Ginobili can't lead a bench anymore

[SpurPadre]

"We've got to get things together and go back to who we were," said Manu Ginobili, who had seven points on 2-for-10 shooting. "Because it's happening too often now."

Well, that's all well and good Manu but you should say that about yourself more than the team, tbh. Look at yourself in the mirror and bring back the REAL Manu, goddammit.

[Brazil]

Issue we have as fans is expectations, people get mad at tp to not being able to carry a team to a championship so far, what the is that ? You expect what ? Tp being wade 2006, Lebron 2012, dirk 2011 ?? Stupid. Now people get mad at Manu for being old ? Stupid. Regarding Manu everybody just need to accept 2005 Manu was in 2005. Fans need to adjust expectations when analyzing players. This is also the same process the player needs to go through, some players do it quick: miller, Kidd... Other never do it.

now this is something we can about, time for pop and Manu to understand that and adjust.
In TP's case, he needs to deal with what bother him like sefo, becoming a spot up shooter won't help the spurs, they don't have the talent to overcome tp being erased from the equation.

as mentioned the spurs success depend on a team effort led by tp and hopefully Tim anchoring the D, in that conditions success is much more difficult to get than having Lebron or Durant capable to compensate a bad production of the role players.

[EricB]

And you think he's not been horrible all season. He's finished and is more of a liability than an asset. Sorry to break it to you.

Hes finished?


youre the ing loon.

[ElNono]

Issue we have as fans is expectations, people get mad at tp to not being able to carry a team to a championship so far, what the is that ? You expect what ? Tp being wade 2006, Lebron 2012, dirk 2011 ?? Stupid. Now people get mad at Manu for being old ? Stupid. Regarding Manu everybody just need to accept 2005 Manu was in 2005. Fans need to adjust expectations when analyzing players. This is also the same process the player needs to go through, some players do it quick: miller, Kidd... Other never do it.

now this is something we can about, time for pop and Manu to understand that and adjust.
In TP's case, he needs to deal with what bother him like sefo, becoming a spot up shooter won't help the spurs, they don't have the talent to overcome tp being erased from the equation.

as mentioned the spurs success depend on a team effort led by tp and hopefully Tim anchoring the D, in that conditions success is much more difficult to get than having Lebron or Durant capable to compensate a bad production of the role players.

Exactly. When Tim was SNES-era videogame Tim, everything was a lot easier. I mean, we're still winning at the same pace in the regular season, but come playoff time, the burden will be a lot greater on even the smaller pieces. And this team will need all hands on deck to make up for the fact that we don't have the Lebrons or the Durants.

[hater]

You really suck at reading

I think Miami built around Wade in 2006 and he delivered. Same applies to Dirk. So they would both fit my franchise-caliber criteria.



As I said, I have no problem how everyone else decides to define 'star'.

I meant this years kobe. Unless u think thus years kobe us more of a star than parker?

No problem with your criteria either although it must be higlighted that ur criteria is not the criteria shared by the rest of the world

[ElNono]

I meant this years kobe. Unless u think thus years kobe us more of a star than parker?

Not sure what you're calling a star there. A franchise player is a franchise player regardless of their production at any given season. Dirk is a franchise caliber player despite Dallas poor season. Tim is a franchise caliber player despite his obvious decline. They're players that at their peak had or have teams built around them and are/were pretty much unstoppable. Obviously, basketball is a team game and not all of them rang, but they're the clearly a cut above the rest.

No problem with your criteria either although it must be higlighted that ur criteria is not the criteria shared by the rest of the world

Says who? You?

[hater]

Not sure what you're calling a star there. A franchise player is a franchise player regardless of their production at any given season. Dirk is a franchise caliber player despite Dallas poor season. Tim is a franchise caliber player despite his obvious decline. They're players that at their peak had or have teams built around them and are/were pretty much unstoppable. Obviously, basketball is a team game and not all of them rang, but they're the clearly a cut above the rest.



Says who? You?

u really believe your criteria for star is what mainstream uses? U need help

[ElNono]

u really believe your criteria for star is what mainstream uses? U need help

you think you know anything about basketball in general

can't even predict 1 game right out of 4 games in a row

[Proxy]

Parker is a star and it should be acknowledged that he's played as well as anyone this year, but it's the system that carries the team and beating OKC without him supports that. Obviously can't win it all without him, but you can apply that reference of importance to any of the main cast of the team. It's not a knock on him... just how this team is.

[superjames1992]

Why don't we wait until we see how Manu performs in the Playoffs before we determine that he's "done," tbh?

[hater]

Parker is a star and it should be acknowledged that he's played as well as anyone this year,

thank you

[TrainOfThought5]

im not sure why everyone is so dismayed after a loss in which our three best players didnt play, on a B2B, on the road.

additionally, Manu is not in his prime and is unable to carry the team. and frankly, i feel like if defenses key in on him as a #1 option (like tonight) then he does become a liability. i love Manu. i believe he can still be effective. just not as a primary load bearer at his advanced age, with his ridiculously high amount of miles on him. and theres nothing wrong with that. Kawhi is waiting in the wings to write his own chapter of Spurs folklore.

[urunobili]

lol hater
You're due to get powned soon...

[jag]

That's your argument. AFAIK, Ben Gordon never been an All-Star, so he would be below Tony.

That was directed to the clown comparing Rip Hamilton's career to Tony's.

[jag]

Parker is a star and it should be acknowledged that he's played as well as anyone this year, but it's the system that carries the team and beating OKC without him supports that. Obviously can't win it all without him, but you can apply that reference of importance to any of the main cast of the team. It's not a knock on him... just how this team is.

Winning one game (or losing one game) with or without Tony supports neither side of the argument. It's not about one game.

The system isn't made for Tim, Tony or Manu. The system is designed to get the most out of support players. The system allows players like Green, Neal, Kawhi, Diaw and Splitter to focus on very specific roles within the offense. It's like workers on an assembly line. Players with the requisite talent, as well as unselfish stars, can be plugged into the system and the machine keeps rolling with the players being more or less interchangeable. But the thing that separates Tony from the rest of the team is that he can consistently distribute, score and create his own offense independent of the system. When the system breaks down, Tony is able to take over. Without the system is Tony capable of carrying the team all the way to a le? On his own, I don't think so. But even a prime Kobe Bryant, on his own, was just lucky to get the Lakers to the playoffs. In 04-05, without Shaq and the Triangle, the Lakers didn't make the playoffs. In 05-06, with Phil's great system, Kobe couldn't get the Lakers out of the first round. Is Bryant, one of the top 2 players of the past 10 years, not a "star" either?

No, Tony isn't on the same level as Bryant. And no, Tony doesn't have the same garbage players around him that Bryant had. But you're fooling yourself if you don't think that this Spurs team - without Tim and Manu - would be a perennial playoff team with Tony leading the way. Don't confuse Tony's unselfishness, and willingness to play within the system, for the fact that he could go for 30 points a night if he wanted to. As talented and as much of a star as Chris Paul is, I think Tony has done more with his ability than Paul has, especially within the confines of Pop's system. Looking at his consistent production and career achievements, I think that makes him just as much of a star.

[ThaBigFundamental21]

We lost because of Pop's arrogance TBH. Really, sitting 2 of your best 4 players??? With Parker being legitimately hurt. What a joke, he thinks we can beat anyone no matter who is on the court. This is the in NBA pop. I'm not too happy with his choice.

[Brazil]

im not sure why everyone is so dismayed after a loss in which our three best players didnt play, on a B2B, on the road.
.

because we lost to a team without 4 or 5 of their best players. On paper Spurs should have won this game even without tp, tim and kl. now happens.

[Brazil]

Winning one game (or losing one game) with or without Tony supports neither side of the argument. It's not about one game.

The system isn't made for Tim, Tony or Manu. The system is designed to get the most out of support players. The system allows players like Green, Neal, Kawhi, Diaw and Splitter to focus on very specific roles within the offense. It's like workers on an assembly line. Players with the requisite talent, as well as unselfish stars, can be plugged into the system and the machine keeps rolling with the players being more or less interchangeable. But the thing that separates Tony from the rest of the team is that he can consistently distribute, score and create his own offense independent of the system. When the system breaks down, Tony is able to take over. Without the system is Tony capable of carrying the team all the way to a le? On his own, I don't think so. But even a prime Kobe Bryant, on his own, was just lucky to get the Lakers to the playoffs. In 04-05, without Shaq and the Triangle, the Lakers didn't make the playoffs. In 05-06, with Phil's great system, Kobe couldn't get the Lakers out of the first round. Is Bryant, one of the top 2 players of the past 10 years, not a "star" either?

No, Tony isn't on the same level as Bryant. And no, Tony doesn't have the same garbage players around him that Bryant had. But you're fooling yourself if you don't think that this Spurs team - without Tim and Manu - would be a perennial playoff team with Tony leading the way. Don't confuse Tony's unselfishness, and willingness to play within the system, for the fact that he could go for 30 points a night if he wanted to. As talented and as much of a star as Chris Paul is, I think Tony has done more with his ability than Paul has, especially within the confines of Pop's system. Looking at his consistent production and career achievements, I think that makes him just as much of a star.

my thought exactly except regarding the system, clearly the system is also settled to exploit mainly Tim, Manu and Tony quality. Fact is the system for the second unit needs to be rethought because Manu is no more capable of doing what he was doing 3 years ago consistently. The Manu plays PG, SG with the second unit and the give the ball to Manu in the fourth and gfto his way times are over.

[pgardn]

Yes, youre right.

Rip Hamilton's career = Tony's career

There have only been 20 star players in NBA history. I hope The Admiral makes the list.

I am throwing out examples with question marks to define a star, to which you have no definition. Star on A team, star in the league. You have some hidden definition which you cannot give criteria for.

And apparently a star must be playing at a high level right now. Stars from the past don't exist. Give a GD definition with criteria, not your flippant musings.

And quit acting like some acne ridden homer child. Ssince you are so sure of your hidden system, who is the bigger star, Chauncey Billups or Tony Parker? How would you rate their careers right now? Explain please.

[kaji157]

This thread will end as the "Will Ginobili ever score 20 again thread?"

As a fun memory of how bipolar some fans are.

[rjv]

in order, the team is led by 1) tony 2) tim 3) kawhi and then 4) manu...that's not a bad thing but the reality is that manu is now the 4th best player on the team

[ElNono]

That was directed to the clown comparing Rip Hamilton's career to Tony's.

oh, ok

[cd98]

A couple of thoughts:

The system didn't make Parker great. He was an all-star and an NBA finals MVP before the current system was put in place. And if it was the system, then one of the other back up point guards could step right in and equal Parker, but that hasn't happened. Parker is a stud and we are lucky to have him.

Ginoboli was a star player. He was our finisher. For a number of years, including championship years, the ball was in his hands at the end of games because he was a great free throw shooter, creator, and clutch scorer. He was one of the NBA's best shooting guards. But he has declined noticably and too often takes bad shots that he could make a few years ago, but now he can't. He is also a magnificent passer, but his decision-making can be questionable. I think he needs to get some confidence back. If he can get his three point stroke back (something that older players can do), then he can still be very effective. He just needs to play within himself.

Our bench is better with Ginoboli. He doesn't have to be a star, but he has to be solid for us to win a le.

[pgardn]

wtf did I just read?

Is he?
over their careers you dumb ass?

[pgardn]

Yes, youre right.

Rip Hamilton's career = Tony's career

There have only been 20 star players in NBA history. I hope The Admiral makes the list.

Why do you think I even picked Hamilton, ya cycloptic homer? And quit adding stuff, I never stated they were equal. Answer the Billups question and back it up oh great chooser of "the stars"?