Home› Buy, Sell & Trade - Cards & Memorabilia

hehe..Riley on Tayshaun Prince

ejones06ejones06 Posts: 2,304
in Buy, Sell & Trade - Cards & Memorabilia
As he sat in the back row of the bleachers during a tedious summer-league game at Orlando, Pat Riley glanced at Detroit Pistons swingman Tayshaun Prince and smiled.

"He's gonna be a good player," the Heat coach said, "and they're gonna have a good team."

Then he paused, leaned forward, and added, "but in this league, you win championships with stars."

Comments

  • dirtmonkeydirtmonkey Posts: 3,048 ✭✭
    Star players are usually defined as "a popular player"... I don't think the championship trophy is given away to the most popular player now is it? As far as solid contributers, they have some on their team and will be strong. Detroit became more of a contender once they lost their only "star" player in Stackhouse.
    Plenty of teams don't win with "stars". Ask the Blazers or the Kings. I'm not saying Detroit will win a championship anytime soon because they have a new coach and some young players who need some seasoning. They also need some of the veterans to emerge during the playoffs. All in all, a solid team... Pat's probably just jealous because he no longer has a Magic, Kareem, or Ewing to make him look good. And for gods sake, wash that F'ing hair!!!
    image
  • ejones06ejones06 Posts: 2,304
    looks like someones from mo-town. lol. image

    Star players are usually defined as "a popular player"...

    defined? so you're saying iverson, tmac, kobe, etc are just popular and they suck? they're popular for a reason.
  • McGradyMVPMcGradyMVP Posts: 499
    Star player doesnt mean most popular player.

    Example, Tim Duncan. He is the best big man (along with shaq) in the NBA, but no one ever talks about him.

    BTW, the only reason the Kings or Blazers didnt beat the Lakers either time is because no one can stop Shaq. You could throw an all star team vs the lakers and still might lose because shaq can score everytime. So I dont think a lot of talent on one team means you lose. Considering shaq is the only person that no one can stop.
  • dirtmonkeydirtmonkey Posts: 3,048 ✭✭
    Well, than how would one acurately define a "star player"... Being from Detroit, I must admit that the team is not full of them or at least not by most peoples standards. But for instance, Rip isn't what most would consider a "star" player and I can't imagine anyone calling him a superstar, but he's better than a lot of the players who are labeled stars. Hell, Stack was considered by many to be a Superstar but I would take Rip any day over him.

    So define a "star player"... One who scores a lot? One who wins games in the clutch? A players who leads his team to the championship? Because there's lot of players who have done these things who were not considered stars because they either played for small market teams, had big mouths or were on a lousy team for most of their career. Many people don't know who Alex English was. This guy was a phenominal player with the Nuggets for years lighting up the scoreboards and doing everything in his power to win, but the team he played for was sh*t... He was never considered a real superstar then and certainly isn't mentioned in the same breath as Magic, Bird, Barkley or any of those players today. Heck, he would have been a stud playing with the lakers then because they were a running team like the Nuggets were who commonly scored well over 100. He would have certainly helped them win more championships in my opinion... Heck, many could certainly argue he was better than many of the players during the 80's but if you were asked to think of 20 star players of the 80's, most would never even think to mention his name (if they even knew it).

    And by the same measure, what makes Iverson a star? He regularly has a crappy shooting percentage.
    Sure, he scores points but many could score that much if they shot that often. He hasn't won a championship. What makes him a "star" in your opinion?
    image
  • UndertakerUndertaker Posts: 5,200 ✭✭


    << <i>Star player doesnt mean most popular player.

    Example, Tim Duncan. He is the best big man (along with shaq) in the NBA, but no one ever talks about him.

    BTW, the only reason the Kings or Blazers didnt beat the Lakers either time is because no one can stop Shaq. You could throw an all star team vs the lakers and still might lose because shaq can score everytime. So I dont think a lot of talent on one team means you lose. Considering shaq is the only person that no one can stop. >>


    I wouldn't say that. I agree, Shaq IS the backbone of the Lakers, but the role players and especially Kobe are as important as he is.
    Shaq's injuries weren't the only reason the Lakers lost last year. Kobe played with injuries as well, and both Fox & George went out. George returned, but he couldn't give them the energy boost they needed from him.
    Taker's Mausoleum Of Cards

    Personal Collection

    image
  • ejones06ejones06 Posts: 2,304
    iversons is a star because his team sucks and they are still considered finals contenders every year because of him. on top of that, i bet you if iverson had KG, Duncan, or a good big man, he'll pass the rock. but he doesn't.
  • ejones06ejones06 Posts: 2,304
    hamilton is on the horizon. the guy will be a all-star this year for sure if the pistons hold a winning record when the all-star weekend comes along.
  • McGradyMVPMcGradyMVP Posts: 499


    << <i>
    I wouldn't say that. I agree, Shaq IS the backbone of the Lakers, but the role players and especially Kobe are as important as he is.
    Shaq's injuries weren't the only reason the Lakers lost last year. Kobe played with injuries as well, and both Fox & George went out. George returned, but he couldn't give them the energy boost they needed from him. >>



    If Shaq was in shape last year, the Lakers would have four peated. Seriously, Shaq just didnt seem interested last year. The only reason why the Lakers role players ever get shots is because Shaq gets double teams all the time, and kicks the ball for open shots.

    The Lakers were one shot away from four peating last year. Horry hits the three in game 5, the Lakers win that series. BUT, if Shaq plays poorly, the Lakers tend to lose.
  • dirtmonkeydirtmonkey Posts: 3,048 ✭✭
    iversons is a star because his team sucks and they are still considered finals contenders every year because of him.

    So using that reasoning as a guideline, what would make a player like Vince be considered a star? He never made his team a real threat in the post season. In fact, the team proved they could play better without him 2 seasons ago.
    image
  • ejones06ejones06 Posts: 2,304
    his team sucks too but how they made they were in the post season because of him. some goes for tmac. even before this years juwan howard signing or even before the gooden trade, many thought they would make the playoffs and the reason is tmac. but the question is how far because most everyone sucks.
  • dirtmonkeydirtmonkey Posts: 3,048 ✭✭
    Well, actually if you remember about 2 years ago they (Raptors) were actually outside of the playoff picture and then VC went down and the team played well and made it into the playoffs. Not saying it means anything cause we all don't really shive a get, but just for arguements sake... image


    Anywho, my whole point to even entering this conversation was not only to say that the Pistons are a good team and certainly better than Rileys Heat, but that Riley was once considered a good coach until he left the Lakers... Now he's simply a ponyboy greaser nobody gives a rats a$$ about.
    image
  • UndertakerUndertaker Posts: 5,200 ✭✭
    Ok, ok. Shaq IS #1 imageimage
    Taker's Mausoleum Of Cards

    Personal Collection

    image
  • McGradyMVPMcGradyMVP Posts: 499


    << <i>Ok, ok. Shaq IS #1 imageimage >>



    LOL. Yes, he is like Michael Jordan, he is the best player in the league until he retires. But, does shaq have autos like this:

    image

    Because I do. image
Sign In or Register to comment.