score so much, they aren't "true" point guards. Marbury's a true point guard. He just happens to be one that scores the ball very well. Marbury's scoring and passing ability combined make him practically unstoppable when he decides to drive.


----------



## LuckyAC (Aug 12, 2004)

Nobody has any problems with Marbury's stats, its his results. Marbury has never been on a good team, Kidd has never been on a bad team in his prime. They actually switched teams, and their teams also switched how good they were.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LuckyAC</b>!
> Nobody has any problems with Marbury's stats, its his results. Marbury has never been on a good team, Kidd has never been on a bad team in his prime. They actually switched teams, and their teams also switched how good they were.


They didn't work with the same rosters.

Marbury's lost a lot, yes, but he's also been on some bad teams. People like talking about Marbury being a "loser". but nary a mention of him nearly single-handedly leading the Suns past the eventual champion Spurs in the playoffs. 

Marbury is a drive-and-dish PG. He excels at that. He needs to be surrounded by jumpshooters. He's never been on a team built to his main strength, so he's never had the opportunity to show what he can really do. That's scary when you consider his career stats.


----------



## Charlie Brown (Oct 22, 2002)

> Sure, sometimes white lies or jumping around a question are necessities in life. This isn't one of those times.
> 
> The best thing Marbury could've said is: "There are a lot of great points out there, but I feel that I'm the best." That would've been both tactful and staying true to oneself. But he didn't.
> 
> ...


I would not call it criticism per se, but the way a player answer's questions and their overall attitude does have an affect on that players team/teammates. 



> Marbury's a very willing passer. You don't average 8+ assists for your career unless you're looking to pass, no matter how much you dominate the ball. He's just had the bad luck of having had to do a lot of scoring for pretty much every team he's played for.
> 
> It's always seemed to me as if the scoring point guards never get the proper due they deserve, simply because it people feel that since they score so much, they aren't "true" point guards. Marbury's a true point guard. He just happens to be one that scores the ball very well. Marbury's scoring and passing ability combined make him practically unstoppable when he decides to drive.


I've always said that Marbury is a great player. It's just that he is a poor leader. He isolates teammates.


----------



## shoprite (Dec 18, 2002)

Look at what Nash has done to PHX and what Marbury did to them. The best point guard is the one who controls temple, finds teammates in great position, leads team to win. Marbury just dominates the ball so much, scoring is his first priority and makes his teammates uninterested sometimes. He's never an great point guard in my book. The best? Not even close.


----------



## Wild_Wookiee (May 7, 2004)

If Marbury is "the best" point guard in the NBA then why do the knicks have such a bad record?


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LuckyAC</b>!
> Nobody has any problems with Marbury's stats, its his results. Marbury has never been on a good team, Kidd has never been on a bad team in his prime. They actually switched teams, and their teams also switched how good they were.


Actually they both got better. The suns had a drastic change when Kidd left losing him, Delk (who was decent at the time), and Cliff Robinson. They then had a bad year, and then had a better year the next when they acquired Amare, almost beating the soon-to-be champion Spurs.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Wild_Wookiee</b>!
> If Marbury is "the best" point guard in the NBA then why do the knicks have such a bad record?


Bad players; the same reason every team with a bad record has a bad record.


----------



## shoprite (Dec 18, 2002)

Bad players is not really an excuse, and the players on Knisck aren't really that bad. The best point guard should make bad players look normal, good players look super. Marbury can never do that. In stead, he made Amare look normal in Pheonix in Amare's 2nd year. He had Amare, Matrix and JJ on his team and they were dead last in West conference before they shipped him. Now the Suns are an elite team with Nash running the point. Marbury is not even close to the best point guard, and he won't be because he still doesn't realize it.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Bulls are 8-1 since Marbury's comments, and Kirk Hinrich is averaging:

16.3 pts 8.5 ast 

He isn't the best but he is getting up there.

And for top 5 point guard in the league.

1. Steve Nash
2. Allen Iverson
3. Jason Kidd
4. Stephon Marbury
5. Kirk Hinrich


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> Bad players; the same reason every team with a bad record has a bad record.


Marbury with Nets go to lottery

next year swap Jason kidd for Marbury straight up, Nets go to Finals.

Its obviously Kidd, he is one of the best positive difference makers in the league.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> 
> 
> Marbury with Nets go to lottery
> ...


Yeah, because that was the only change the Nets underwent.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

The Knicks have a good enough line-up that they should be able to make the playoffs in the East. It's not like it's Marbury surrounded by trash, he has Jamal Crawford/Kurt Thomas/Allen Houston/Nazr Muhammid/Sweetney/Ariza. They were picked by everybody before the start of the season to be a top 5 East team. At the very least they should be an 8th seed.

The problem with Marbury seems to be leadership. Did anybody hear about the lockerroom spat he had with Kurt Thomas? I just don't think he's a good leader. The guy seems to alienate his teammates, and Knicks fans say he looks disinterested some games. He also doesn't seem to like taking the last shot, he's passed up the final shot too many times this year which is not the sign of a great, confident player. 

He's not the best PG in the league because he's the #1 guy on his team and they don't win games or show any heart. If your a scoring PG, it's important to win games or your not going to get as much respect as you might deserve. It's a fans natural instinct to think that a scoring PG isn't helping his team and if your not winning games that just proves the point. Marbury has been losing games his whole career, will that ever change?


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

How do PGs make bad players normal, by the way? All they can do to help their players is find them when they are wide open, or draw the defense so that their teammates become open. Marbury does that, he's one of the best drive and dish PGs in the league, if not the very best.

From there, it's up to the players to make the shots. Marbury can't turn Tim Thomas into a decent jumpshooter. Neither can Kidd or Nash or anyone else.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> How do PGs make bad players normal, by the way? All they can do to help their players is find them when they are wide open, or draw the defense so that their teammates become open. Marbury does that, he's one of the best drive and dish PGs in the league, if not the very best.
> 
> From there, it's up to the players to make the shots. Marbury can't turn Tim Thomas into a decent jumpshooter. Neither can Kidd or Nash or anyone else.


The fact that Marbury gets 8 assists tells you that he is setting up his teammates and they are making shots. 

But Marbury is the teams #1 option and team captain. That means outside of being the PG he takes on the added responsibilty of being the man in clutch time and that makes him more responsible for his teams wins and losses than the average PG.

That's why theirs the preconcieved notion of scoring PGs not being able to make their teammates better. If your a scoring PG that people hold you that much more responsible for your teams wins and losses.


----------



## shoprite (Dec 18, 2002)

What I said is makes bad player LOOK normal and good player LOOK super. Just like Kidd mad Kmart look worth max, Nash made Amare look like in the league of KG and TD, although they are both not. Marbury can't do that. All Marbury does to get his assists are drive and dish. Thomas can't hist jumpers so he doesn't look good. But Nash and Kidd do different things to different players, they'd get the ball to Thomas for a layup instead of make him taking jump shots.


----------



## NYKBaller (Oct 29, 2003)

Marbury was good enough to make Amare look like ROY


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

Marbury is a joke. Gilbert Arenas eats pieces of **** like him for breakfast


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NYKBaller</b>!
> Marbury was good enough to make Amare look like ROY


I'm pretty sure it was Amare that did that.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jmk</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure it was Amare that did that.


So when it's a point guard you like, like Kidd, he helps in teammate success (makes them better) but when its one you don't like, you're pretty sure teammate success was none of his doing.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

It's real convenient to dump on Marbury now when his team is struggling, but mind you he's still a top 5 Point Guard. He obviously isn't the best, but he's not crazy for thinking so either.


----------



## LuckyAC (Aug 12, 2004)

I think JMK's point is that Amare could have gotten 13.5 ppg with any point guard. Without Nash, he would less likely get 25.5 ppg. 

I think the argument of how they help the statistics of individual teammates is hard to prove, but Kidd's TEAMS always have far more success, even without much difference in talent.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> So when it's a point guard you like, like Kidd, he helps in teammate success (makes them better) but when its one you don't like, you're pretty sure teammate success was none of his doing.


Not at all. You may want to credit it to a player's development, but Amare hasn't gotten any worse since Marbury left. Lucky got what I was trying to say. I didn't bring up Kidd there, but we'll touch on it anyways. Kenyon is playing significantly worse now that he is not with Jason. I don't know anyone that thinks Marbury made Amare _look_ like the ROY. Most people will agree that it was Amare that did that. When I think of making teammates better, I never think of Stephon.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jmk</b>!
> 
> I didn't bring up Kidd there, but we'll touch on it anyways. Kenyon is playing significantly worse now that he is not with Jason.


Richard Jefferson didn't, however. It's this picking and choosing of examples that people use to prove intangible qualities, but it's purely based on convenience.

"Everyone can clearly tell Amare just developed," yet Kidd "helped Jefferson's development." Even though both players (Stoudemire and Jefferson) started their careers as rookies with the two point guards, first flourished with the two point guards and both have shown themselves to be successful without the two point guards.

There are clear double-standards here, and they're generally based on bias. I'm not singling you out...I think most or all fans engage in it, especially over intangibles which can't be proven, thus making them ripe for selective memory in determing who has cherished abilities like, "making teammates better" or "winning" or "being a leader."


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Richard Jefferson didn't, however. It's this picking and choosing of examples that people use to prove intangible qualities, but it's purely based on convenience.
> ...


I will ask you this. Do you think it was Stephon that made Amare into a ROY, or do you think that was mostly Stoudemire himself? The way the original poster stated it, he made it sound as if Marbury was solely responsible for Amare's rookie season.

In regards to RJ, he has stated himself that he would not be half the player he has become if it were not Kidd being by his side. That may or may not be true, but I credit a good amount of Richard's continuing development to his top notch workout regimen, especially his offseason progression.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jmk</b>!
> 
> 
> I will ask you this. Do you think it was Stephon that made Amare into a ROY, or do you think that was mostly Stoudemire himself? The way the original poster stated it, he made it sound as if Marbury was solely responsible for Amare's rookie season.


I doubt the original poster meant it precisely that way, because obviously *no* player is entirely made by anyone else. Every player is, first, a credit to himself and, at best, secondarily a credit to another player.

I think he was just making a point that players *have* done well playing with Marbury. Whether one credits that to Marbury's ability to make people better or not probably has something to do with whether one is predisposed to thinking of Marbury as a guy who does that.

So, to answer your question, I obviously don't think Marbury "made" Amare into a ROY, as though Amare had no bearing on it, himself. I do think that Marbury's ability to draw the defense and his willingness and proficiency in passing helped a straight-from-high-school rookie have immediate success where he may not have, had he not played with a teammate capable of doing that. Either way, Amare is extremely talented and would have had success at some point.

I think Marbury made a bad PR move (but a smart financial move, which is all that would matter in the non-athlete world) in leaving Minnesota and that made his reputation. He's since had bad luck in the teams he's landed on (with the exception of Phoenix, where he did have success) and that bad luck has enhanced the (unfair, in my eyes) reputation he forged leaving Minnesota.



> In regards to RJ, he has stated himself that he would not be half the player he has become if it were not Kidd being by his side.


That's great and I have no doubt Kidd was a benefit to RJ. Great point guards, as Kidd is, are a big benefit, especially to raw players.


----------



## Crossword (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>One on One</b>!
> Marbury is a joke. Gilbert Arenas eats pieces of **** like him for breakfast


Except Arenas averages 3 assists less...


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>showstopper496</b>!
> The Knicks are 1-9 and Jason Kidd is averaging 13 PPG, 9.9RPG, 9.3 APG. Marbury should just keep his mouth shut


Maybe he's the biggest ballhog, but he's far from the best point guard.


----------



## pErSiSt (Jul 16, 2004)

good job starbury


----------



## DJRaz (Aug 20, 2003)

it's a simplification but it's true: marbury is a loser. he's not even close to the best point guard because he can't get his team to win. just about none of them. period. excellent point guards make the existing system around them run at it's peak. marbury is not that kind of player, and because he has failed to realize that about himself and either adjust or work himself into a new position to better help his team he's a loser. and any "floor general" that declares themselves the best then goes 1-9 should be seen as the scam that he is.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DJRaz</b>!
> it's a simplification but it's true: marbury is a loser. he's not even close to the best point guard because he can't get his team to win. just about none of them. period. excellent point guards make the existing system around them run at it's peak. marbury is not that kind of player, and because he has failed to realize that about himself and either adjust or work himself into a new position to better help his team he's a loser. and any "floor general" that declares themselves the best then goes 1-9 should be seen as the scam that he is.


Jason Kidd's team isn't winning, is he a loser too?


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DJRaz</b>!
> it's a simplification but it's true: marbury is a loser. he's not even close to the best point guard because he can't get his team to win. just about none of them. period. *excellent point guards make the existing system around them run at it's peak.* marbury is not that kind of player, and because he has failed to realize that about himself and either adjust or work himself into a new position to better help his team he's a loser. and any "floor general" that declares themselves the best then goes 1-9 should be seen as the scam that he is.


"excellent point guards make the existing system around them run at it's peak."

Wrong. How do you think Kidd would do if he was stuck in a half-court system? Because of the coach, the lack of athleticism, age, whatever the reason... he isn't able to often run the break. He's not nearly as good in half-court sets as he is on the break, so what's he supposed to do? He can't adjust his game to fit the system, because it's simply not his strength. You think a point guard can change his entire philosophy and style just like that? If you have an elite point guard, you build around him or add a couple of pieces to bring out his full effectiveness. You don't force him to change his entire style of play.

Marbury is much better in the half-court than he is on the fast-break. You need to surround him with jumpshooters, not athletes. None of the teams he's been on have been built to take advantage of his considerable drive-and-dish talent.

If Marbury was running the point in Seattle right now, I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see him averaging 12+ apg.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I'm not arguing one way or the other, but what was Phoenix's record with Marbury running the point there?


----------



## djtoneblaze (Nov 22, 2004)

Marbury IS the best point in the league, so why should he feel like he's not?


----------



## townknave (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> I'm not arguing one way or the other, but what was Phoenix's record with Marbury running the point there?


In his only full year there, which was Amare's rookie year, they won 44 games and took the Spurs to 6 games, which was as far as the EC champion Nets took them that year.

It's not like Marbury can't win if he has talent around him... he just has never had that much for a sustained period of time.


----------



## sweet_constipation (Jul 3, 2004)

Why take it so seriously?

This is the same person that said comparing Amare to KG was like comparing Jordan to Mario Elie.
Either he just says stuff for the sake of attention, or he really isn't that bright.


----------

