Manu has a legit argument for third best spur ever behind TD and Drob..

[apalisoc_9]

Gervin couldnt even win a ring playing against 5'6 white guys and were putting him over Manu and Parker who both played in the 2010 era the peak of basketball

[pgardn]

Gervin couldnt even win a ring playing against 5'6 white guys and were putting him over Manu and Parker who both played in the 2010 era the peak of basketball

Sure.

5' 6" Asians slobbering on their aunties.
Did you vote in your own poll wishing Tony Parker to get injured as well?

[barbacoataco]

Gervin couldnt even win a ring playing against 5'6 white guys and were putting him over Manu and Parker who both played in the 2010 era the peak of basketball

Yeah, one of Gervin's best years in 1983 he lost in the playoffs to the Lakers with Kareem and Magic. Where are the 5'6" white guys? You think Kareem and Magic wouldn't tear up today's NBA? You're acting like Gervin played in the 50's or 60's.

[apalisoc_9]

80's nutrition , training and talent pool tearing up 2010's players...

[Diego20]

Just because your opinion is different than mine doesnt mean I just recently started watching the Spurs. I've been watching the Spurs since before Duncan. Manu had a great 4 year stretch but was never the man on this team. He declined quickly, costed us playoff series, and didn't have the sustained excellence nor was never the man on a championship team as Parker did. That doesn't mean he isnt a Spurs great and I dont respect him.... I put him at 5th all time on my list... I just think there is a pretty decent gap between 4 and 5.

Nope, you definitely started watching Spurs when TP joined Spurs, you're a Parker .

[Doctor J]

Which franchises can put up a team that can compete with that starting five (Parker/Gervin/Kawhi/Duncan/Robinson) with Manu off the bench - requirement being that you play more games with that team than any other (e.g., Heat don't get Lebron)? Probably just the Lakers and Celtics.

More amazingly, they all played their entire career with the Spurs outside of Gervin's farewell season in Chicago.


Anyone putting Parker, Ginobili and even Kawhi as being unquestionably above Gervin is crazy. A guy with four scoring les and shot over 50% over his career. Was basically prime TMac for a pretty long period. After MJ, Kobe, West, Clyde and Wade, he's probably the next best SG. ESPN just put Iverson ahead of him too - much less efficiency, but he did make a Finals.

True, he never had the postseason success of Parker/Manu but his teams averaged ~47 win pace (lowest total of 37) and missed the playoffs just once. For comparison, Kobe's teams have averaged 49 wins and have missed the playoffs 4x.

In the playoffs, there were: 3 Rd1 exits, 2 Rd2 exits and 3 conf finals exits. If only CP3 could reach those heights.

Not arguing that Gervin is definitively #3, but you can't say the same about any of Manu/Parker/Kawhi either.

This. Thank you.

[Russo21]

For now at least since Kawhi will overtake him and Drob and possibly duncan.

Stopped reading the post after this sentence.

[kaji157]

Just look at Pop. Who still has the ball in his hands with 20 seconds left on the clock with a big coming for the high screen? It's Ginobili still even after all these years. Win or lose I want the ball in his hands...

Wow man, don´t you know everyone here is smarter than Pop?

Pop is just lucky to have Duncan.

[hater]

The act alone of the game 6 2013 finals should keep Manu out of the top 4 for the rest of eternity.

And for #5 its a toss up between Manu and gervin. I vote Gervin for the more durability and fingerroll.

[SASdynasty!]

If both players retired right now, Parker most likely goes down as the better player because of the load he carried and the fact that Manu was a bench player most of his career. Under a different situation, Manu has a good shot at being considered the better player resume-wise. The problem is that Parker still has a lot of basketball left to play, which just potentially add to his resume and widens the gap.

[AFMadison]

80's nutrition , training and talent pool tearing up 2010's players...

Terrible poster, thinking the 80's players couldn't hang with this soft ass generation is laughable.

[J_Paco]

I think by the numbers parker is above him, because he always played more, and also during his prime in 2005-2006 Manu allowed pop to run the offense thru Tony (keeping Tim and Manu fresh for when it matters).
But Spurs fans will always think of Manu as the better, more committed and loveable player of both. Manu will be also regarded as one of the most influential basketball players of his generation for what he did internationally with Argentina forcing a change of perspective in USA Baksetball, and in the NBA where he was the first Allstar to accept a bench role in his prime during the modern era. Also in FIBA, where baskerball is not about numbers no one will put Tony over Manu, because iq is elemental.

Your take is okay, until you got to the part about basketball I.Q. Why do some posters believe that Tony could be coached by one of the smartest coaches ever and play with two of the brightest teammates ever and still not have a high a en of his own? He isn't John Stockton, Chris Paul or Jason Kidd, but his intelligence on the court has always be undervalued, IMO.

Anyway, back to the tripe written by the moronic OP. Kawhi has a serious chance of being the greatest SF the team has ever seen (sorry, George Gervin), but he'll never have the impact or sheer dominance from day 1 that Robinson and Duncan possessed.....

[J_Paco]

80's nutrition , training and talent pool tearing up 2010's players...

Damn, your pretty ing stupid if you truly believe that Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and George Gervin couldn't kill in today's NBA. Jabbar would be fine but Johnson and Gervin would need to adjust to the prioritizing of outside shooting.

[SpursFan86]

I'm fine with putting Manu over Gervin, but no way in is Parker ahead of him.

Gervin was a mediocre defender, but so is Parker. The argument essentially comes down to who was the better offensive player...and I can't fathom how anyone could argue that Parker is better offensively than Gervin. The rings argument is ridiculous as well because Gervin never had even remotely as much help as Parker.

Also, once again people take the era differences to extremes. We're talking about the late-70s/80s, not the 50s. Yes, the league is stronger now than it was back then...that doesn't mean the greatest players from those eras couldn't still have great success in today's game.

As for Kawhi, I'd be absolutely shocked if he finished up ahead of D-Rob (much less Duncan). That's not a knock on Kawhi though - Duncan is a top 5 player of all-time and D-Rob is top 15-20.

[Vito Corleone]

Manu and Tony have not passed Gervin, period.

It remains to be seen if Kawhi can pass him, but for now the History book reads like this.

Timmy
D'Rob
Gervin

Then it's everyone else.

LOL not to give away my age, but my first Spurs game was against the St Louis Spirits. ABA Red, White, and Blue ball.

[skulls138]

I get sick of reading all the posts disrespecting Gervin. Just because Gervin wasn't a part of the Duncan era doesn't make him any less impressive or great. If you so called fans can't even respect the Spurs history, don't expect anyone else to.

No disrespect here but I do value postseason success over individual stats. I think Duncan could have scored alot more points but he saw the big picture in that having the whole team be involved will bring more winning. Same goes with Manu and Parker

[SpursFan86]

You can't just look at postseason success in a vacuum though. Parker has played his entire career alongside a top 5 player in the league, as well as several other great players...not to mention being coached by arguably the greatest coach in NBA history.

Put Parker on those Gervin teams of the late-70s/early-80s. Does anyone in their right mind think he'd still have a lot of postseason success? Put Gervin on the Spurs with Duncan/Manu...do people really think the Spurs wouldn't have still won les?

I just don't see Parker as being on the same level as guys like Gervin and Manu.

[Vito Corleone]

I saw Gervin play...a lot. And Gervin had no Defense. Love the guy, but, I would pick Manu.

If you're talking about a pure shooter/scorer. Than Gervin is number 1...and it ain't even close.

Gervin was a product of the time frame in which he played. Back then no one played defense. It wasn't until the Pistons of the late 80's that teams took notice that they could stop the other team from scoring. The defense argument is not valid as it wasn't considered part of the game outside of rebounding and going for steals.

Manu > Gervin

Neither Manu or Tony could carry a team for a full season like Timmy, DRob, or Gervin.

Manu is # 2 to Duncan in my opinion.

Manu can't even make an all-star game and he is supposedly better than two guys voted as top 40 in the history of the NBA.

If you had one game to win for your life, and you had to choose between one of Gervin, Manu or Parker to play with you in the backcourt --- who would you choose?


To me the answer is easy.

But I'm curious to know what others think.

Easy, it is Gervin, he would open things up considerably for our bigs down low.

90% of the times when Manu comes off the bench Spurs finds lots of anwers he doesnt need to score and when he leaves Spurs lose the lead and like that, it happens even now this season and he is 97 years old so cut the crap.

Being a spark plug off the bench is a lot easier than carrying the franchise for a decade. I love Manu and his ability to make his teammates better just by his presents, but Gervin was a franchise player, manu is just a player.

Yeah, one of Gervin's best years in 1983 he lost in the playoffs to the Lakers with Kareem and Magic. Where are the 5'6" white guys? You think Kareem and Magic wouldn't tear up today's NBA? You're acting like Gervin played in the 50's or 60's.

There is a reason I put that re on ignore.

EDIT: I wish to apologize to all people with mental re ation, I didn't mean to offend you by comparing you to Apalisoc_9

I'm fine with putting Manu over Gervin, but no way in is Parker ahead of him.

Gervin was a mediocre defender, but so is Parker. The argument essentially comes down to who was the better offensive player...and I can't fathom how anyone could argue that Parker is better offensively than Gervin. The rings argument is ridiculous as well because Gervin never had even remotely as much help as Parker.

Also, once again people take the era differences to extremes. We're talking about the late-70s/80s, not the 50s. Yes, the league is stronger now than it was back then...that doesn't mean the greatest players from those eras couldn't still have great success in today's game.

As for Kawhi, I'd be absolutely shocked if he finished up ahead of D-Rob (much less Duncan). That's not a knock on Kawhi though - Duncan is a top 5 player of all-time and D-Rob is top 15-20.

If Manu is your favorite player and your opinion is he is the greatest ever, I'm fine, it's your opinion, but if you compare body of work Gervin is light years ahead of everyone outside of Tim and DRob.

[SpursFan86]

Yes, Gervin's resume is undoubtedly much more impressive than anyone outside of Duncan/Robinson...but when I judge players, I judge them almost solely on their impact on the court. Accolades are great and all, but they can often be flawed and aren't the best indicator of just how much a player helps their team. If you look at Kobe's body of work, you could easily argue that he's as good or maybe even better than Duncan. However practically anyone who's watched both of them play over the years and is knowledgeable about basketball will tell you that Duncan is clearly better than Kobe.

Manu doesn't have the gaudy numbers that Gervin does, but he's consistently had some absolutely massive impact on his teams. Even at 38 years old, he comes in the game and just immediately changes the way his team looks and plays. I have no doubts that if he were on another team where he played 35+ mpg and started, he would've been a perennial all-star and All-NBA player. Manu is better at making those around him better compared to Gervin, and I also think he's a noticeably better defender than Gervin ever was.

[Vito Corleone]

Yes, Gervin's resume is undoubtedly much more impressive than anyone outside of Duncan/Robinson...but when I judge players, I judge them almost solely on their impact on the court. Accolades are great and all, but they can often be flawed and aren't the best indicator of just how much a player helps their team. If you look at Kobe's body of work, you could easily argue that he's as good or maybe even better than Duncan. However practically anyone who's watched both of them play over the years and is knowledgeable about basketball will tell you that Duncan is clearly better than Kobe.

Manu doesn't have the gaudy numbers that Gervin does, but he's consistently had some absolutely massive impact on his teams. Even at 38 years old, he comes in the game and just immediately changes the way his team looks and plays. I have no doubts that if he were on another team where he played 35+ mpg and started, he would've been a perennial all-star and All-NBA player. Manu is better at making those around him better compared to Gervin, and I also think he's a noticeably better defender than Gervin ever was.

It is a lot easier to have an impact when you are not the focal point. Gervin carried this team, night in and night out. If he doesn't have a huge night the Spurs lose. He had some good players around him, but he never had a dominate player his equal he could lean on, he certainly didn't have anyone better than him like Manu has.

This is not a slight against Manu, I love him and his ability to make all his teammates better just by his presents on the court. But would not lead the Spurs to the playoffs if he were the best player on the Spurs roster.

I actually would put Manu around the same level as Alvin Robertson, a good to great player but he was never going to win anything while he was the best player on his team.

[Mikeanaro]

Manu can't even make an all-star game and he is supposedly better than two guys voted as top 40 in the history of the NBA.

So being good is about a popularity contest? thats the measuring stick? Even Kiwi is better than Gervin and cant make it, is Kobe a better player than Kiwi to take his spot?
Even Vince Carter gave his spot to old fat MJ, does that make VC a lesser player?

Being a spark plug off the bench is a lot easier than carrying the franchise for a decade. I love Manu and his ability to make his teammates better just by his presents, but Gervin was a franchise player, manu is just a player.

Gervin was a face of the franchise, so is DeMar DeRozan, Gordon Hayward, Carmelo but like those he never accomplished a thing except doing coke, the history makers were TD, DRob Manu Parker Bowen, the fact that Gervin kept the franchise in SA is not important since they could win in another team with another name in another city, the point is winning something not who was before and had no relationship with the success, DRob came to SA 4 years after Gervin left to steal some money in Chicago and Europe.

If Manu is your favorite player and your opinion is he is the greatest ever, I'm fine, it's your opinion, but if you compare body of work Gervin is light years ahead of everyone outside of Tim and DRob.

I would love to see Gervin carrying his NT to something or even winning something in Europe

¨The last NBA game of Gervin's career was Jordan's 63 point game against the Boston Celtics in the playoffs on April 20, 1986. Gervin recorded 1 assist and 1 personal foul in five minutes of play for the Bulls¨

Light years ahead I guess...

[Kawhitstorm]

Yes, Gervin's resume is undoubtedly much more impressive than anyone outside of Duncan/Robinson...but when I judge players, I judge them almost solely on their impact on the court. Accolades are great and all, but they can often be flawed and aren't the best indicator of just how much a player helps their team. If you look at Kobe's body of work, you could easily argue that he's as good or maybe even better than Duncan. However practically anyone who's watched both of them play over the years and is knowledgeable about basketball will tell you that Duncan is clearly better than Kobe.

Manu doesn't have the gaudy numbers that Gervin does, but he's consistently had some absolutely massive impact on his teams. Even at 38 years old, he comes in the game and just immediately changes the way his team looks and plays. I have no doubts that if he were on another team where he played 35+ mpg and started, he would've been a perennial all-star and All-NBA player. Manu is better at making those around him better compared to Gervin, and I also think he's a noticeably better defender than Gervin ever was.

So you're telling me that you would take Manu over Durant?

[Kawhitstorm]

Gervin was a face of the franchise, so is DeMar DeRozan, Gordon Hayward, Carmelo

Iceman finished 2nd in MVP voting TWICE something none of those player have ever accomplished you in' coke head. Durant is the modern day Gervin & he couldn't get out of the 2nd rd when Westbrook was injured despite having Ibaka/Kevin Martin/Reggie Jackson against a Memphis squad that got swept by the Spurs.

Outside of Gervin, no guard in NBA history has averaged 30+ pts & shot 50% from the field TWICE besides Michael in' Jordan.

[Mikeanaro]

Iceman finished 2nd in MVP voting TWICE something none of those player have ever accomplished you in' coke head. Durant is the modern day Gervin & he couldn't get out of the 2nd rd when Westbrook was injured despite having Ibaka/Kevin Martin/Reggie Jackson against a Memphis squad that got swept by the Spurs.

No guard in NBA history has averaged 30+ pts & shot 50% from the field TWICE besides Michael in' Jordan.

It really says nothing you spoiled african prince, like your Durant riding fascination.

Comparing Manu with that old finished dog, all that whistle flash just to kiss Lebron´s ass.

Just thinking about KD at 38 makes me

[Cry Havoc]

Someone putting Manu ahead of DRob makes this entire thread worth reading. It's not even worth quoting because it's so terrible but damn if Spurstalk isn't entertaining at times.