Yes or No? Marcus Smart Our Next Superstar?

[PAOBoston]

Paul Pierce was absolutely a superstar. He was absolutely one of the 5 best players in the nba more than once, although I'll admit he was probably never the best player.

Think about the era he played in- the only players off the top of my head that were clearly better are ALL TIME greats like shaq, Kobe, Duncan, lebron, (I'm sure I'm missing a couple), the next tier down which includes guys like dirk, kg, Ray Allen, etc....pierce is right there with those guys. Maybe he isn't better than all or most of them, but an argument can certainly be made that he was every bit as good as most of them.

Pierce was certainly one of the best players of his era. That's superstar status. Let's show some respect to the 2nd best Celtic I've ever seen (I'm 41yrs old).

I love Pierce but at no point was Paul Pierce ever a top 5 player in the NBA. Both Pierce and Allen were 2nd tier stars (I say top 15-20 players). KG was a legitimate 1st tier superstar (top 5 player).

As for Smart, we can only hope he turns out to be the stud that we want him to be. This will be an important year in his development.

[dysgenic]

Paul Pierce was absolutely a superstar. He was absolutely one of the 5 best players in the nba more than once, although I'll admit he was probably never the best player.

Think about the era he played in- the only players off the top of my head that were clearly better are ALL TIME greats like shaq, Kobe, Duncan, lebron, (I'm sure I'm missing a couple), the next tier down which includes guys like dirk, kg, Ray Allen, etc....pierce is right there with those guys. Maybe he isn't better than all or most of them, but an argument can certainly be made that he was every bit as good as most of them.

Pierce was certainly one of the best players of his era. That's superstar status. Let's show some respect to the 2nd best Celtic I've ever seen (I'm 41yrs old).

I love Pierce but at no point was Paul Pierce ever a top 5 player in the NBA. Both Pierce and Allen were 2nd tier stars (I say top 15-20 players). KG was a legitimate 1st tier superstar (top 5 player).

As for Smart, we can only hope he turns out to be the stud that we want him to be. This will be an important year in his development.

Maybe this is a little unfair, because Garnett was older than pierce, but when pierce played with Garnett, I thought that pierce was the better player.  I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I doubt I am alone in my opinion.  Ray Allen was not nearly the basketball player Pierce was, either. And that is saying something because Allen was a great player- much better than I realized before he came to Boston.

Pierce was certainly a superstar.

[ahonui06]

Paul Pierce was absolutely a superstar. He was absolutely one of the 5 best players in the nba more than once, although I'll admit he was probably never the best player.

Think about the era he played in- the only players off the top of my head that were clearly better are ALL TIME greats like shaq, Kobe, Duncan, lebron, (I'm sure I'm missing a couple), the next tier down which includes guys like dirk, kg, Ray Allen, etc....pierce is right there with those guys. Maybe he isn't better than all or most of them, but an argument can certainly be made that he was every bit as good as most of them.

Pierce was certainly one of the best players of his era. That's superstar status. Let's show some respect to the 2nd best Celtic I've ever seen (I'm 41yrs old).

I love Pierce but at no point was Paul Pierce ever a top 5 player in the NBA. Both Pierce and Allen were 2nd tier stars (I say top 15-20 players). KG was a legitimate 1st tier superstar (top 5 player).

As for Smart, we can only hope he turns out to be the stud that we want him to be. This will be an important year in his development.

Maybe this is a little unfair, because Garnett was older than pierce, but when pierce played with Garnett, I thought that pierce was the better player.  I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I doubt I am alone in my opinion.  Ray Allen was not nearly the basketball player Pierce was, either. And that is saying something because Allen was a great player- much better than I realized before he came to Boston.

Pierce was certainly a superstar.

Pierce was definitely a better player than Garnett. Garnett proved during his tenure at Minnesota he couldn't carry a team on his own. Missed the playoffs 3 years in a row during his prime. That's not superstar material.

[2short]

If he can be anything close to what Gary Payton was, we all would be ecstatic.

This should go without saying but I fear it needs to be said.

How about Alvin Robertson?

TP
Last year people were asking for comparisons to smart.  I believe I said he was an Alvin Robertson Dwayne wade morph.  Payton was not only a great defender but a great point guard.  Robertson was a great defender with quite the physical presence.  Not as polished on offense.   Also lets not forget our old friend Dennis johnson

[Celtics18]

I am always wary of player comparisons, but Chauncey Billups has always been the one I've thought was most apt for Smart.

[RockinRyA]

Paul Pierce was absolutely a superstar. He was absolutely one of the 5 best players in the nba more than once, although I'll admit he was probably never the best player.

Think about the era he played in- the only players off the top of my head that were clearly better are ALL TIME greats like shaq, Kobe, Duncan, lebron, (I'm sure I'm missing a couple), the next tier down which includes guys like dirk, kg, Ray Allen, etc....pierce is right there with those guys. Maybe he isn't better than all or most of them, but an argument can certainly be made that he was every bit as good as most of them.

Pierce was certainly one of the best players of his era. That's superstar status. Let's show some respect to the 2nd best Celtic I've ever seen (I'm 41yrs old).

I love Pierce but at no point was Paul Pierce ever a top 5 player in the NBA. Both Pierce and Allen were 2nd tier stars (I say top 15-20 players). KG was a legitimate 1st tier superstar (top 5 player).

As for Smart, we can only hope he turns out to be the stud that we want him to be. This will be an important year in his development.

I definitely felt like Pierce was top 5 in 01

[BigAlTheFuture]

Paul Pierce was absolutely a superstar. He was absolutely one of the 5 best players in the nba more than once, although I'll admit he was probably never the best player.

Think about the era he played in- the only players off the top of my head that were clearly better are ALL TIME greats like shaq, Kobe, Duncan, lebron, (I'm sure I'm missing a couple), the next tier down which includes guys like dirk, kg, Ray Allen, etc....pierce is right there with those guys. Maybe he isn't better than all or most of them, but an argument can certainly be made that he was every bit as good as most of them.

Pierce was certainly one of the best players of his era. That's superstar status. Let's show some respect to the 2nd best Celtic I've ever seen (I'm 41yrs old).

I love Pierce but at no point was Paul Pierce ever a top 5 player in the NBA. Both Pierce and Allen were 2nd tier stars (I say top 15-20 players). KG was a legitimate 1st tier superstar (top 5 player).

As for Smart, we can only hope he turns out to be the stud that we want him to be. This will be an important year in his development.

Maybe this is a little unfair, because Garnett was older than pierce, but when pierce played with Garnett, I thought that pierce was the better player.  I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I doubt I am alone in my opinion.  Ray Allen was not nearly the basketball player Pierce was, either. And that is saying something because Allen was a great player- much better than I realized before he came to Boston.

Pierce was certainly a superstar.

Pierce was definitely a better player than Garnett. Garnett proved during his tenure at Minnesota he couldn't carry a team on his own. Missed the playoffs 3 years in a row during his prime. That's not superstar material.

Uh. No. Sorry. At no point was Paul Pierce better than Garnett in their primes. Garnett is an absolute freak and he was THE best player in the league for a good 2-3 year stretch.


Coming from the biggest Pierce fan

[RockinRyA]

I'd agree with that.

Also, "I wouldn't trade Marcus for anyone" can't be a serious statement, can it?

Regarding the definitions of a star, here is my 2 cents.  There are only a handful of superstars in the league at any given time (perhaps five or so).  These are guys that can threaten to win an MVP.

No, another way to look at the question is whether someone will be a perennial all-star.  Someone like PP fell into that bucket.  That is someone I would call a star but not  a superstar.

Yeah, I mean agree with every one of y'alls statements.

I just think its sad to know Pierce has been the least marketable Allstar.

I will say Pierce couldn't take over games like Durant or Lebron could, but he certainly made the case for it by doing well enough in the NBA finals.

I guess the term superstar could apply to someone like top 5 in MVP voting, or even MVP.

The thing with Pierce is that he's not exciting or flashy enough to grab the attention of any casual fans.

Couple that with popular high flying high scoring wings such as Carter, T-Mac,Kobe, AI, Lebron, Wade and others who have played during this era, and its definitely not a surprise Pierce has never ever become a popular figure.

I still argue if Pierce had Lebron's marketability, and flashy explosiveness, people would say Pierce is a superstar. Some people say Melo is a superstar.

I agree with this. Id say being a top 10 player and being a superstar is not mutually exclusive. those guys, VC, TMac, Iverson are considered superstar due to being super popular, however Pierce beat them constantly in head to heads or at least play them evenly. Even against Kobe he did this. Definition of a superstar can differ from one person to another.

[Snakehead]

Yeah superstar means nothing.  But chips on the table Pierce could play as well as anyone and he took over huge games.  For my money there were a couple seasons where (like we will get to in a second with KG) he was doing everything and wasting away on bad teams.  He was a top 5 player for at least a season or two.

Uh. No. Sorry. At no point was Paul Pierce better than Garnett in their primes. Garnett is an absolute freak and he was THE best player in the league for a good 2-3 year stretch.


Coming from the biggest Pierce fan

Absolutely.

Give me Garnett in his prime over any PF ever.  Did everything and wasted away on bad teams that gave him no help.



----


Just realized what this thread was even about.  I can't even see the rails we flew off of I know they're back there somewhere...

[dysgenic]

I'd agree with that.

Also, "I wouldn't trade Marcus for anyone" can't be a serious statement, can it?

Regarding the definitions of a star, here is my 2 cents.  There are only a handful of superstars in the league at any given time (perhaps five or so).  These are guys that can threaten to win an MVP.

No, another way to look at the question is whether someone will be a perennial all-star.  Someone like PP fell into that bucket.  That is someone I would call a star but not  a superstar.

Yeah, I mean agree with every one of y'alls statements.

I just think its sad to know Pierce has been the least marketable Allstar.

I will say Pierce couldn't take over games like Durant or Lebron could, but he certainly made the case for it by doing well enough in the NBA finals.

I guess the term superstar could apply to someone like top 5 in MVP voting, or even MVP.

The thing with Pierce is that he's not exciting or flashy enough to grab the attention of any casual fans.

Couple that with popular high flying high scoring wings such as Carter, T-Mac,Kobe, AI, Lebron, Wade and others who have played during this era, and its definitely not a surprise Pierce has never ever become a popular figure.

I still argue if Pierce had Lebron's marketability, and flashy explosiveness, people would say Pierce is a superstar. Some people say Melo is a superstar.

I agree with this. Id say being a top 10 player and being a superstar is not mutually exclusive. those guys, VC, TMac, Iverson are considered superstar due to being super popular, however Pierce beat them constantly in head to heads or at least play them evenly. Even against Kobe he did this. Definition of a superstar can differ from one person to another.

So Tmac and vinsanity were superstars but Pierce wasn't? Puh-lease. Neither one of those guys had close to the career that Pierce has. Iverson could be argued but in my book Pierce has had a better career than he did, too.

Edit to add: I would also take Pierce over mchale and dj as well. It could be argued that both were superstars.

[shrinkage36]

He will be a Super Star, no doubt. He's going to do things that make your tongue fall out of your mouth. He's a different player than what we're used to seeing. We really do want to see a guy who is fluid and has this incredible jumper, etc. That's what we're used to seeing Super Stars look like. He'd different.

He is fearless, absolutely strong as an ox, quite frankly, he's pretty intimidating. Last night, the Celtics went in to a zone, guess who was playing center? If you allow him to be an all around player, I promise you, he will dominate games. Let him have the keys to the offense, and let him lead this team, and enjoy the ride.

[LilRip]

i vote for Yes. I absolutely think he has all-star potential and once he starts playing with another top-flight, non-PG teammate, i think you'll really see him blossom. It's only summer league but it already looks like he made a significant leap from last year.

As for Paul Pierce, i don't think he was ever top 5. He's definitely a great but it's hard to crack top 5 when you have to compete with guys like Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, KG, healthy T-Mac and even Kidd (people are sleeping on him), but he was always top 10 in the league.

[tankcity!]

I wouldn't even bet on Smart becoming an all-star let alone a superstar.  He looks like he's made some progress in summer league, though.  I still don't think he's a good offensive player yet.

Bro, first you said he was going to be like Tony Allen before even giving him the chance to have a whole offseason to work on his game. We've talked about this before and you decided to judge him before letting his second season play out, haha. At least I admit when I'm wrong. Have you ever admitted you are wrong?

Now you're saying he made some progress? That makes no sense at all since you said he wouldn't make progress after his rookie year and called him Tony Allen.  Did you see how timid he was last year? IMO, he has made great progress, as much as I would expect after one season under his belt.

Anyways, we'll see how good Marcus Smart will be when the season starts. But I'll be laughing my butt off if he's an all star.

huh?

I've never discounted the possibility that Smart will eventually develop into a star.  I wanted us to tank all that year and land a Top 8 pick.  I had Smart 8th on my list.  He was a solid consolation prize and I've repeatedly said he's easily our best asset.  I just don't think he's going to be an allstar.  Too offensively challenged.   If he ever makes an all-star team, I'll be very happy... unless of course it's after we've traded him away.

Smart looks like he's made some progress.  This is summer league, though.  We'll see what happens in the NBA.  He's still got a ways to go until he's as good as Tony Allen was in his prime.  Here's hoping he gets there, and then surpasses it.

You compared him to Iman Shumpert in the thread below.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=78960.120;topicseen

You keep saying he's offensively challenged but I don't see it. Smart is already going to be better than Bradley this year IMO. So I don't see the Shumpert comparison. You can't play both sides of the fence. You clearly are saying he won't be an allstar and I find it hilarious you based that assumption on one year.

[gpap]

No.

I think Smart will be a good player. I like the Tony Allen comparison someone brought up.

But superstar……no.

[droopdog7]

No matter how effective Marcus becomes, there will be doubters on this forum, that simply will not like the taste of crow. He will simply never be a star to them, because his scoring average will never be "insane" enough.

If your the type of fan that enjoys the work of Draymond, or Kawhi you will appreciate Smart. Notice how quickly their respective teams signed them, know one got a chance to even think of making an offer to them.

People act like smart has arrived and people like me are in denial.  That's not even slows to being true.  Smart had a decent rookie year and has followed that up with a good a games and a not so good game in summer league.  Long long long way from eating crow.

And I'm glad you brought up draymond green because I think he's a good comp for smart's high point.  But then again, I don't think a guy like green is a true star.  He's a role player that only gets noticed because he's on a good team.  But he's not some multiple all star that's ever going to carry a team.  So basically smart can be very helpful on a good team, but I don see him ever carrying one.