What's new
By:

John Stockton on the Dan Patrick Show

Had he wanted to, Stockton could've averaged 25 and 12. Stockton always seemed to manage to turn on the scoring whenever the jazz needed it, and was a great finisher at the rim.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
Had he wanted to, Stockton could've averaged 25 and 12. Stockton always seemed to manage to turn on the scoring whenever the jazz needed it, and was a great finisher at the rim.
Click to expand...
If that were true, the Jazz would have multiple championships. Part of Stockton's greatness was that Malone was such a great finisher. Those are easy assists when the roll man on the P&R can't be stopped.

I guess you can cling to the notion of a "pass-first" PG being a better PG than a PG who can pass AND score. For me - and I'm a Jazz fan and Laker hater - I have to be honest and say I'd take Magic 10 out of 10 times as my PG over Stockton.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
Had he wanted to, Stockton could've averaged 25 and 12. Stockton always seemed to manage to turn on the scoring whenever the jazz needed it, and was a great finisher at the rim.
Click to expand...

Haha. You are hilarious. You love to romanticize the Stockton.

Why wouldn't Stockton want to turn it up every game, every year, every playoff series, like you say he was capable of doing? Wouldnt that make the team better? Wouldnt that help win playoff series and championships? He had one year where he put up those numbers in the first round (3) games (88/89). You would think with the lack of help the Jazz typically had he would have tried to shoulder the scoring load a little more. There were a lot of playoff games where the Jazz could have used Stockton's super hidden scoring abilities.
 
Gas said:
Haha. You are hilarious. You love to romanticize the Stockton.

Why wouldn't Stockton want to turn it up every game, every year, every playoff series, like you say he was capable of doing? Wouldnt that make the team better? Wouldnt that help win playoff series and championships? He had one year where he put up those numbers in the first round (3) games (88/89). You would think with the lack of help the Jazz typically had he would have tried to shoulder the scoring load a little more. There were a lot of playoff games where the Jazz could have used Stockton's super hidden scoring abilities.
Click to expand...

Because he was that good at running an offense, that's what the team needed, plus I'm not the only one that thought this, several former players from that era have said as much, let's also not forget that Stockton is part of the original top 50 list all time and the second one made as well. He's one of the greats, get over it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thee jazz fan said:
Because he was that good at running an offense, that's what the team needed, plus I'm not the only one that thought this, several former players from that era have said as much, let's also not forget that Stockton is part of the original top 50 list all time and the second one made as well. He's one of the greats, get over it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

He is one of the greats. Just not as good as you think he was. He's always a little bit worse than you think he was.. You are always over the top with him.
 
Jack Strop said:
If that were true, the Jazz would have multiple championships. Part of Stockton's greatness was that Malone was such a great finisher. Those are easy assists when the roll man on the P&R can't be stopped.

I guess you can cling to the notion of a "pass-first" PG being a better PG than a PG who can pass AND score. For me - and I'm a Jazz fan and Laker hater - I have to be honest and say I'd take Magic 10 out of 10 times as my PG over Stockton.
Click to expand...
Do you want to know why the Jazz never won a ring? Because Karl Malone choked.

After the Bulls beat the Jazz in their first finals matchup, there was a newspaper article about a psychologist who came up with some sort of analysis showing BB players' mental tendencies. His conclusion -- I'm paraphrasing -- was that when Karl Malone played against a player whom he thought was better than himself, he played scared. The analysis also showed that when Jordan played against the NBA's toughest, he raised his game. (I can't remember the labels the psychologist used to describe these character traits.)

Being a Jazz homer, I discounted the article as nonsense, except that there seemed to be kernels of truth in what the psychologist said. The next year's playoffs showed that the psychologist may have been right. In every round leading up to the finals, Malone simply dominated everyone, but when he matched up against Jordan in the finals, he played tentative -- missing clutch free throws and having the ball stolen from him with 20 seconds left in a must-win game, thereby setting up Jordan's "push-off" game winner.

It was never Stockton's fault that we lost in the finals.
 
Nash should have won 3 MVP's not just 2! Nash was a true consummate pro, a great passer and great shooter. That being said, Stockton has 2 career records that Nash will never see or touch...Assists and steals! Neither won a championship and that's a shame! Malone was thinking about free agency one year and then it all cleared up for him! He said "I'm staying with Stockton! The other point guards in this league....you never know whether there going to pass you the ball or throw it in the stands!"
 
What ****ing toxic waste dump of pointless ****-talk did I just walk into? Why is anyone taking the position that one of the most efficient, durable, productive, and winningest players of all time THAT PLAYED FOR US just wasn't that good.

I'm going to take a shower.
 
Everyone understands that no one beat the Bulls in their prime, right?

No one. 6 finals, 6 rings.

There is one team that faced them twice, one of which was jobbed by the officials. Forget the push-off, a 5-point swing in a hotly contested game is the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top