Manu
Dirk
so i guess you don't know what a franchise player is.
At times Manu plays like a franchise player. So the "coming of the bench" argument doesn't change the fact that he's inconsistent and has played in only one ASG.Also, its hard making the ASG when you're coming off the bench...sacrificing personal accomplishments for the good of the team.
p.s. I do think Manu is better than a lot of allstars
No he has been to 1 ASG first and foremost 'cause he was robbed in '07/'08 but even more important 'cause he plays in a great team that doesn't need him to average 20 pts per game and 'cause he accepts coming off the bench for the benefit of the team.
It's a shame that this has to be explained even to Spurs fans.
Bull ing . The Spurs couldn't afford two max players and then get a serviceable journeyman to play SG for much less money?
How can LeBron be a franchise player? He doesn't have a ring. That's Spurfan logic for you in this thread. Also, are Chris Paul and Dwight Howard not franchise players?
My definition of a franchise player is somebody who is capable of being the best player on a le team. In the case of Dirk, he took his team within inches of a le. That makes him a franchise player, at least in his prime it did. He's still a top 10 player, so while it's no longer likely that he will win a le as a #1 guy, it's still a remote possibility.
¿cuan Vd haceres la "¿" ? jajajajajaja
no they can't, they can afford 20M for duncan, 14 for RJ, 12 for Tony, 10 for manu, but no way they can have two max contract + tony's + another SG's contract.
That's not possible.
You are proving my point. Yes, when Manu plays his absolute best, he is a top 10 player. But he does not do it often enough for him to be considered a top 10 player or a number one option.
That is not comparing apples to apples. You have to look at how Manu plays overall. Not just the "best" moments.
Other players are just as good as Manu's best moments, but they carry teams on a night in, night out basis.
Manu had a great playoff run in 2005, but he was not a top 10 or 15 player in the league for the entire year. He has flashes of brilliance and he plays a vital role on a championship team. But he is no number one option imo.
That is not the point. If he was a top 10 player, he would not be 2nd or 3rd option. He is great for his role and he plays starters minutes and ends the game in crunch time, so the "bench" argument is a weak one.
Is it great that he has no ego and does not have to "start" the game? Yes. It makes things easy and allows the Spurs to be more effective. But he plays the same amount of minutes and plays when it matters.
Just like how the offense is designed around TP now. If Manu was the best option, it would be foolish not to use him in such a manner. Tim and TP would have no problem if Kobe or Lebron were on the team and they would be the first option.
Manu cannot be that.
If you had a "Big Three" of Dirk, Duncan and TP, you'd get some journeyman Quentin Ross type to start at the 2. Somebody who would come really cheap.
If the Spurs ever had the opportunity to pair Dirk and Duncan together, they would've constructed the rest of the roster accordingly.
I was being sarcastic Fin. Of course with Dirk, Duncan and Tony, a SG worth 2 to 4M is enough.
maybe my previous post sucks and i've failed my sarcasm attempt.
How am I proving your point? I didn't say Manu on his best nights, I said Manu at his prime (which IMO was from 2000/2001 'till 2005/2006) could easily be a number one option on a good NBA team, and I think that with the comparission with Joe Johnson I proved my point. And I also think that I refuted the "inconsistent" card with this thought:
Manu has been a number one guy on all of his teams except the Spurs and all those teams won championships. Granted, FIBA isn't at the same level as the NBA but if a guy is inconsistent it doesn't matter at which level he plays he will still be inconsistent, and an inconsistent "franchise player" can't lead his team to a championship, at least not as regularly as Manu has lead his teams to championships.If he were the number one option on his team he could put up more lazy shots to pump up his scoring stat (like most number one guys on the league do) and instead of ending a game with ten points in 7 FG attemps, he will end it with 20 points on 20 FG attemps and nobody would say that he can't sustain a certain level over a 82 games season.
Or you're just a standard NBA fan and don't give two s about the B-list basketball leagues you seem to be in love with.
thre anillos, puta.
How could you not fully reap the benefits of Dirk's game? 90% of Dirks game is perimeter oriented and Duncan during his prime was most effective on the block. As it was said earlier, Dirk is really not a 4...he is more like a SG in a 7 foot body. If anything, you enhance the abilities of Dirk and Duncan.
Duncan and Dirk gives you variable first options and you could run plays for either at any give time. Both players will command a double team in order to be rendered ineffective. For example, you could run Dirk on a iso on the wing and if a double came, he only has to swing the ball to the open shooter who can either take the shot or pass inside to Duncan who will be one on one with his man. It would work in reverse with an iso on Duncan also. Let's not forget that Dirk will probably be covered by a front line player who is slower than him that he could easily take to the rim.If Dirk isn't your first option, which he should be probably 90% of the time, he shouldn't be reduced to simply a one-trick pony floating around the perimeter shooting jumpers and waiting for a kickout.
I don't see how this is true. Duncan and Dirk's game match up perfectly.There's a pecking order on every successful team, both in terms of talent and role, and it takes a certain skillset and mentality to play a supporting role.
Dirk has the mentality and unselfishness to do it, like Manu, but he doesn't bring a conducive skillset and position to compliment Duncan.
I don't get your argument here. Duncan in his prime was best on the block. His shooting keeps defenders honest but his footwork around the rim is what makes him great. Dirk is great at dragging defenders away from the rim and shooting over them. Furthermore, Dirk would lessen some of that burden because he would lighten Duncan's offensive load.Duncan at his best was a 4 and didn't have to burden himself banging solely against the 5's defensively, so playing him at 5 and Dirk at the 4 takes away from both of there respective talents.
Good points...but I would counter with who would be better over a full season. Manu in his prime is still at a high risk for injury. He plays balls out every night and there have been more than one postseason where we have either seen him ineffective or sitting in a suit. Dirk is not going to take the kind of abuse that Manu would take and has far less of a chance of injury. He could play more minutes and he could be used with small ball lineups that would be completely and totally dominant. Plus there is always the good Manu/bad Manu scenario. Even in his prime, Manu could go for 40 and then disappear for several games. Manu has intangibles, but if you are going to grind out a whole season Dirk is the better choice. A Dirk and Duncan front line gives you a much better chance with matchups and adjustments on the fly during a 7 game series, as you can go with a quicker or more traditional lineup....and use a 7 footer in either one.I'll just finish with this, you're coming down the stretch of a game and you need a stop or a bucket with Duncan on the floor.
Who would compliment Tim on the offensive-end better with the defense sagging when they needed someone to break down the defense, make a play, or shot off of a kickout? And who would would be more likely to come up with a turnover, make a steal or game-changing defensive play, and where would that play or opportunity most likely come about, position wise, with Duncan manning the 4?
Manu es un bueno jugador, pero Dirk es determinado mejor.
Okay lets look at in a historical view. Who would you rather have Bernard King or Joe Dumars playing with Thomas. Most will say Dumars because he was critical to winning for Detroit and was an excellent compliment to Thomas. Many will not even remember Bernard King even though his stats are better than Dirk's.
If Dirk does not win the ring then future generations will say the same thing. Its not about the stats or the indivdual play. Its about the rings. Thats one thing a Mav fan will never know and unfortunately it seems too many Spurs fans seem to forget.
I believe his point is that if you're running your offense through Duncan, then you're making Dirk a spot up shooter. A heck of a spot up shooter? Sure. But a one trick pony nonetheless. You want a SG that can both shoot and penetrate and create for others. There's only one ball and a set amount of possessions in a game.
So you don't want Dirk to be a second banana, but a part-time first banana. Which actually goes against your proposition for this thread, something I pointed out in a previous post.
As far as who covers who, it's all relative. A guy like SJax has defended him pretty well. It's arguable that Jack is any faster than Dirk, and he's definitely smaller. I'm not going to claim he's not a tough cover, but it's not like he can't be stopped. Nellie obviously knows pretty well what bothers him.
Manu commanded a double team after the first two games in the 2005 finals too. I still remember Larry Brown basically saying that Manu got the biggest compliment he could give him: putting a double team on him.
I don't care if Dirk commands a double team for 82 games. What matters is what you do in the playoffs.
Who cares about a full season? I don't care if we win 55 or 72 as long as we make the playoffs.
What really matters is what you bring to the real season. Sure, Manu has had his injuries the past few seasons, but in his prime he did not miss a single playoff game. And his style of play that you're so scared about is exactly what makes him the winner he is. There's never a doubt wether he left everything out there. His energy is contagious. He's a determined guy that hates to lose, and he'll compete his ass off. He'll never call out a teammate (much like Tim) and take it upon himself when the team loses.
Which is exactly what I think is lacking on Dirk. Not all of it, but I don't think he nearly has the same of drive at all.
It's really no knock on Dirk. There's plenty of players that have the talent, but don't have that drive to win, that extra gear to take it up one more notch. So they come up short. They'll still be remembered as great players, and nobody will take that away from them.
Who gives a what casual fans think? Dirk will be remembered better than Manu.
And btw, to answer your question: Before his injury, King. After his injury, Dumars.
Robert Horry has 7 rings; Dirk has 0. Ergo, Robert Horry > Dirk.If Dirk does not win the ring then future generations will say the same thing. Its not about the stats or the indivdual play. Its about the rings.
^
Horry > Jordan
Sorry El ...I'm done responding to homers in this thread.
Horry > Bill Russell
Now you're quitting on your own thread. Keep it up champ.
You forgot: Kerr > Shaq/Dunca/Kobe
First: he doesn't play the same minutes when he starts than when he doesn't, he plays less, look for the numbers.
And second: what does the other thing you say has to do with what I'm saying? I'm talking about Manu at his prime, Manu right now isn't on his prime.
A franchise player should transcend beyond the court. Kobe and Lebron bring more to their respective franchises besides jump shooting (something that dirk does well). The problem I have with dirk is he is a one trick pony. He does one thing well and that's scoring. I know you're just bs'ing yourself if you think he is much more than an offensive player. Many have regarded him mediocre at best in all other facets of the game.
Manu, although not a scoring machine such as dirk, has a greater skill set that compliments Duncan as a second option. And those that believe that pairing Duncan and dirk would automatically guarantee the Spurs multiple les are deluded. Don't just look at stat sheets look at the game. Dirk is a jump shooting big that requires plenty of touches to be effective. He is a volume shooter that dribbles to the paint for that fade away ten footer. That alone would have an impact on how Duncan plays. Duncan's primary role would have to change from being a facilitator on offense to being a re bounder only. That would hurt the rest of the team because dirk is a piss poor facilitator on offense. On defense, dirk wouldn't be an upgrade from any of the other 4/5 stiffs we've had out there since the Drob days. Manu's D as a SG is still greater than that of dirks as a PF.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote