Printable View
True, but Manu would be THE star on a lot, if not most, of the teams in the league. We're lucky to also have Duncan and Parker to play with him. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave McNulla
IMO, Manu also put the league's scouts on permanent notice there is a lot of great talent outside the US- not just the once in a decade player to make it here like Dirk was at the time. Now, there are foreign players drafted very high in almost every draft.
Drazen was a stud....
Michael Jordan was taken #3.
true wow he was only 20 or so when he was draftedQuote:
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
man he whould probably have made the HOF tcccccccc spurs would have won more title tcc
stupid POP!!!!!!!!! :wtf
Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
LMAO...QueeGee never said that, that was artistic license with quotes on my part.
What he said was that there's no way Manu is #1 overall pick talent.
I just listed a few of the #1's taken since Manu was. And I'd argue that Manu's draft ranking has a lot to do with year you are talking about drafting him.
Most of the doubts about Manu's ability would have been tied into lack of games against NBA talent...I think after 04 it's not a stretch to say he could have gone #1.
And there's absolutely no doubt he's a better player and more talented than about half the overall #1 picks taken since he was drafted.
Hell we could trade Manu for Olo, KMart and Kwame right now...I'd also take him over Yao and Bogut. Yao because he makes Manu look like AC Green.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
Manu wasn't awesome in the NBA to start his rookie season at age 25. So I'm not sure bringing him over at age 20 would have made him any better. He learned a lot and became better player in his experience in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpower
(By the way, he was almost turning 22 when he got drafted, not 20).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
Yeah, for one thing we brought him over AFTER he won, and took his teams all the way to their goal, over in Europe.
Who's to say we would have brought over a young and rawer Manu too soon to help us?
Then again, people describe Manu as always being the same, and unchanged since being brought over, his game even looked the same in Europe highlights, maybe just less refined as it is now.
Manu could have been just like Tony in 2002, a little more under the control of Pop. By 2003, Manu came into the league more matured and knowing he can go all the way at least somewhere else. But eh, it's mostly speculation...but I think Manu winning the championships by himself over in the Euroleague did a lot to shape Manu's confidence, as a proven winner.
The Olympics 2004 Gold Medal was a big reason for Manu letting his game all out in 2005. If you consider how his elevated game came out of nowhere in 2005, maybe it was better overall we brought him in 2003.
I wouldn't chalk it up to his development as a player: you have some adjusting to do when you join the NBA from the FIBA world, and that holds whether you are 22, 25 or 29. And let's not forget he struggled all of his rookie season with a serious ankle injury. All in all, I'd say it's more like it took him a while for the NBA to see the Manu the FIBA world already knew.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kori Ellis
He certainly improved a lot from the time he was drafted to when he was signed, but I'd be fairly confident in saying he was already damn good and NBA ready one or two seasons before that as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kori Ellis
Sticking with the Spurs, where were James Silas and George Gervin drafted? I believe Silas would have been drafted by both the NBA and ABA. Because Gervin came out early, I don't know if the ABA drafted him (I don't believe the NBA would have).
Edit after searching . . .
Gervin was drafted in the third round of the 1974 NBA draft (40th overall) by Phoenix. He was drafted in the first round (#10) of a special circumstances ABA draft by Virginia in 1973.
Silas was drafted in the fifth round of the 1972 NBA draft (70th overall) by Houston.
Both have their jerseys hung from the rafters.
I doubt itQuote:
Originally Posted by Ariel
since you do not have a job scouting
Neither does anyone on this board, as far as I know. However, I have been watching Manu for about 10 years which at least makes my opinion informed, which sets me apart from you. That, of course, and the fact that I can express myself somewhat coherently, at least every once in a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by ducks
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamStone
Michael Cooper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manu
Drafted out of New Mexico by the Lakers in the third round of the 1978 NBA Draft (60th overall),
He won the NBA Defensive Player of the Year Award in 1987.
Member of five Lakers championship teams in 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987 and 1988.
"Coooooooop"
Michael Cooper supposedly was like a Bowen, EXCEPT he had the offensive game as well :wow
But Manu's a unique player of his own calibre too, so i don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManuTim_best of Fwiendz
" Larry Bird has always said that Cooper was the best defender he played against." Quote from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cooper)
This would be a Laker fan's analysis, wouldn't it? Hard to find a greater argument than "Cooooooooop" :rolleyesQuote:
Originally Posted by LAKERS4LIFE
Coop had as much to do with those rings as Magic, Kareem, or Worthy?
I would take Michael Cooper over Manu any day.
Larry Bird also said that Lonnie Shelton had the best first step of anyone he had to guard. Larry Bird also game serious money to Austin Croshere. Larry Bird's assessments are notable, but not infallible.
Cooper was great value for a #60, I'll give him that.
Cooper only averaged about 9 points a game, I believe. He wasn't a huge offensive weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by ManuTim_best of Fwiendz
Don't mix up individual succes with team success, they are not the same. You put Arenas or Redd with Duncan and they win.Quote:
Originally Posted by ALVAREZ6
Arenas is better than manu. A more consistent scoring threat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRJ
Just like Manu had as much to to do with the 2 rings as Duncan, Parker or Bowen.
My point is that Manu Ginobili, NOT the greatest draft steal in history?.
Just an opinion.
Cooper was not a big scorer because he didn't get the shots with the other Laker greats on that team but he was more athletic offensively than Bowen is. At least he could dribble the ball to the rim and make a layup without losing the ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kori Ellis
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by rascal
Because Arenas takes 30 shots and horrible shots at that.
Just be grateful Manu doesn't care about his numbers or making the all-star team every year, otherwise a 2 of 8 would turn into a 8 of 20 night that many SG's force. Where Manu maintains a 22 point avg, killing the team in the process.
Like you said, "Don't mix up individual succes with team success" :rolleyes
I am aware of Michael Cooper's game. I lived in LA for 17 years, so I watched him play a bit - I wasn't saying that he was similar to Bowen. I was just pointing out to the original poster that he wasn't awesome offensively.Quote:
Originally Posted by rascal
I tihink you can say Manu was more crucial in getting their 3rd ring than >>>Bowen, Parker.Quote:
Originally Posted by LAKERS4LIFE
Not that they weren't key pieces. But when your'e talking Duncan Manu, in the 2005 finals
It's almost like talking about Magic and Kareem, just in the context of the Spurs team in 2005.
That ring argument is such a cop-out cuz all you had to do is watch the games to know who played the larger roles for their success.
In order Cooper was probably fourth in line in terms of valuability with Magic, Kareem, Worthy going ahead of them.
Just like in 2005 it went Tim, Manu, then Tony, then Bowen.