Calling "/thread" after your own post. Is there anything lamer than that?
Also: "Is Manu a better player than Michael Redd?"
Bench /= team Philo
Surely a lawyer recognizes that.
Manu being part of the big 3 doesn't mean he's the franchise guy. Nice try Philobtuse
Actually I said "Was he better than Michael Redd during that time?"Calling "/thread" after your own post. Is there anything lamer than that?
Also: "Is Manu a better player than Michael Redd?"
10 years studying the English language and cannot quote accurately
Redd
Ginobili
What point in time here would Manu have gone to the Bucks and been more productive than Redd? Would he have been franchise player level quality during that time?
Then realize we are comparing Manu to Michael ing Redd and you still cannot find an opening.
"Can't find an opening"Actually I said "Was he better than Michael Redd during that time?"
Redd
Ginobili
What point in time here would Manu have gone to the Bucks and been more productive than Redd? Would he have been franchise player level quality during that time?
Then realize we are comparing Manu to Michael ing Redd and you still cannot find an opening.
Why are you comparing stats? The whole ing premise of the thread is that Manu would have got much more eye popping raw stats if he had the chance to go be the number one option of a team, so I don't get the point of comparing the stats that occurred without Manu having that chance.
And if you can't tell by simple eye sighting that Manu Ginobili is a better player than Michael Redd ever was, then I now realize why you are one of the few dumbasses arguing on this thread, tbh.
1. Who said Manu didn't have that chance?"Can't find an opening"
Why are you comparing stats? The whole ing premise of the thread is that Manu would have got much more eye popping raw stats if he had the chance to go be the number one option of a team, so I don't get the point of comparing the stats that occurred without Manu having that chance.
And if you can't tell by simple eye sighting that Manu Ginobili is a better player than Michael Redd ever was, then I now realize why you are one of the few dumbasses arguing on this thread, tbh.
2. I don't rely on the eyeball test
The Bucks let Ray Allen go because Michael Redd was their up and coming franchise guy.
You're also arguing on it - dumbass.
So, who's better: Manu or Michael Redd?
Your countryman was where he needed to be, where all your fellow countrymen need to be: a clean up guy, there on the bench waiting for the old white man to tell him the show is over, go clean the ing office... butmuch countrymen could have been more..
Who was the better player: Manu or Redd? It's a pretty simple question, tbh.Your countryman was where he needed to be, where all your fellow countrymen need to be: a clean up guy, there on the bench waiting for the old white man to tell him the show is over, go clean the ing office... but
How can somebody's hand be so fat after typing all of these words, tbh?
They're probably swollen from carpal tunnel in addition to just being fat, tbh
I don't dance, forum monkey.
Answer my question first. Which franchise player in the NBA could Manu have replaced and been better at the position? Why did Chip say Manu wasn't built for starter minutes yet you think he was? Did you sleep with him?
^Turd TwinsThey're probably swollen from carpal tunnel in addition to just being fat, tbh
Fat boy is by far the most annoying poster to have an argument with, tbh.
You're fat. No amount of money will help you shed that label or weight. I also don't have to follow you around. You have 60k posts. You're in every thread. Keep chalking up those Ws and showing everyone how much smarter you are though:
I remeber he was a new poster in around 2012...Always telling me I have no life because I have close to 10k post. I'm now around 18k and this fat nikka is a year away from 100k postYou're fat. No amount of money will help you shed that label or weight. I also don't have to follow you around. You have 60k posts. You're in every thread. Keep chalking up those Ws and showing everyone how much smarter you are though:
if manu is more effective in limited minutes than most players, why does he need to play 40 minutes a night?
pippen played the same amount of minutes with MJ than without. same for kobe with shaq. their rank on the team heirarchy didnt change their minutes. do you not consider them franchise players? they were sidekicks because they had teammates that were better, just like manu.
if player a goes 20/5/5 in 30 minutes and player b does it in 36, why is player b better? sure, if manu could play 36 minutes and produce at the same rate, like Engelland said in your quote, he'd be top 10 all time. he can settle for 47 or even top 75, you're being an obtuse idiot if you think a top 75 all time player isnt worthy of the "franchise player" tag. manu's advanced stats put him closer to the 20-40 range than the 50-75 one anyway.
as for durability... manu got injured a lot on collisions and accidents, but he didnt have chronic knee / ankle /bone problems like most guys who are called injury prone do and that is the reason he played up to 40. Who was more durable, the guy that played less minutes into his 40s or the guy who played big minutes and had to retire 8 years earlier? Its funny you mention redd, a forgotten "franchise player" who retired with nothing but one all star game and one all nba, vs an icon like manu with more accolades both team and individual. Im VERY interested to see what happens with kawhi and how spurs fans on this board label him. since he doesnt have the big 3 anymore have to carry a load that none of them had to do, and he has already exhibited certain propensity for both chronic and accidental injuries. players like paul pierce, allen, joe johnson, aldridge, franchise guys that play big minutes but are finesse ing pussies are not comparable to ballers that play hard. its easier to play big minutes if you are holding back half your time on the floor. anyways you clearly consider kawhi a franchise player... FYI, he's never played more than 33 minutes, never played more than 74 games a season. 90% of nba players have injury problems so this shouldnt be a surprise to anyone that most players get injured and a big part of jordan and lebrons success is health. you're talking about the top percentile of players ever, everyone else got injured and missed playoffs and seasons and became different players etc etc, including tim, kobe, garnett, dirk, nash, paul, shaq etc etc. Having come off the bench, manu's status is diminished, only die hard fans like me will consider them his peers. at the least he was right there behind them, and you're nuts if you dont think he could have been a franchise level player for a playoff team for at least a 2 year stretch. go back and watch the spurs upset the mavs in 2010 despite dirk breaking manu's nose and najera taking shots at him, and tell me who the spurs franchise player was. people call manu's 2011 spurs a paper tiger because they lost to the grizzlies, what does that make dirk's 2007 mavs? 99% of those big minutes guys that dont get injured are offense only softies and not even they are guaranteed to stay safe.
what if you already have a franchise player, a top 10 all time one to boot?You build a team around a franchise player. You don't ask him to come off the bench.
finally, the bench thing. why are we pretending that manu wasnt a starter for several seasons? Notably, in 2005 (closer for a champion, albeit with a goat player taking the spotlight), and in 2011, when said goat player was readjusting his game due to age, injury and changes in the league. Manu had better stats starting than coming off the bench (which is probably true for all players, the myth that starters stats suffer because of quality of opponents is ridiculous), and in my opinion he was the franchise player for the 2010 and 2011 spurs (he was better just slightly better than duncan then, lead the team in mvp shares both years, finished 8th in 2011). You could argue that proves, his durability punished the team (terrible string of playoff injuries, ankle in 08, aggravated ankle injury in 09, nose 2010, arm 2011, though he did play through those last two admirably), but at the same time it shows he could have been a franchise player easily. Maybe not a conventional one. maybe not a top ten all time one. but enough to be in the top 12 teams at the end of any given season, yes.
Depends what you mean by franchise player, really.
If by franchise player you mean a franchise player for a championship team, then probably not, as there are top 20 players of all time who couldn't do that.
But by franchise player as in Michael Redd, James Harden, Allen Iverson, Ray Allen, or Michael Redd levels? Sure, he has shown the ability to lead teams to decent records and some post season success as the main offensive guy. Put him with a rugged rebounder/defender and a bunch of shooters, and he can play like a Nash-lite on offense and much better on defense in
He made All-NBA third team twice, and was top 11 in MVP award shares 3 times in his career, so those are indications that he can at least be a top level player in the league.
As for injury concerns, he has played 992 out of 1214 possible games in his career. Sure that is not iron man level of reliability, but that's still a good 82% of games, and that includes games where he was strategically rested.
He typically plays around 65 to 75 games a year early on in his career, so while this isn't great, it's not horrible.
If anybody gives a about my opinion, this is probably what I'd agree with although I'm thinking 7th/8th seed in the West but in the East much higher (although second round ceiling). Something along those lines.
Manu is an all around damn good player with a great basketball IQ. My problem with Ginobili is that he doesn't have the freak athleticism or signature move that would consistently get him the 20 ppg or lead his team deep into the playoffs. He seems like he wouldn't be that difficult to shut down in the playoffs.
-Kawhi is 6'8 and freakishly athletic
-Durant is a 7 foot guard
-Dirk has the unstoppable fadeaway
-Shaq just overpowered people
-Kobe/Duncan were just scoring machines
-Curry with the lightning quick release from anywhere on the court
etc
Ginobili, to me, doesn't have that type of game to where he can just go to his signature move that can't be stopped even when other guys know it's coming. That's what would keep him at a tier below those other guys as franchise players, IMO. Of course, this is all speculative and Manu's a touchy subject with certain posters on this forum so there's no point in getting into a back and forth pissing match
That's a strange argument regarding Manu when this year he won NBA TV's "Best go to move in history", by a landslide, with his eurostep. I think he beat Jabbar's sky hook like 70/30, in the final.
Also, Manu on his prime was deceptively atheltic, he's more athletic than a guy like Harden, for example. Just go look at some of Manu's best dunks and blocks and compare it to Hardens.
When I made this thread I looked at Harden. To me it's obvious Manu could have had the same success Harden has had as a Franchise player, since Harden is basically Manu minus the clutchness, compe iveness spirit and the defensive effort. So, I agree with you that not a 1st tier franchise player, but I think he could have done better than just 7th or 8th seed on the West.
Last edited by DAF86; 06-01-2017 at 02:14 PM.
I have already answered that question. Manu could have been the Franchise player in more than half of the NBA teams (probably even in 3/4th of the teams).
Now, answer my question: Who was the better NBA player, Manu Ginobili or Michael Redd?
I think Manu's athleticism is underrated. He isn't the highest jumper, but his agility, ability to change directions, control of speed and eye-hand coordination is all elite.
I think Manu as a franchise player would be like a healthy Brandon Roy, good stats (not ridiculous like Lebron), deceptively good athletically, and can lead the team to surprisingly good standings.
I told you I don't dance for you.
There are only a handful of real franchise players in the NBA. These are people you can build your franchise around for the foreseeable future and have good success. I don't think an organization as savvy as the Spurs took a guy who would fit that bill and put him as a 6th man for years. I trust Pop's IQ and decision making more than that. It doesn't mean Manu wasn't a great player, but some of you are narrowing down to a fine point and altering the meaning of the term "franchise player".
If you consider that Tim was the cog on the Spurs, then Manu was the cog off the bench. So in that sense Manu was a franchise player since the bench was consistently built with up-tempo offense that suits Manu's playing style. It's not the same (philo) to say he was part of the franchise big 3 and to say he could have been THE franchise guy on another team.
Could Manu have been the best player on a good team? Sure.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
