Stuckey vs Gibson

**nadeau01_johnson48** · 10-28-2008, 05:57 PM

How can you honestly compare them?

Gibson is a role player....that's what he does. He comes off the bench and drains threes. That's what he'll do his whole career.

Stuckey is being groomed to be the PG of the future when Mr. Ed retires.

They are completely different types of players.

**garnett_21** · 10-28-2008, 05:59 PM

KG vs everyone else =) what about Big Al & CP3, i'd assume you'd be on the bias side as well for them. but i could be wrong

It depends - most likely yes, but it depends :-)

Stuckey is big for a PG, but seems to have good handling and court vision - I guess being so much higher than other PGs helps that out! I think it's really too early to determine Stuckey's ability, since he's only been in the league for 1 year.

**gladdyontherise** · 10-28-2008, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by nadeau01_johnson48 View Post

How can you honestly compare them?

Gibson is a role player....that's what he does. He comes off the bench and drains threes. That's what he'll do his whole career.

Stuckey is being groomed to be the PG of the future when Mr. Ed retires.

They are completely different types of players.

you asked for it :)

Simply making my point by your own admission, Gibson isnt a strong enough (strong meaning basketball ability) to be a productive starter unlike Stuckey who will lead the Pistons eventually

**gladdyontherise** · 10-28-2008, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by garnett_21 View Post

It depends - most likely yes, but it depends :-)

Stuckey is big for a PG, but seems to have good handling and court vision - I guess being so much higher than other PGs helps that out! I think it's really too early to determine Stuckey's ability, since he's only been in the league for 1 year.

hasnt even played one year, he had the hand injury and didnt play till December or Janurary.

He's kinda like Chauncey Billups. Very big for his position and very strong, but is good to post up sometimes. and will be Mr. "Future" Big Shot

**hector234** · 10-28-2008, 06:02 PM

This isn't even close. Stuckey is better, and has so much more potential.

**nadeau01_johnson48** · 10-28-2008, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by gladdyontherise View Post

you asked for it :)

Simply making my point by your own admission, Gibson isnt a strong enough (strong meaning basketball ability) to be a productive starter unlike Stuckey who will lead the Pistons eventually

First off, like I said, I was just being sarcastic to irritate you. And no, I didn't say that. It has nothing to do with him being strong enough, it has to do with him being better as a role player off the bench.

You know, the same way Manu is? It's the same thing. He brings energy off the bench....he's better suited for that. It has nothing to do with "less productivity."

And when Stuckey is "leading the Pistons", it'll be a sad day in Detroit. When that's happening, they'll be winning like 30 games a year, lol.

**garnett_21** · 10-28-2008, 06:02 PM

I'm not even sure how these 2 can be compared equally - both are bench players right now, but Stuckey should be an eventually starter. Gibson won't ever be a starter.

**selby56** · 10-28-2008, 09:29 PM

I love Boobie, but I will admit, he doesn't really have what it takes to start. What Jeremy said is right...Boobie has been coming off the bench and making threes. That is what he will probably always do. He is a dangerous player when he does play, but if he started he wouldn't be as productive.