# Quentin Takes A Verbal Shot At Steph?



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

> For the Knicks, just getting to the playoffs by using a faster offense would represent dramatic improvement. But to ask them to do what Phoenix does seems a little much. No Knick knows that better than ex-Sun Quentin Richardson, who is skeptical that Stephon Marbury could morph into Nash, the reigning two-time MVP.
> 
> "That's a hard job to ask (Stephon), especially the way that Steve Nash does it," Richardson said earlier in camp. "That's something that Steve has a passion for. He gets satisfaction getting guys the ball.
> 
> ...


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/460803p-387704c.html


----------



## ToddMacCulloch11 (May 31, 2003)

Well he's right...if they're going to go with a running offense like the Suns, then everyone is going to have to put the team first instead of themself.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

not much of a verbal shot, just stating facts...stephon does have a shoot-first mentality...


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

bootstrenf said:


> not much of a verbal shot, just stating facts...stephon does have a shoot-first mentality...


His career average in terms of assists is 8, so I'm not buying the shoot first mentality.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

Kitty said:


> His career average in terms of assists is 8, so I'm not buying the shoot first mentality.



i'm familiar with his career averages...so you are saying he is a pass-first point?


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

bootstrenf said:


> i'm familiar with his career averages...so you are saying he is a pass-first point?


IMO, I think the problem with Steph is his motor mouth and his attitude when dealing with his teammates and when you can't get along with your guys you are bound to catch some L's. A lot of people have this big misconception of him as being selfish on the court, I just don't see it nor do I see him as a big chucker.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

Kitty said:


> IMO, I think the problem with Steph is his motor mouth and his attitude when dealing with his teammates and when you can't get along with your guys you are bound to catch some L's. A lot of people have this big misconception of him as being selfish on the court, I just don't see it nor do I see him as a big chucker.



fair enough...


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Q does have a point.


----------



## kconn61686 (Jul 29, 2005)

> His career average in terms of assists is 8, so I'm not buying the shoot first mentality.



allen iverson averaged 7.5 assists last year, but he is the furthest from a pass-first player. both of their assist numbers are incredibly high only because they dominate the ball so much


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

kconn61686 said:


> allen iverson averaged 7.5 assists last year, but he is the furthest from a pass-first player. both of their assist numbers are incredibly high only because they dominate the ball so much


there is a world of differences between 33 and 7 and 20 and 8 as far as shots to passes.

people generally want to make pg's chuckers when they are the best scorers on the team when in fact they are just the best option...its the pg's job to put points on the board . you cant make non scorers into scorers. If there were players who were being misuded under marbury then maybe something could be said, but that is really never the case.

marbury is a pg in my opinion a a little pass /shoot mode happy and not enough of a balance at times....but he is definitely not a chucker, 20 and 8 really seems about right for his talents and the talents of the people whom he has had to pass to over the course of his career.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Pulease.......*

I expect more from you, miss Kitty. Not all assists are created equal. When, where, and how are just as important...if not more important than how many. Not saying Marbury is selfish because I don't think he really is, in the true sense of the word. Kconn is very right, as well. When the ball is always in your mitts, you are going to have to have some assists. Marbury's best asset is his scoring. Trying to mesh it into a winning formula is the challenge.


----------



## PriceIsWright (Oct 11, 2006)

This in a way is also why the Rockets traded away Mike James for Rafer Alston. James will always been a scoring point guard, which fundamentally does little for the team. Alston is nowhere near the type of scorer james is, but he is a genuine passing pg.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> there is a world of differences between 33 and 7 and 20 and 8 as far as shots to passes.
> 
> people generally want to make pg's chuckers when they are the best scorers on the team when in fact they are just the best option...its the pg's job to put points on the board . you cant make non scorers into scorers. If there were players who were being misuded under marbury then maybe something could be said, but that is really never the case.
> 
> marbury is a pg in my opinion a a little pass /shoot mode happy and not enough of a balance at times....but he is definitely not a chucker, 20 and 8 really seems about right for his talents and the talents of the people whom he has had to pass to over the course of his career.


Aww damn Grinch you beat me too it. Good post!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

PriceIsWright said:


> This in a way is also why the Rockets traded away Mike James for Rafer Alston. James will always been a scoring point guard, which fundamentally does little for the team. Alston is nowhere near the type of scorer james is, but he is a genuine passing pg.


the nba doesn't work like that . there is no better type of point guard just players who fit better with their teammates and what nba has become at that particular time.

teams that cant score need point guards who can score and teams with a good amount of scoring generally need more passing out of their pg's.

on a team with few finshers and good outsde shooter you would even see nash shoot more , or you would see him lose more , i'm willing to bet he'd pick winning more and would shoot more since he is a capable scorer.

the nba tends to go in cycles , between 1995 and 2002 drafts there were 15 pg drafted in the top 10 and maybe 1 could be considered a pass 1st pg (jason williams...you could stretch it to 2 , if you want to count andre miller ) but in the last couple of years there has been raymond felton , chris paul and deron williams who were all touted as pass 1st in the year they were drafted.

the rules have changed a bit making it easier for pg's to wreak havoc , especially pg's looking to pass so there is now a switch in philoshophy, but it always changes back because scoring is always at a premium in this league.


----------



## kconn61686 (Jul 29, 2005)

teams lead by score-first Points usually dont end up higher than say a 6/7 seed in the playoffs as it is. Players like Baron Davis, Stephon Marbury and Steve Francis, Mike Bibby, etc- teams are becoming more and more reluctant to take these types of players. Even AI generated little interest this summer besides boston and atlanta. that style is just not that successful, as PRICEISWRIGHT mentioned to a degree


----------



## EwingStarksOakley94 (May 13, 2003)

kconn61686 said:


> teams lead by score-first Points usually dont end up higher than say a 6/7 seed in the playoffs as it is. Players like Baron Davis, Stephon Marbury and Steve Francis, Mike Bibby, etc- teams are becoming more and more reluctant to take these types of players. Even AI generated little interest this summer besides boston and atlanta. that style is just not that successful, as PRICEISWRIGHT mentioned to a degree


I remember Mike Bibby's teams fairing pretty darn well up until the last 2 years. It's all about the chemistry and combination of players that makes the difference. Obviously it's harder to come up with a winning formula with a scoring pg, but it ain't impossible. 

And I'm sure the reason AI is still a Sixer is the furthest thing from a lack of interest. Probably more like, Philly not being able to get equal value for him.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

kconn61686 said:


> teams lead by score-first Points usually dont end up higher than say a 6/7 seed in the playoffs as it is. Players like Baron Davis, Stephon Marbury and Steve Francis, Mike Bibby, etc- teams are becoming more and more reluctant to take these types of players. Even AI generated little interest this summer besides boston and atlanta. that style is just not that successful, as PRICEISWRIGHT mentioned to a degree



how many titles do teams win when their 1st or 2nd best player is a pass 1st pg?

nash ...0

Kidd...0
stockton ...0

a truly good pass 1st point guard hasn't won a title in decades.

they are no more sucessful than any1 else such as iverson or bibby ...its not the type of player its the team you are on and how you fit on it.

yet...a couple of shoot 1st pg's in ...tony parker 2 & chauncey billups 1 have won it all...are they better players than nash?...probably not but they have titles and the rest basically dont.


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

Q is right with everything and as far as Marbs being a 'ballhog', that isn't true. From the few games I have seen of Stephon, I realized that he does pass the ball, he just needs to work on the timing of the pass, like he'll pass it before a player is ready to do something with it or after the player gave up on getting th eball. Something along these lines, if you get what I mean.


----------



## kconn61686 (Jul 29, 2005)

> how many titles do teams win when their 1st or 2nd best player is a pass 1st pg?
> 
> nash ...0
> 
> ...


billups and parker are not shoot first PGs, they are team players that get everyone involved and bring plenty more to the table. first off, all of parker's shots come from in the paint anyway. billups understands how to play the PG position, and the fact that he can score helps, but the pistons don't go out and hope Billups puts points on the board.


With the exception of Miami, its very difficult to win a title without a true PG or an absolutely dominant center like Shaq.


if you actually think stockton, nash, or kidd is no more accomplished than mike bibby then your asessments are just so off based. there is a reason the shoot first PG is going extinct, and every team in the league wants to play small ball and up tempo, something you need a true PG for


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

kconn61686 said:


> billups and parker are not shoot first PGs, they are team players that get everyone involved and bring plenty more to the table. first off, all of parker's shots come from in the paint anyway. billups understands how to play the PG position, and the fact that he can score helps, but the pistons don't go out and hope Billups puts points on the board.
> 
> 
> With the exception of Miami, its very difficult to win a title without a true PG or an absolutely dominant center like Shaq.
> ...


is it really so difficult to win without a true pg or a dominant center ....the spurs do it( 3 titles in 7 years)...the bulls certainly did it( 6 titles in 8).

billups career shots 6546 assists 3132
parker career shots 4882, career assists 2128

marbury shots 11996 .....assists 5880

mike bibby career shots 8294, career assists 3792

they are just as shoot 1st as marbury ...in fact moreso, in fact didn't ben wallace just leave the pistons because he didn't enjoy his role in the offense (as well as the bulls overpaying him) if billups were getting him the ball , that wouldn't have been an issue.

nash shots7188 , assists5006

kidd shots 11289 assists7955

stockton 13658 shots, 15806 assists 

see the difference? pass 1st point guards get a significant more assists compared to their shot attempts ...thats why they are considered pass 1st shoot 1st pg's generally get twice as many shots as assists 

and kidd , nash are no more accomplished than the top shoot 1st pg's of their eras , payton has a ring , which is something none of them can say . AI also has an mvp billups and parker have had teams lead the nba in wins ...billups has been a finals mvp, cassell has 2 rings , something you surely cant say for any pass 1st pg of recent ilk....all the really have over them is career numbers because they have played longer stockton has finished his career with some distinction but he didn't win any titles for his credit and he had karl malone to pass to possibly the best PF ever defeinitely in the top 3 .

i didn't know the goal of every team was to win 50 and flame out the playoffs , they were supposed to be winning titles...and the last true pass 1st pg that was really any good to win a title was mo cheeks in 1983 ...thats 23 years ago

has there ever been a great long time pg to play with a top 3 player in history at any position and not win at least once, outside of stockton?

the notion of the pass 1st point guard is incredibly overrated. and shoot 1st pg's will never go extinct .


----------



## frank9007 (Jul 4, 2006)

Pass 1st point guards don't win chmpionchips (Kidd,Nash,Stockton)

I really do belive Marbury can *HELP* lead a team to a championchip if he understands how to maximise his talent.

He's got more talent than all the point guards listed above.

He's 29 he's still has about 5 more prime years left in him to do it.

IMO he's never been given a a fair shot to really lead a team.

Had he stayed in Minny playing alongside Garnett he would have never been out of the playoffs, and people would say he is the best point in the NBA.

You gotta dig real deep and see Marbury's situation as a player, don't judge him based on his tenure in New Jersey were anybody would have lost with those teams.

Marbury has had real bad luck as a player for whatever reason.

People bring that stupid argument "Every team gets better when he gets traded" 

Well look at the situation before he was traded and then look at the players the Nets and Suns added and their natuaral improvement of the existing young players and injuries ect.

Marbury is top 5 point guard right now, but if he can put eveything together he would be #1.

Marbury has helped players get better (Amare,Marion,K-Mart,Frye,Lee,Nate Snd others)

Isiah sees Marbury as someone similar to him altough not as good as Zeke, but the way he plays score and pass ect.


----------



## frank9007 (Jul 4, 2006)

Oh and who ever thinks Marbury can't help lead a team to a championchip should watch the 2003 NBA playoffs when he was with the Suns.

The Suns lead by Marbury played the Spurs (Eventual NBA Champion that year) better than any team that year that includes the Lakers and the Nets.

Marbury just needed more from Amare who was still developing nicely.

The Spurs (Top defensive team that year) focused their whole attention on Marbury and still he found a way almost push the Spurs to game 7.

They lost by 1 basket in game 6.

Think about this was with a young Anare who whas nowhere near the player he was when Nash got him. Amare was still not good enough at that point. 

Marion actually played better under Marbury.


----------



## frank9007 (Jul 4, 2006)

On the Knicks when we played the Nets we were missing Houston and Tim Thomas for the whole series.

But everyone blames Marbury.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Personally Quentin Richardson has been one of the most selfish players in the NBA for some time. He was selfish on the Clippers and for his season with the Suns he was selfish, shooting too many damn threes and never attacking the basket.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> how many titles do teams win when their 1st or 2nd best player is a pass 1st pg?
> 
> nash ...0
> 
> ...


...


----------



## kconn61686 (Jul 29, 2005)

i cant really fathom defending marbury's playing style as one that will help a team, you can dodge it all you want but nobody wants these kinds of players


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

kconn61686 said:


> i cant really fathom defending marbury's playing style as one that will help a team, you can dodge it all you want *but nobody wants these kinds of players*


If it wasn't for salary I'm sure GM's would want Steph so I dont buy that one bit, you're just taking a cheap shot at him once again.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

frank9007 said:


> Marbury has helped players get better (Amare,Marion,K-Mart,Frye,Lee,Nate Snd others)


Amare played worlds better after Marbury was traded and Marbury didn't help Kenyon at all.


----------



## kconn61686 (Jul 29, 2005)

> If it wasn't for salary I'm sure GM's would want Steph so I dont buy that one bit, you're just taking a cheap shot at him once again.


i cant see anyone wanting stephon marbury, even if he was a MLE player. GMs and players mock this guy non-stop


im not really taking a cheap shot at him, hes a professional athlete. its more like a fair shot


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

kconn61686 said:


> i cant see anyone wanting stephon marbury, even if he was a MLE player. GMs and players mock this guy non-stop
> 
> 
> im not really taking a cheap shot at him, hes a professional athlete. its more like a fair shot


I'd take Marbury if he had the MLE and bring him off the bench with Maggette, Thomas and Livingston. Marbury would be playing the offguard with Livingston running the point, but on defense, depending on the matchup, Livvy would cover the 2guard with Marbs on the point.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

kconn61686 said:


> *i cant see anyone wanting stephon marbury, even if he was a MLE player.* *GMs and players mock this guy non-stop*
> 
> 
> im not really taking a cheap shot at him, hes a professional athlete. its more like a fair shot


:rofl: You just proved my point with that post, keep trolling. I'll be waiting for proof which includes a link that GM's mock this guy non-stop.


----------



## kconn61686 (Jul 29, 2005)

i proved your point by saying nobody wants marbury? and just because a fan wants him, does not have any bearing on whether the GM of that team would actually get him. the difference between the NBA and Yahoo Fantasy Basketball


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kconn61686 said:


> i proved your point by saying nobody wants marbury? and just because a fan wants him, does not have any bearing on whether the GM of that team would actually get him. the difference between the NBA and Yahoo Fantasy Basketball


You haven't proved anything. Provide links as Kitty requested or stop grandstanding


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

kconn61686 said:


> i proved your point by saying nobody wants marbury? and just because a fan wants him, does not have any bearing on whether the GM of that team would actually get him. the difference between the NBA and Yahoo Fantasy Basketball


I didn't know there were MLE contracts in Yahoo Fantasy Basketball. No where in my post did I say I'd take him for fantasy yahoo, because I don't think you play Defense against the opposing team on Yahoo Fantasy :whoknows:


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*A lot of talk but nobody says anything...*

Pass first...shoot first.....who the hell cares? The biggest job of ther PG is to run the team...at least a team with a conventional makeup. If he has the ball much of the time, he HAS to make the team function regardless of who is scoring. The Bulls had no real PG and the Lakers had Magic but they both won.. Jordan had the ball most of the time and ran the team (no doubt), and Magic was most certainly a pass first guy, although he was really a just a talented ball player that allowed the Lakers to play 4 big guys. To say a pass first guy can't win is stupid since Magic did, and Stockton prolly would have 2 or 3 rings but for Jordan and a less talented team around him (Stockton). Kidd has never had the horses except the finals team the Lakers beat. Hard to beat Shaq and Kobe. No way Nash has ever had the talent around him to win a title against the teams that beat his teams. Its just a dumb argument. I love that Marbury scores...hell, I'm from Clydes generation, so I know it can work. It's just that even with his immense talent, Marbury has never really LED a team to win. He leads in assists....he leads in scoring...he leads in *****ing...but he doesn't galvanize the players; he usually polarizes them. THAT is my problem(or one of them) with him. We've shown him the money, it's time to show us a title.


----------



## kconn61686 (Jul 29, 2005)

> You haven't proved anything. Provide links as Kitty requested or stop grandstanding



i dont have any links, but many NBA fans are aware of other people criticizing marbury, maybe J Kidd, RJ, Shaq, Q Richardson, Larry Brown, and unnamed GMs, being that they cant give their identity on issues like this


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

kconn61686 said:


> i dont have any links, but many NBA fans are aware of other people criticizing marbury, maybe J Kidd, RJ, Shaq, Q Richardson, Larry Brown, and unnamed GMs, being that they cant give their identity on issues like this


Like Cpaw stated stop grandstanding. If you don't have links to support your bold statement that GM"s mock this guy then don't make the statement. Even if the media don't give their identities an article (including the link) would still be available regardless. It's just another one of your cheap shots that you continue to bring to this Knick board.


----------



## kconn61686 (Jul 29, 2005)

i dont understand why you think its a cheap shot when my original statement was just disagreeing with your idea that marbury wasn't a shoot first PG. I happen to think he is and voiced my opinion, but some couldnt stomach it when i said hes a shoot first PG


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

kconn61686 said:


> i dont understand why you think its a cheap shot when my original statement was just disagreeing with your idea that marbury wasn't a shoot first PG. I happen to think he is and voiced my opinion, but some couldnt stomach it when i said hes a shoot first PG



don't worry, i'm in total agreement...


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

PriceIsWright said:


> This in a way is also why the Rockets traded away Mike James for Rafer Alston. James will always been a scoring point guard, which fundamentally does little for the team. Alston is nowhere near the type of scorer james is, but he is a genuine passing pg.


Mike James wasn't the ideal PG for Houston because he is a poor passer. It's completely different with Marbury, who is a very good scorer _and_ a very good passer.


----------



## frank9007 (Jul 4, 2006)

cpawfan said:


> Amare played worlds better after Marbury was traded


Hmm did you read what i wrote? When Marbury played with Amare he was still not the player Steve Nash got, not even close.

Amare was still developing as a player.

I'm suprised anybody questions this :whatever:



cpawfan said:


> and Marbury didn't help Kenyon at all.


Hmm he did he just never really got to play with that much since K got injured. And then you know then Steph got traded and Kidd got all the credit.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> *is it really so difficult to win without a true pg or a dominant center ....the spurs do it( 3 titles in 7 years)...the bulls certainly did it( 6 titles in 8).*
> 
> billups career shots 6546 assists 3132
> parker career shots 4882, career assists 2128
> ...


It's a little easier said than done to have two players like Scottie and Michael on the same team. Not to mention Dennis Rodman is probably the best rebounding 4 man the league's ever seen. Paxon a balanced PG when Jordan and Pipp were there wasn't he?


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: A lot of talk but nobody says anything...*



alphadog said:


> Pass first...shoot first.....who the hell cares? The biggest job of ther PG is to run the team...at least a team with a conventional makeup. If he has the ball much of the time, he HAS to make the team function regardless of who is scoring. The Bulls had no real PG and the Lakers had Magic but they both won.. Jordan had the ball most of the time and ran the team (no doubt), and Magic was most certainly a pass first guy, although he was really a just a talented ball player that allowed the Lakers to play 4 big guys. To say a pass first guy can't win is stupid since Magic did, and Stockton prolly would have 2 or 3 rings but for Jordan and a less talented team around him (Stockton). Kidd has never had the horses except the finals team the Lakers beat. Hard to beat Shaq and Kobe. No way Nash has ever had the talent around him to win a title against the teams that beat his teams. Its just a dumb argument. I love that Marbury scores...hell, I'm from Clydes generation, so I know it can work. It's just that even with his immense talent, Marbury has never really LED a team to win. He leads in assists....he leads in scoring...he leads in *****ing...but he doesn't galvanize the players; he usually polarizes them. THAT is my problem(or one of them) with him. We've shown him the money, it's time to show us a title.


 bringing up those players (Jordan, Shaq/Kobe) is irrelevant. The bottom line is they still didnt get it done.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*What a terrible post....*

MJ and Kobe/Shaq as opponents is irrelevent? Holy crap, those are among the best ever to play and it is irrelevent that they were the opponents? How many great players that won without facing them, would have won WHILE facing them? Plus MJ had Pippen...... 

That has GOT to be one of the all-time dumbest comments ever.


----------



## MacDanny 6 (Jun 7, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> billups career shots 6546 assists 3132
> parker career shots 4882, career assists 2128
> 
> marbury shots 11996 .....assists 5880
> ...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

knicksfan said:


> It's a little easier said than done to have two players like Scottie and Michael on the same team. Not to mention Dennis Rodman is probably the best rebounding 4 man the league's ever seen. Paxon a balanced PG when Jordan and Pipp were there wasn't he?


absolutely not.

paxson did very little distributing , it was mostly pippen's job.

his job(paxson) was to shoot the ball.

fyi: he never played with rodman he was retired by then.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

^ And the one point guard on the Bulls who did assume some playmaking duties -- BJ Armstrong -- was actually a score-first guy.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> ^ And the one point guard on the Bulls who did assume some playmaking duties -- BJ Armstrong -- was actually a score-first guy.


exactly , i dont think alot of people understand , there is no special type of player that just fits with every team like a skeleton key.

with MJ you cant have a pure pg , because pure pg's need the ball to create for others ...but you aren't going to take the ball from MJ and Pip to do that ....the answer? a spot up pg someone who is effective but doesn't need to pound the ball, but can make it easier on the other players by creating space with his jumpshot.


----------

