Spot Number 46 - Top 50 Spurs

[timvp]

SpursTalk's Top 50 Spurs
1. Tim Duncan
2. David Robinson
3. George Gervin
4. Gregg Popovich
5. Angelo Drossos
6. Manu Ginobili
7. Tony Parker
8. Sean Elliott
9. James Silas
10. Bruce Bowen
11. Larry Kenon
12. Avery Johnson
13. Alvin Robertson
14. Johnny Moore
15. RC Buford
16. Artis Gilmore
17. Peter Holt
18. Mike Mitchell
19. Bob Bass
20. Malik Rose
21. Robert Horry
22. Red McCombs
23. Doug Moe
24. Terry Cummings
25. Mario Elie
26. Willie Anderson
27. Billy Paultz
28. Robert McDermott
29. Stephen Jackson
30. Mark Olberding
31. Stan Albeck
32. Brent Barry
33. Mike Budenholzer
34. Swen Nater
35. Larry Brown
36. Rod Strickland
37. Michael Finley
38. Jaren Jackson
39. Hank Egan
40. PJ Carlesimo
41. Sam Presti
42. Steve Kerr
43. Rich Jones
44. Gene Banks
45. Vinny Del Negro

------------------------------

To pass the time until the start of preseason, let's see how SpursTalk.com ranks the Top 50 Spurs. Those eligible for the list include all players, coaches and owners. I don't want to define "top" too narrowly, but I think the best way to do it would be to think of the list as a list of the 50 most influential people who have helped make the Spurs one of the most successful franchises in the history of sport.

For more information on what we are doing, check out this thread (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103061).

In this thread, we will vote for spot number 46. Please place your vote. If you will, also explain in this thread why you voted how you did.

Thanks.



P.S.

Poll options listed in alphabetical order. If you want to vote for someone not on the list, post in the thread and I'll add the person.

Voting will end 2AM CST Wednesday morning.

Please vote only once.

[Kamnik]

Voted for Oberto.

Whoever voted for Rodman-ban yourself!

[urunobili]

Del Negro> Rodman? lame...

[SenorSpur]

Del Negro> Rodman? lame...

Couldn't agree more. Del Negro shouldn't be mentioned in the top 50. :bang

[baseline bum]

Del Negro> Rodman? lame...

You jumped on the bandwagon late and don't have any idea how worthless Rodman was for this team, so STFU.

[Obstructed_View]

You jumped on the bandwagon late and don't have any idea how worthless Rodman was for this team, so STFU.

Yeah, but the fact is that Rodman did contribute to the team while he was here. That he did something terrible in a critical playoff series is bad, but it realistically doesn't undo everything else. It's rightfully cost him spots on this list but it's entirely possible that it's still a list that he belongs on.

Back to the subject, I think Chuck Person needs to get some love on this list at some point. He was very good for the Spurs when he was here.

[baseline bum]

Yeah, but the fact is that Rodman did contribute to the team while he was here. That he did something terrible in a critical playoff series is bad, but it realistically doesn't undo everything else. It's rightfully cost him spots on this list but it's entirely possible that it's still a list that he belongs on.


His quitting act in the playoffs outdoes anything positive he did in the regular season (which was still him being a stat whore for rebounds and not playing defense). Now I see mav fan has started voting for this worthless POS too, based on what he did in Detroit and Chicago and not San Antonio.

[Obstructed_View]

His quitting act in the playoffs outdoes anything positive he did in the regular season (which was still him being a stat whore for rebounds and not playing defense). Now I see mav fan has started voting for this worthless POS too, based on what he did in Detroit and Chicago and not San Antonio.

Perhaps, but I'm much less likely to block his addition to the list as I am to block Rasho. If Rodman had played team basketball in that one series he'd probably make the top 20 in this list for contributing to a championship.

[The Truth #6]

Lookout, I think Baseline Bum is going to post those youtube clips again. He might even mention how Rodman didn't sign his blonde afro wig, or whatever it is that's kept him in a Rodman rage for the last 13 years.

[baseline bum]

Lookout, I think Baseline Bum is going to post those youtube clips again. He might even mention how Rodman didn't sign his blonde afro wig, or whatever it is that's kept him in a Rodman rage for the last 13 years.

I would for once like to hear a dumbass Rodman fan come justify his destructive act in the 95 WCF and why everyone should look past it and call him one of the greatest Spurs of all time.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Mike Gale is probably a good choice here based on his longevity.


I'm voting for George Johnson. Leading the league in blocks his two years here is impressive.....it's even more impressive when you consider he played less then 24 minutes a game both years he was here and he accomplished that feat in his 30s toward the end of his career.

And Johnson has an NBA championship ring...........albeit with Golden State.

[FromWayDowntown]

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- Rodman is a tough case on a list like this one. He is, undisputably, one of the most "productive" Spurs of all-time. In his short stay in SA, he led the league in rebounding twice setting franchise records for rebounds per game along the way (records that blow away all others on the list) and twice making All-Defense teams. Without Rodman, the 1994-95 Spurs probably aren't the #1 seed and probably don't win the 62 games that they won. Rodman has all of the top 7 rebounding games in Spurs history (including 32 in a game at Dallas in 1994 and 30 in another game at Houston in 1995) and 10 of the top 13 rebounding games in Spurs history.

In terms of real production, nobody left on this list can touch Rodman (and that's been true for a long while); EHJ's guy, George Johnson, is the only one who's close.

What will always get Rodman, though, is his disappearance late in Game 1 of the 1995 WCF, his selfish jacking up of 3's in the first quarter of Game 2 of that series, and the problems that he created both by those acts and by his general douchebaggery during the remainder of that series. Did Rodman cost the Spurs a trip to the Finals in 1995? Probably. But in real terms, so did Sean Elliott missing 2 huge free throws at the end of Game 1 of that series. So did the Spurs' inability to defend Sam Cassell in Game 5 of that series. So did the Spurs' lack of production from the 2 spot (both Del Negro and Person) in the 4 losses (combined 17-45 and 43 points in those 4 games). So did the Spurs' refusal to bring regular doubles at Hakeem. So did a lot of other things.

Was Rodman the central culprit in that loss? Absolutely. Did he single-handedly cost the Spurs that series? I'd dispute that. And does his culpability for that loss make inferior players more historically noteworthy than Rodman? I don't think so.

I'll add one more intangible to Rodman's argument (one I've noted before): without the Rodman experience and Pop's exposure to it in that trying spring and early summer of 1995, the Spurs' focus on character and team might not be what it is now. Moreover, had Rodman not been such a problem in that series (and late in that season, really) Pop might not have traded him and the Spurs might have been somewhat better in the injury-plagued 1996-97 than they proved to be; even a small improvement, of course, might have cost the Spurs Tim Duncan and a decade at the top of the league.

Rodman's role in Spurs history warrants his inclusion on this list, I think.

[venitian navigator]

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- Rodman is a tough case on a list like this one. He is, undisputably, one of the most "productive" Spurs of all-time. In his short stay in SA, he led the league in rebounding twice setting franchise records for rebounds per game along the way (records that blow away all others on the list) and twice making All-Defense teams. Without Rodman, the 1994-95 Spurs probably aren't the #1 seed and probably don't win the 62 games that they won. Rodman has all of the top 7 rebounding games in Spurs history (including 32 in a game at Dallas in 1994 and 30 in another game at Houston in 1995) and 10 of the top 13 rebounding games in Spurs history.

In terms of real production, nobody left on this list can touch Rodman (and that's been true for a long while); EHJ's guy, George Johnson, is the only one who's close.

What will always get Rodman, though, is his disappearance late in Game 1 of the 1995 WCF, his selfish jacking up of 3's in the first quarter of Game 2 of that series, and the problems that he created both by those acts and by his general douchebaggery during the remainder of that series. Did Rodman cost the Spurs a trip to the Finals in 1995? Probably. But in real terms, so did Sean Elliott missing 2 huge free throws at the end of Game 1 of that series. So did the Spurs' inability to defend Sam Cassell in Game 5 of that series. So did the Spurs' lack of production from the 2 spot (both Del Negro and Person) in the 4 losses (combined 17-45 and 43 points in those 4 games). So did the Spurs' refusal to bring regular doubles at Hakeem. So did a lot of other things.

Was Rodman the central culprit in that loss? Absolutely. Did he single-handedly cost the Spurs that series? I'd dispute that. And does his culpability for that loss make inferior players more historically noteworthy than Rodman? I don't think so.

I'll add one more intangible to Rodman's argument (one I've noted before): without the Rodman experience and Pop's exposure to it in that trying spring and early summer of 1995, the Spurs' focus on character and team might not be what it is now. Moreover, had Rodman not been such a problem in that series (and late in that season, really) Pop might not have traded him and the Spurs might have been somewhat better in the injury-plagued 1996-97 than they proved to be; even a small improvement, of course, might have cost the Spurs Tim Duncan and a decade at the top of the league.

Rodman's role in Spurs history warrants his inclusion on this list, I think.


I agree for the positive/negative balance you made (apart for the last part...you can't give a vote to someone just because he's been taded for nothing given of his negative impact after his last season, or for the fact that this is the the reason of the future negative record of the franchise) but I Think for the same reasons his name should be the last one in any list regarding the Spurs...
He's been too good to be let out, but his behavior and the negative impact of this on the franchise has to be valued so bad that he can't be considered a positive contributor...more than anyone else deserving mention!

The thing I remember about that freak, is that he said that San Antonio would heve never won a title... and that only means he's the "anti-spur" for excellence... so much I loved him when he was plaiyng good (also made me laugh a llot with his freaking tattoos and hairs), so much I hated him when the real freaking was in his behavior regarding the game...

So...spot n° 50 (or 51, considering that 50 remembers nme too much the admiral, who was the exact opposite of the warm..).

[baseline bum]

I'll add one more intangible to Rodman's argument (one I've noted before): without the Rodman experience and Pop's exposure to it in that trying spring and early summer of 1995, the Spurs' focus on character and team might not be what it is now.


That's like singing Bin Laden's praise for getting this nation focused on stopping terrorism.

[rascal]

Bob Hill and Walter Berry should get into the last spots. Hill had an impressive overall won lose record with the spurs and is getting over looked because of how he was let go. Berry had a short stay with the Spurs but put up impressive numbers and improved from his regular season stats in his one playoff series.

Keep Rasho and Rodman off the list.

[samikeyp]

Voted for Oberto.

Whoever voted for Rodman-ban yourself!

Oberto top 50. :lol

[The Truth #6]

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- Rodman is a tough case on a list like this one. He is, undisputably, one of the most "productive" Spurs of all-time. In his short stay in SA, he led the league in rebounding twice setting franchise records for rebounds per game along the way (records that blow away all others on the list) and twice making All-Defense teams. Without Rodman, the 1994-95 Spurs probably aren't the #1 seed and probably don't win the 62 games that they won. Rodman has all of the top 7 rebounding games in Spurs history (including 32 in a game at Dallas in 1994 and 30 in another game at Houston in 1995) and 10 of the top 13 rebounding games in Spurs history.

In terms of real production, nobody left on this list can touch Rodman (and that's been true for a long while); EHJ's guy, George Johnson, is the only one who's close.

What will always get Rodman, though, is his disappearance late in Game 1 of the 1995 WCF, his selfish jacking up of 3's in the first quarter of Game 2 of that series, and the problems that he created both by those acts and by his general douchebaggery during the remainder of that series. Did Rodman cost the Spurs a trip to the Finals in 1995? Probably. But in real terms, so did Sean Elliott missing 2 huge free throws at the end of Game 1 of that series. So did the Spurs' inability to defend Sam Cassell in Game 5 of that series. So did the Spurs' lack of production from the 2 spot (both Del Negro and Person) in the 4 losses (combined 17-45 and 43 points in those 4 games). So did the Spurs' refusal to bring regular doubles at Hakeem. So did a lot of other things.

Was Rodman the central culprit in that loss? Absolutely. Did he single-handedly cost the Spurs that series? I'd dispute that. And does his culpability for that loss make inferior players more historically noteworthy than Rodman? I don't think so.

I'll add one more intangible to Rodman's argument (one I've noted before): without the Rodman experience and Pop's exposure to it in that trying spring and early summer of 1995, the Spurs' focus on character and team might not be what it is now. Moreover, had Rodman not been such a problem in that series (and late in that season, really) Pop might not have traded him and the Spurs might have been somewhat better in the injury-plagued 1996-97 than they proved to be; even a small improvement, of course, might have cost the Spurs Tim Duncan and a decade at the top of the league.

Rodman's role in Spurs history warrants his inclusion on this list, I think.

This post is reasonable and is one of the few comments on Rodman that isn't blinded by the pain of the 95 loss. If we had won the title that year Rodman would be voted top 10-15 Spurs of all time. I can't think of any trade in recent memory where our title hopes were lifted so much from the addition of one single player. He was a freak but he brought excitement and title contention for those two years he was here.

Everyone was hurt by what happened in the end. Either you are able to look beyond it or not. At this point it's probably best he doesn't make the list. There hasn't been a thorough debate for this list anyway. I thought he should have gone much sooner. At this point it's kind of silly. I'd rather see Helicopter, The Truth Walter Berry, and Ed Nealy get in.

[tlongII]

Why stop at 50? Why not rank the top 100 Spurs of all time?

[baseline bum]

This post is reasonable and is one of the few comments on Rodman that isn't blinded by the pain of the 95 loss. If we had won the title that year Rodman would be voted top 10-15 Spurs of all time. I can't think of any trade in recent memory where our title hopes were lifted so much from the addition of one single player. He was a freak but he brought excitement and title contention for those two years he was here.

Everyone was hurt by what happened in the end. Either you are able to look beyond it or not. At this point it's probably best he doesn't make the list. There hasn't been a thorough debate for this list anyway. I thought he should have gone much sooner. At this point it's kind of silly. I'd rather see Helicopter, The Truth Walter Berry, and Ed Nealy get in.

If the Spurs had won the title in 95, it would have likely been a result of Rodman showing up and playing hard. Unfortunately, he was nothing but a cancer and distraction in that series, so what ifs here are moot. It's established what kind of player Rodman was for this team when they needed him. For this same reason there's no way in hell Bob Hill deserves to be here either.

For the record, as much as I hate Rodman for 95, I'd vote him in the top 20 before I'd vote Hill in the top 50. Hill's main job was to build chemistry, not to get in petty fights with childish selfish players like Rodman.

[spurster]

How come the "wolf" is not an option?

[barbacoataco]

Mike Gale was a big part of the late 78-79 Spurs teams that were very good teams. He also played for a long time with the Spurs. Coby Dietrick is in the top 10 (#7) I think in games played for the Spurs. That alone should get him in the top 50 IMO. After all it isn't a ranking of the "best" 50 players, or there would be some different names.

[2centsworth]

Del Negro more productive than Willie Anderson, Dale Ellis or Chuck Person? Rodman is certainly top 50. He's the #1 "D" bag, but his production was worthy of top 50 recognition.

[The Truth #6]

Del Negro more productive than Willie Anderson, Dale Ellis or Chuck Person? Rodman is certainly top 50. He's the #1 "D" bag, but his production was worthy of top 50 recognition.

I believe Will the Chill is at #26.

[The Truth #6]

If the Spurs had won the title in 95, it would have likely been a result of Rodman showing up and playing hard. Unfortunately, he was nothing but a cancer and distraction in that series, so what ifs here are moot. It's established what kind of player Rodman was for this team when they needed him. For this same reason there's no way in hell Bob Hill deserves to be here either.

For the record, as much as I hate Rodman for 95, I'd vote him in the top 20 before I'd vote Hill in the top 50. Hill's main job was to build chemistry, not to get in petty fights with childish selfish players like Rodman.

I'll agree with you about Hill.

To me, this list is still about people's favorites more than any other criteria.

There aren't that many Spurs who were able to dominate the game and elevate the team in such a way that made us title contenders. To me that list would be Gervin, Robinson, Duncan, Manu, Tony, maybe Silas, and yeah, to some degree, Rodman. As ironic as it is, he brought us a legitimacy that we didn't have before he arrived. His betrayal is duly noted and if people hate his guts that's fine. But I'm trying to be objective and to erase his regular season contributions seems completely wrong to me. Before Duncan arrived, all we had was the regular season. Obviously we aren't going to throw it all out but I do think we're being convenient in the selectivity.

Part of the joy of the 99 title was overcoming all the previous letdowns. I'm choosing not to hold a grudge against Rodman for what he did. He's clinically unstable and that's part of the bargain we struck when we brought him here. His exit was deplorable but doesn't mean he didn't have a huge impact while he was here.

The rest of the league thinks of the 95 loss as when Hakeem completely outplayed David and showed that the Spurs still weren't ready to take it to the next level. That sucks, but it was true.

But in Spurs world, we put all the blame on Rodman. To me that's myth making. This top 50 list should not erase the bad times so we can only celebrate the good times. In doing so we've elevated coat tail riders like Finley to way too high of a place in this list. He's a cool guy but he was at the right place at the right time.

There isn't a perfect narrative to the Rodman story and it's easier to create a complete villain as a way to disregard the whole experience. For me I can't think of Dave's scoring title, the MVP award, the franchise record 62 wins without thinking of the whole team and recognizing Rodman's important role in that. Yeah, it didn't work out but I'm not going to rewrite the history in my mind, or worse, completely forget that time because we didn't win a title. To me it was still a great two years. Our recent successes have spoiled us.

And for no reason at all I'll add, I'd take the 1988 Walter Berry over the 08 Finley without question. Berry was a scoring machine when he was here and he probably won't even make the list because he played on the absolute worst team in Spurs history. The team sucked but that didn't mean I wasn't a Spurs fan.

Alright, end soliloquy...

[venitian navigator]

I'll agree with you about Hill.

To me, this list is still about people's favorites more than any other criteria.

There aren't that many Spurs who were able to dominate the game and elevate the team in such a way that made us title contenders. To me that list would be Gervin, Robinson, Duncan, Manu, Tony, maybe Silas, and yeah, to some degree, Rodman. As ironic as it is, he brought us a legitimacy that we didn't have before he arrived. His betrayal is duly noted and if people hate his guts that's fine. But I'm trying to be objective and to erase his regular season contributions seems completely wrong to me. Before Duncan arrived, all we had was the regular season. Obviously we aren't going to throw it all out but I do think we're being convenient in the selectivity.

Part of the joy of the 99 title was overcoming all the previous letdowns. I'm choosing not to hold a grudge against Rodman for what he did. He's clinically unstable and that's part of the bargain we struck when we brought him here. His exit was deplorable but doesn't mean he didn't have a huge impact while he was here.

The rest of the league thinks of the 95 loss as when Hakeem completely outplayed David and showed that the Spurs still weren't ready to take it to the next level. That sucks, but it was true.

But in Spurs world, we put all the blame on Rodman. To me that's myth making. This top 50 list should not erase the bad times so we can only celebrate the good times. In doing so we've elevated coat tail riders like Finley to way too high of a place in this list. He's a cool guy but he was at the right place at the right time.

There isn't a perfect narrative to the Rodman story and it's easier to create a complete villain as a way to disregard the whole experience. For me I can't think of Dave's scoring title, the MVP award, the franchise record 62 wins without thinking of the whole team and recognizing Rodman's important role in that. Yeah, it didn't work out but I'm not going to rewrite the history in my mind, or worse, completely forget that time because we didn't win a title. To me it was still a great two years. Our recent successes have spoiled us.

And for no reason at all I'll add, I'd take the 1988 Walter Berry over the 08 Finley without question. Berry was a scoring machine when he was here and he probably won't even make the list because he played on the absolute worst team in Spurs history. The team sucked but that didn't mean I wasn't a Spurs fan.

Alright, end soliloquy...



I agree for a great part about Rodman.
But one thing is to talk about the strongest players spurs had (in this case Rodman is top ten, no question, for his records, included our first spot in the regular season), another is fan favourite...and for this reason I think he deserves the last spot in any list of this kind (also if you've been a great player for the team, you can't be a big favourite when you mess with your team's title chances, like he did in '95, or when, after being traded, you speak bad about the team or the city, saying they'll never have a chance to win a nba title).

I don't agree, instead, about Hill.
I prefer Pop and Albeck like coaches, but we can't deny that he did the best he could with the players he had (mad head Rodman included) and he still had, after four titles, the best regular season record for our franchise.

His reaction with Rodman is the kind of reaction any fan could have had seeing one of your best players fucking a great part of the entire team's chances to win it all...(and that's exactly what Rodman did).
So, you can blame him a bit because he lost his temper sometimes...but not too much.
Another question was his firing...after ten games of regular season with Robinson injured.
Now we can say it's been the right decision because the whole stuff was in risk of deteriorating after the Rodman case, because he could have played D.Rob just for having a better record with the risk of 1) re-enjuring the Admiral; 2) don't make the lottery in the Duncan's year.
But, after all, at the time it's been a questionable decison, thinking about the previous regular season records he joined with the team and at the fact that that decision has been taken by his GM Popovich...alias the coach in becaming.

Right decision, o.k., but questionable at least...glad that's been made, however...!