- 160,300
- 141,830
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
No it isn't, his prime = his peak. At his peak is all we can go by. When comparing THAT peak to TMAC's peak, give me lazy eyes.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Other than Rebounding, what did Penny do better than GP? I am not agreeing with the better overall statement (on the surface of things. I am not dismissing it completely).Originally Posted by BigPUNoy
At the same time, Penny was a better overall basketball player at the time. (Than GP)
Potential and a few great seasons do not make him one of the best of his era. It just means that there could have been more. But there weren't. So that makes him overrated.Originally Posted by goldenchild9
What are you talking about?
We're talking about the man's potential and you're angrily rambling as usual.
He was a 6'7" POINT GUARD with elite vision and passing ability, who could score with anyone in the league and was All-NBA First Team, making it to the Finals in his SECOND SEASON (averaging 20.9 points, 7.2 assists, 4.4 rebounds, and 1.7 steals per game). Dude averaged 24.5 points, 4.8 rebounds and 8 assists, on 50% shooting in the FINALS in his SECOND SEASON. Where do you see overrated in that equation?
Originally Posted by koolbarbone
Potential and a few great seasons do not make him one of the best of his era. It just means that there could have been more. But there weren't. So that makes him overrated.Originally Posted by goldenchild9
What are you talking about?
We're talking about the man's potential and you're angrily rambling as usual.
He was a 6'7" POINT GUARD with elite vision and passing ability, who could score with anyone in the league and was All-NBA First Team, making it to the Finals in his SECOND SEASON (averaging 20.9 points, 7.2 assists, 4.4 rebounds, and 1.7 steals per game). Dude averaged 24.5 points, 4.8 rebounds and 8 assists, on 50% shooting in the FINALS in his SECOND SEASON. Where do you see overrated in that equation?
Originally Posted by zube42
Penny was not better than The Glove, regardless of whatever stats you want to put up.
Whoa, I didn't know you thought THAT. Saying Penny was a better all around player can be argued, but to just say he was better, hmmm. Ok.Originally Posted by goldenchild9
Originally Posted by zube42
Penny was not better than The Glove, regardless of whatever stats you want to put up.
Yes he was.
Thats all y'all bring up as a counter argument...sneakers and marketing. There are sports journalists who could care less about that stuff and will tell you about Penny's greatness in his first 4 seasons. Nobody thinks he was great for 10 seasons, we know what it is. Maybe his pop-culture cult status skews your perception because you're on NT, where people talk about Foams, retros and Half Cents all day. NT is the Mecca of pop culture so his name is going to be mentioned to a greater degree than is his actual impact but that doesn't change what he was on the court.Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican
Nobody called Penny a nobody though. Stop exaggerating please.
People don't speak on his potential, folks "remember" Penny being better than he was for longer than he was. He was on his way but again, his shoes and hold on pop-culture blind folks. Penny was good, when he was good, but that wasn't a long time at all.
Same with Brandon Roy, to a lesser degree. T-Mac had a little more shelf-life, but injuries hurt all 3 of them.
And what is this idea of us not being old enough to remember Penny? Why do you all keep assuming that? LOL
And this is All I am speaking of man. I always say that NIKETALK overvalues Penny's career.Originally Posted by goldenchild9
Maybe his pop-culture cult status skews your perception because you're on NT, where people talk about Foams, retros and Half Cents all day. NT is the Mecca of pop culture so his name is going to be mentioned to a greater degree than is his actual impact
So if its just based on stats then penny>stockton.gp,nashOriginally Posted by goldenchild9
Originally Posted by zube42
Penny was not better than The Glove, regardless of whatever stats you want to put up.
Yes he was.
A hobbled post-injury Penny was better than GP.
this.Originally Posted by presequel
its true. its nostalgia. i dont think anyone can deny he was talented, but some people act like he was as good as mj, magic, kobe, or even tmac.
RustyShackleford wrote:
Imagine Kobe Bryant (chill I'm not comparing them as players) knees went out on him after the 2nd championship. So you have three season watching a kid beast and you know he is only going to get better, then boom, he gets injured and you never see it. That's what Penny was, people saw the greatest coming, and were robbed of seeing it.
Thats a good example. Penny is overrated though on this site because of his shoes but its no where near as bad as OP is makin it. Penny was on his way to greatness.
Exactly all those things you said about gp can be said about stockton.nash,gp.paul,d.will,j kidd if your going off stats athleticism and output first few seasons is why I brought it up.Originally Posted by goldenchild9
How you bringing Stockton and Nash in the convo?
GP never even averaged double digit assists. Nash did 6 times (still playing) and Stockton did 10 times.
I'm talking about Penny and GP. Penny was bigger, stronger, more athletic, a better scorer from all angles, more efficient in every offensive category, and had greater overall potential. Like I showed, It took GP years to achieve the same type of output that Penny had in his couple first seasons.
Originally Posted by goldenchild9
He had more points, a higher field goal percentage, better 3pt shooting, better free throw percentage, more assists and less turnovers in the same amount of minutes....what more evidence of efficiency do you need?
Phenomenal quote. This should end the discussion once and for all.Originally Posted by dustblaaze
I compare him to his peers at the time, Jason Kidd and Grant Hill. All 3 of them were do it all on the offensive end and all came in the league around the same time and in his short peak years from 94-97, I believe he was better than the both of them.
Like others have said, we weren't able to see him at his prime. JKidd didn't hit his prime til' around 01-04, so who knows what Penny could've done had he not got injured and was able to have healthy years in his late 20's early 30's. If he had kept pace with his prime years before the knee, I think he definitely would've been point guard of the 90s and early 2000s.
This is a great quote coming from Penny about his career:
"I look at it like this," Hardaway said. "In six years, maybe seven, I accomplished more than what most NBA players did in their entire career. I'm All-NBA two or three times, All-Star four times. I did all of this in maybe four years. If it wasn't for all the injuries, I'm pushing for the Hall of Fame."
So true.
Originally Posted by LDJ
Exactly all those things you said about gp can be said about stockton.nash,gp.paul,d.will,j kidd if your going off stats athleticism and output first few seasons is why I brought it up.Originally Posted by goldenchild9
How you bringing Stockton and Nash in the convo?
GP never even averaged double digit assists. Nash did 6 times (still playing) and Stockton did 10 times.
I'm talking about Penny and GP. Penny was bigger, stronger, more athletic, a better scorer from all angles, more efficient in every offensive category, and had greater overall potential. Like I showed, It took GP years to achieve the same type of output that Penny had in his couple first seasons.