Poll

Can GS reach Perk's skill-level or greater?

Yes
80 (60.6%)
No
32 (24.2%)
Undecided
20 (15.2%)

Total Members Voted: 130

Author Topic: Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?  (Read 65769 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?
« Reply #225 on: April 16, 2012, 10:04:11 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Steamer has a better shot, but I kind of think if Perk hadn't been surrounded by so many scorers he would have shown himself to be a better scorer actually. I think at his peak he might have gotten as high as 14ppg. I don't see Steamer doing that, but I think Steams can score a little too

Perk is probably one of the most offensively inept players in the league. I cringe everytime he gets the ball on offense and OKC fans feel the same. No way he ever averages 14ppg.
Well he was at 10 and then three all stars showed up, so without them an extra two baskets a game when he was in his prime...shoulda been doable.

He gave so much to playing he is a shell of his former self I think

Re: Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?
« Reply #226 on: April 16, 2012, 11:23:04 PM »

Offline CoachBo

  • NCE
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6069
  • Tommy Points: 336
Steamer is quite limited.

With that said, the only further comment I have on Perkins is one I've been making since the deal, and I've been proven correct:

LOL at Sam Presti.

We're out of a contract in that deal. Now, good old Sammy is trying to figure a way out of his $36 million mistake.

Danny should call that sucker about Durant ...
Coined the CelticsBlog term, "Euromistake."

Re: Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?
« Reply #227 on: April 17, 2012, 12:27:22 AM »

Offline JHTruth

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2297
  • Tommy Points: 111
Steamer and Perk are totally different players but Steamer is better honestly.

I love Perk have his old #43 jersey. But even I have come around to the fact that Perk sucks. He does nothing well anymore. At one time he was a tough 1:1 defender in the post who drove DH crazy. Now he's a stiff on a very good team. Poor OKC fans cant stand him and his ridiculous techs.

Steamer can block shots, hit the mif-range J, break to the basket. Come to think of it steamer is the best C of the Big 3 era..

Re: Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?
« Reply #228 on: April 17, 2012, 12:34:09 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
Steamer and Perk are totally different players but Steamer is better honestly.

I love Perk have his old #43 jersey. But even I have come around to the fact that Perk sucks. He does nothing well anymore. At one time he was a tough 1:1 defender in the post who drove DH crazy. Now he's a stiff on a very good team. Poor OKC fans cant stand him and his ridiculous techs.

Steamer can block shots, hit the mif-range J, break to the basket. Come to think of it steamer is the best C of the Big 3 era..
Perkins of 07-10 was better than Greg even if you think he's a stiff now.

Re: Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?
« Reply #229 on: April 17, 2012, 12:36:40 AM »

Offline The Walker Wiggle

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4568
  • Tommy Points: 758
  • Pretend Hinkie
Perkins of 07-10 was better than Greg even if you think he's a stiff now.

I'd read Truth's post again. The last line gives the game away.

Re: Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?
« Reply #230 on: April 17, 2012, 12:41:15 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
Perkins of 07-10 was better than Greg even if you think he's a stiff now.

I'd read Truth's post again. The last line gives the game away.
I think you're reading sarcasm where none is indicated.

Re: Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?
« Reply #231 on: April 17, 2012, 02:16:17 AM »

Offline guava_wrench

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9931
  • Tommy Points: 777
Steamer has a better shot, but I kind of think if Perk hadn't been surrounded by so many scorers he would have shown himself to be a better scorer actually. I think at his peak he might have gotten as high as 14ppg. I don't see Steamer doing that, but I think Steams can score a little too
So the standard is what a guy was in the neighborhood of doing on one of the worst teams in the league?

Perk is probably one of the most offensively inept players in the league. I cringe everytime he gets the ball on offense and OKC fans feel the same. No way he ever averages 14ppg.
Well he was at 10 and then three all stars showed up, so without them an extra two baskets a game when he was in his prime...shoulda been doable.

He gave so much to playing he is a shell of his former self I think

Re: Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?
« Reply #232 on: April 17, 2012, 08:37:53 PM »

Offline OmarSekou

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 727
  • Tommy Points: 93
This has gone from does Steamer have the potential to be better than Perk (debatable) to Steamer is better than Perk (still debatable but not really) to Steamer is better than Perk ever was (seriously?).

If you want to make the argument that Steamer is better right now, let him prove it by becoming a starter. Let him prove it by cutting down on fouls. Let him earn the crown just like everyone else by playing consistently well against top competition.

It really is Steamsanity on here.
"Suit up every day."

Re: Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?
« Reply #233 on: April 18, 2012, 08:51:09 AM »

Offline myteamisbetterthanyours

  • Payton Pritchard
  • Posts: 250
  • Tommy Points: 31
Steamer and Perk are totally different players but Steamer is better honestly.

I love Perk have his old #43 jersey. But even I have come around to the fact that Perk sucks. He does nothing well anymore. At one time he was a tough 1:1 defender in the post who drove DH crazy. Now he's a stiff on a very good team. Poor OKC fans cant stand him and his ridiculous techs.

Steamer can block shots, hit the mif-range J, break to the basket. Come to think of it steamer is the best C of the Big 3 era..
Perkins of 07-10 was better than Greg even if you think he's a stiff now.

Lol... Perkins sucks dude... He's always been a stiff.. He brings the ball down to his knees.. Pump fakes 8 times.. Jumps up about 3 inches off the ground and gets his shot blocked occasionally... Thats his offensive game..

He used to be the best 1 on 1 low post defender.. Now.. not so much...

You guys value Perkins way too much on this site.. Seriously, he was a beast when he was knockin ppl to the ground with his Ogre like strength.. But he is nowhere near as strong as he used to be with his bum knee and has lost half of his 3 inch vertical..

The Celtics of 07-10 could have used any big in the league 6'11 and taller and 250 plus, and would have been just as successful..

Perkins' wished he was as skilled as Stiemsma.. Seriously.

Re: Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?
« Reply #234 on: April 18, 2012, 08:58:15 AM »

Offline myteamisbetterthanyours

  • Payton Pritchard
  • Posts: 250
  • Tommy Points: 31
To add to that.. A 38 y.o. Shaq looked like an allstar the few times he got to play for us...

Perkins' value is overrated.

He's on OKC now.. and has been exposed. He sucks. He never was that good. He was just big. Thats it.

Re: Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?
« Reply #235 on: April 18, 2012, 09:05:06 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 63555
  • Tommy Points: -25456
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
The Celtics of 07-10 could have used any big in the league 6'11 and taller and 250 plus, and would have been just as successful..


Yeah, that's obviously not true.  I think you underestimate how hard it is to average 10 points, 8 rebounds, 60% shooting and 2 blocks in the NBA while playing excellent defense.

Since the 2008 season, guess how many players have had a season where they averaged at least 9.5 points, 7.5 rebounds, 1.5 blocks, and 60% shooting while playing in at least 40 games? 

Two.  Dwight Howard and Kendrick Perkins.   


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER... AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!

Re: Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?
« Reply #236 on: April 18, 2012, 09:06:31 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34128
  • Tommy Points: 1612
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
To add to that.. A 38 y.o. Shaq looked like an allstar the few times he got to play for us...

Perkins' value is overrated.

He's on OKC now.. and has been exposed. He sucks. He never was that good. He was just big. Thats it.


Except of course that team got better when they added him as their starting C. 

Re: Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?
« Reply #237 on: April 18, 2012, 09:08:27 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
To add to that.. A 38 y.o. Shaq looked like an allstar the few times he got to play for us...

Perkins' value is overrated.

He's on OKC now.. and has been exposed. He sucks. He never was that good. He was just big. Thats it.


Except of course that team got better when they added him as their starting C. 
Not giving Jeff Green 30 minutes (giving most of them to Ibaka) and then giving all the shots Green took to Harden probably had more to do with that than Perkins.

But Perkins still helps them an awful lot when it comes to matching up.

Re: Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?
« Reply #238 on: April 18, 2012, 09:10:28 AM »

Offline myteamisbetterthanyours

  • Payton Pritchard
  • Posts: 250
  • Tommy Points: 31
The Celtics of 07-10 could have used any big in the league 6'11 and taller and 250 plus, and would have been just as successful..


Yeah, that's obviously not true.  I think you underestimate how hard it is to average 10 points, 8 rebounds, 60% shooting and 2 blocks in the NBA while playing excellent defense.

Since the 2008 season, guess how many players have had a season where they averaged at least 9.5 points, 7.5 rebounds, 1.5 blocks, and 60% shooting while playing in at least 40 games? 

Two.  Dwight Howard and Kendrick Perkins.   

What i meant was... If you put any other big in the league in Perkins' place... they would have been just as successful.. Meaning, a lot of Perkins' success had to do with the fact he was on the Celtics.

You think if Tyson Chandler were on this team from 07-10 he wouldn't have done as well as Perkins?  Tyson Chandler would have averaged a double double on this team with 2 blocks a game on 60% shooting.

Re: Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?
« Reply #239 on: April 18, 2012, 09:13:09 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
The Celtics of 07-10 could have used any big in the league 6'11 and taller and 250 plus, and would have been just as successful..


Yeah, that's obviously not true.  I think you underestimate how hard it is to average 10 points, 8 rebounds, 60% shooting and 2 blocks in the NBA while playing excellent defense.

Since the 2008 season, guess how many players have had a season where they averaged at least 9.5 points, 7.5 rebounds, 1.5 blocks, and 60% shooting while playing in at least 40 games? 

Two.  Dwight Howard and Kendrick Perkins.   

What i meant was... If you put any other big in the league in Perkins' place... they would have been just as successful.. Meaning, a lot of Perkins' success had to do with the fact he was on the Celtics.

You think if Tyson Chandler were on this team from 07-10 he wouldn't have done as well as Perkins?  Tyson Chandler would have averaged a double double on this team with 2 blocks a game on 60% shooting.
Chandler wasn't healthy during that period.