I disagree, Sean was an underrated defender. He would guard Jordan pretty good and at 6'8 has the size to guard Lebron.
Sean offense game and above average Defense would beat out Bowen great defense and limited offense.
If it weren't for injury's he would've had an even better career.
I know I keep forgetting about that, i changed it right after I submitted.
Can I have them both?
When Sean was playing under Pop, he was the best perimeter defender on the team. He consistently made the other teams best player work very hard for their points the same as Bruce does.
Don't simply put stock into Bruce having more rings. The early part of Sean's career, at least post-Larry Brown was a turnstile of coaches and he was shipped off to Detroit for a while. The Spurs generally lacked a quality point guard for the first half of Sean's career which also contributed to DRob not getting any rings until Avery and Tim showed up with Pop as coach.
Can you imagine the '99 Spurs with Bowen in place of JJ?
and who's gonna guard the opponent's best player???
Bruuuuuce es!
i told my friends its way too difficult to decide but if you held a gun to my head my initial reaction would be....
BRUUUUUUUUCEEE!!!!
Sean by a little bit...like the little bit of space he had when he hit the shot in the '99 WCF against the Blazers!![]()
What else do you and your friend debate about?
Who is most likely to go to church; the pope or satan?
haha....very intense and indepth debates....
It depends on which Spurs team you're talking about. Bowen fits his niche as perfectly as any role player I've even fit with a team. On a team with a Big 3 like the Spurs a player who does little more than shoot corner threes and defend like a mad man fits perfectly. On such a team Elliott's touches would probably be minimized, so why not take the better defender of the two? But if I were building a team from scratch, I, and I imagine most any GM would take an above average defender who can get you 15-20 pts per game over a lock down defender who needs other players demanding a double team to get his shot off.
Bruce sort of sucked in the years that were supposed to be his 'prime'.
"You know something you suck!"
-Billy Madison
Easy choice for me. I would take Sean in his prime over Bowen in his prime.
![]()
The more I think about, the more I'm convinced it's Bruce without a shadow of a doubt. I don't think the Spurs even win a second le without him.
It's quite a shame that Elliott has a script to protect his t's while whottt has nothing like that.
I have a different question.
If you rank the top Spurs all-time who would come 1st?
I say Bruce
[youtube]ELrBX1lkN04[youtube]
+1
Although I do believe #12 will hang next to #32 one day.
I love them both, but if pressed I'd go with Sean
I followed the Spurs closer in the mid-90's than I do now, so I throw my 2 cents in. Sean was a great guy (Taco Cabana) and in terms of talent he was better than Bowen. At times he looked like one of the better players in the league. However, he was a huge choker who totally vanished in pressure situations. He was a big reason the mid-90's Spurs always chokes in the playoffs. Hate to say it, but it is the truth.
Bowen on the other hand is my favorite Spur. In my opinion he is the most underrated member of the 2003-2007 teams. Great defense, CLUTCH 3-pt shooting (check out his playoff stats) and he is never injured.
Like some other posters said, it depends on the team you have. But I would take Bowen over Sean.
Awesome and unbelievable hang time!!!
Kinda reminds me of Tom Chambers.
Last edited by LakerHater; 08-13-2008 at 07:41 PM.
He sure was choking when he hit that three. Its easy to call both Robinson and Sean chokers when they were the team and nothing else.
Bowen gets wide open 3's, Sean had to always create his own shot and still save energy to defend on the other end. Give me Sean regardless of what team you have, he has offense (20ppg) and defense. I'll take Bowen coming off the bench.
i take bruce when he played in france
20ppg flashy dunk and all![]()
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)