The Second Banana: Dirk vs. Manu

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Horry > Bill Russell

But Bill Russell has more rings!!! That's all anyone will remember!!! I can't remember Reggie Miller since he has no rings.

[peskypesky]

ok ok ok we all love Manu, but let's not be ridiculous. Any GM in the NBA, if offered Dirk for Manu, would take the trade in less than a second.

[Findog]

But Bill Russell has more rings!!! That's all anyone will remember!!! I can't remember Reggie Miller since he has no rings.

Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, John Stockton, all of those guys are mere footnotes in basketball history.

[weebo]

But Bill Russell has more rings!!! That's all anyone will remember!!! I can't remember Reggie Miller since he has no rings.

I only remember Reggie Miller because he's always getting restraining orders for trying to bang married chics.

[weebo]

Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, John Stockton, all of those guys are mere footnotes in basketball history.

There's room on that list for one more.

[peskypesky]

There's room on that list for one more.

[Findog]

A franchise player should transcend beyond the court.

???? Who brought sports marketing into this?

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.

Dirk is a Top Ten player. A Spurs fan of all people should know this. A One Trick Pony doesn't come within inches of a le. At this point I don't think it's likely the Mavs will win a championship with him as the #1 guy, but it's still a possibility. If Manu is your top guy, maybe you'll grab the eighth seed.

Manu, although not a scoring machine such as dirk, has a greater skill set that compliments Duncan as a second option.

No, he doesn't. He's a fringe All Star. He did his job well as the #2 guy for San Antonio, but Dirk's impact on a game is far greater.

And those that believe that pairing Duncan and dirk would automatically guarantee the Spurs multiple les are deluded.

The Spurs won multiple les with Manu playing second fiddle. Since Dirk is a much better player, has no ego and would defer to Duncan, it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to know that he and Duncan together would win at least 2, if not more.

Don't just look at stat sheets look at the game.

I think that has been the contention of every single person making the pro-Dirk argument in this thread.

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.

He's not a volume shooter. Allen Iverson is a volume shooter. Kobe Bryant at his most undisciplined is a volume shooter. Dirk is near the top in offensive efficiency and doesn't commit turnovers. And he would take less touches and defer to Duncan if that's what was best for the team.

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.

So Duncan would no longer be able to score 20 a game bc of Dirk? He would become Ben ing Wallace???? You're killing me with this.

That would hurt the rest of the team because dirk is a piss poor facilitator on offense.

Oh man, this is comedy gold. Did you watch that first-round series between our two teams this year? Did you notice JJ Barea and Brandon Bass dropping Hot Carls on the Spurs?

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.

Exactly, which is why you guys haven't won a le since Robinson retired in 2003.

[Findog]

There's room on that list for one more.

George Gervin? David Robinson? Manu Ginobili? Tony Parker? None of those guys won a le as #1 guy. Dirk came closer than all of them.

[DPG21920]

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.

It is within a few minutes, and the only reason it might dip is because he cannot play long minutes because of health concerns. Not because of selflessness.

Manu in his prime was still wildly inconsistent from night to night. Every time he would score 20, he would have 3 games where he was 2-9 with 4 turn overs. Manu in his prime would never be a number one option. If he was that good (top 10 in his prime), he would not have been a secondary option. He at least would have been equal.

You are confusing moments of brilliance with sustainable talent. You are making excuses saying anytime he plays poorly he does other things and that it is because he does not have to score because of who he plays with. That is true, but not for the reasons you are pointing out.

When he plays bad or has to make hustle plays to make up for his poor game, it is because that is the player he is. He is able to do things because the game is easier for him with Tim and TP. He would not have the same success by himself with lesser talent.

[Findog]

It is within a few minutes, and the only reason it might dip is because he cannot play long minutes because of health concerns. Not because of selflessness.

Manu in his prime was still wildly inconsistent from night to night. Every time he would score 20, he would have 3 games where he was 2-9 with 4 turn overs. Manu in his prime would never be a number one option. If he was that good (top 10 in his prime), he would not have been a secondary option. He at least would have been equal.

You are confusing moments of brilliance with sustainable talent. You are making excuses saying anytime he plays poorly he does other things and that it is because he does not have to score because of who he plays with. That is true, but not for the reasons you are pointing out.

When he plays bad or has to make hustle plays to make up for his poor game, it is because that is the player he is. He is able to do things because the game is easier for him with Tim and TP. He would not have the same success by himself with lesser talent.

Gawd, this post is full of so much common sense.

[benefactor]

It is within a few minutes, and the only reason it might dip is because he cannot play long minutes because of health concerns. Not because of selflessness.

Manu in his prime was still wildly inconsistent from night to night. Every time he would score 20, he would have 3 games where he was 2-9 with 4 turn overs. Manu in his prime would never be a number one option. If he was that good (top 10 in his prime), he would not have been a secondary option. He at least would have been equal.

You are confusing moments of brilliance with sustainable talent. You are making excuses saying anytime he plays poorly he does other things and that it is because he does not have to score because of who he plays with. That is true, but not for the reasons you are pointing out.

When he plays bad or has to make hustle plays to make up for his poor game, it is because that is the player he is. He is able to do things because the game is easier for him with Tim and TP. He would not have the same success by himself with lesser talent.

Gawd, this post is full of so much common sense.

Sadly...this thread is full of win for Mavs fan.

[DAF86]

It is within a few minutes, and the only reason it might dip is because he cannot play long minutes because of health concerns. Not because of selflessness.

Those few minutes are the difference between averaging 16 pts or 18/20, besides beign a bench player gives you a reputation that may go against your chances of getting to the all-star game (which was the thing I was arguing)

Manu in his prime was still wildly inconsistent from night to night. Every time he would score 20, he would have 3 games where he was 2-9 with 4 turn overs. Manu in his prime would never be a number one option. If he was that good (top 10 in his prime), he would not have been a secondary option. He at least would have been equal.

How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? most "franchise players" shoot their way to a decent scoring night. A lot of top dogs on the league start a game 2 for 9 from the field but they keep shooting 'till they get their 20+ points so then nobody says they're "inconsistent". If Manu were a number one option he could do the same. And Manu on his prime wasn't equal to Duncan simply 'cause Tim is one of the greatest ever, still he was pretty damn close as the finals MVP votes show.

You are confusing moments of brilliance with sustainable talent. You are making excuses saying anytime he plays poorly he does other things and that it is because he does not have to score because of who he plays with. That is true, but not for the reasons you are pointing out.


When he plays bad or has to make hustle plays to make up for his poor game, it is because that is the player he is. He is able to do things because the game is easier for him with Tim and TP. He would not have the same success by himself with lesser talent.

When he beat Duncan and company in the olympics
was 'cause the game is easier for him with Oberto and Nocioni?

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

When he beat Duncan and company in the olympics
was 'cause the game is easier for him with Oberto and Nocioni?

No, it's cause they were playing Euro rules which he's got more experience with than Duncan.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

DAF86's main argument being stuff Manu has done outside the NBA.

[dirk4mvp]

Manu fans have gone overboard in this thread.

[Findog]

Manu fans have gone overboard in this thread.

Manu fan has owned himself in this thread. It's like they're one of the crazy Arrested Development characters and Dirk fan is Jason Bateman.

[DPG21920]

I don't think it is as bad as benefactor is making it out to be with regards to his question. If you look at it from the view point of who can play the 2nd option with Duncan better, you can make some arguments for Manu (ball handling abilities, diversified game, ...).

The problems are coming from the other arguments about Manu being a top option. On a certain team, Manu as the number one option would be able to score 20+ a night more than likely. But his team would not be successful like a Kobe team and such.

[Findog]

I don't think it is as bad as benefactor is making it out to be with regards to his question. If you look at it from the view point of who can play the 2nd option with Duncan better, you can make some arguments for Manu (ball handling abilities, diversified game, ...).

The problems are coming from the other arguments about Manu being a top option.

I understand the question perfectly. I see it as Duncan playing the Shaq role and Dirk playing the Kobe role. Bowen and Finley at the other wing positions would be fine, with TP to bring the ball up.

[DAF86]

The problems are coming from the other arguments about Manu being a top option. On a certain team, Manu as the number one option would be able to score 20+ a night more than likely. But his team would not be successful like a Kobe team and such.

That's exactly what I'm saying, I'm not saying a team with Manu as their main guy would be a championship team but if a team lead by Joe Johnson can get to the second round of the playoffs, then a team lead by Ginobili could definitely do at least that.

[DAF86]

I understand the question perfectly. I see it as Duncan playing the Shaq role and Dirk playing the Kobe role. Bowen and Finley at the other wing positions would be fine, with TP to bring the ball up.

That's the difference, you think Dirk is in the same level with Kobe while I don't.

[DPG21920]

I understand the question perfectly. I see it as Duncan playing the Shaq role and Dirk playing the Kobe role. Bowen and Finley at the other wing positions would be fine, with TP to bring the ball up.

I am not saying you don't understand it, I am saying it is not as big of an outrage to make arguments for Manu over Dirk in this role.

Like I said, VC is a better player than Manu, but I would not take him over Manu in a similar poll.

I am looking at from this angle:

If you have Dirk replacing Bonner (from a talent standpoint and because of position) and that means Manu would be gone (in this scenario) but you replace Manu with someone of equal talent of Bonner (who was replaced by Dirk). The rest of the team is the same.

Or you keep Bonner and you have Manu on the Spurs. There could be arguments made for Manu because of depth, ball handling in the clutch and other factors.

I personally would choose Dirk, but I don't think it is outlandish to make a case for Manu as a secondary player in this type of scenario.

[Findog]

That's the difference, you think Dirk is in the same level with Kobe while I don't.

I said he would play the Kobe role, I didn't say he was as good as Kobe. Dirk is 85% the player Kobe is anyways, and 85% Kobe >>> Manu.

[DPG21920]

That's the difference, you think Dirk is in the same level with Kobe while I don't.

Dirk is not on the same level as Kobe, but he is ahead of Manu.

Kobe can win a le with no one else on the team as good as him. He will still need good players, but he can be the clear cut best.

Dirk needs a player that is just as good or slightly better to win imo. He cannot be the clear cut best player.

Manu would need players like a Tim or Kobe to win. He could not be the number one option under any cir stances.

[DPG21920]

That's exactly what I'm saying, I'm not saying a team with Manu as their main guy would be a championship team but if a team lead by Joe Johnson can get to the second round of the playoffs, then a team lead by Ginobili could definitely do at least that.

But Manu is not as good as Joe Johnson. Manu might average 20+, but his team would not be as good as Joes if you give them equal talent imo. Joe would be a guy who scores 20 almost every night and then he can go off for more.

Manu is a guy who would score 8,9,10 points on plenty of nights and then throw in some 20 point games and some 30+ point games every now and then. Manu could not play the minutes to be a number one option.

[Findog]

I am looking at from this angle:

If you have Dirk replacing Bonner (from a talent standpoint and because of position) and that means Manu would be gone (in this scenario) but you replace Manu with someone of equal talent of Bonner (who was replaced by Dirk). The rest of the team is the same.

I am looking at it from that angle too, and the way I see it, you have Dirk taking Manu's role as a perimeter player on offense, and Bonner's role on defense. There are a few things Manu does better than Dirk, but the Spurs would get more efficient and consistent production from Dirk than Manu. On defense, Duncan would be patrolling the paint, not Dirk. Dirk would simply be asked to step in and duplicate what Nazr, Rasho, Fabs and Bonner have done up to this point. His D is decidedly average and mediocre, but in this scenario, playing in the Spurs system, it wouldn't be much of an issue.

So I think it is kind of outlandish. It's hard to take a stand in this thread without ting on either guy's game, but it's hard for me to ponder taking Manu.