Reply With Quote
the kobe angle was brought up to talk about manu's overblown durability concerns. keep up.
You're not comparing Kobe to Manu. You're comparing bench Manu in SA to franchise Manu elsewhere. The Kobe angle is just a red herring.
So
SA Manu = all foreign play minutes + bench minutes
Elsewhere Manu = all foreign play minutes + starter role minutes (franchise player level starter role)
So cancel out the "all foreign play minutes" and the only comparison should be bench minutes vs starter role minutes. Manu's summer minutes would actually take away from his effectiveness as a franchise player on another team, they wouldn't prove he could do it.
the kobe angle was brought up to talk about manu's overblown durability concerns. keep up.
Manu isn't Kobe. Odd that Chip Engelland didn't use the Kobe angle.
good for chip engelland
You're just one passive aggressive utterance after another. Your parents must really enjoy your company.
no, you're just being dense. the claim was made that ginobili's injury-proneness was overblown. you responded with a graphic showing manu's injury history. i agreed with the position that his durability concerns are overblown, and responded with a similar graphic for kobe, who is not generally considered injury prone.
YOU then brought up the minutes disparity between kobe and manu, and i added that manu's minutes from playing overseas should factor in as well, since he played professionally for a few years before joining the NBA, whereas kobe didn't. you then called manu's overseas minutes moot. i disagreed. you then called the kobe discussion a red herring, even though YOU'RE the one who first brought up kobe's career minutes
now you're just getting pissy and resorting to your typical defense mechanism of "you're not taking a stance!
"Manu isn't built for heavy starter minutes," said Chip Engelland, a longtime Spurs assistant.
So you know Manu better than his own trainer?
You're a special kind of dense.Implying Manu wasn't given main guy defensive attention by opponents when he was the Spurs closer for years.
Folks were like "yeah, we know the game is on the line and Ginobili is probably going to get the ball, but we are not going to guard him that much 'cause, tecnically, he isn't the franchise guy"
I thought mainstream, vanilla, stupid ass takes like this had died out, but apparently there's still a lot of re s out there.
He said Manu would struggle if his minutes/role weren't controlled and if he had to deal with being the focal point of defensive attention for 35 minutes a night. Pointing out that he excelled as the closer isn't exactly dispelling that take
Don't think he meant that Manu doesn't have the stamina for it. Sounds like he's saying that Manu playing heavy minutes meant he'd have dieded by now. Which is exactly what a few of us have been saying as well.
Which is what I was saying. Other than your use of the word above, the word "stamina" was only mentioned twice in this thread, both times by El Nono.
Though Manu was a great closer, it's more of an indictment of Tony Parker tbh.
I like Chip, that's his educated opinion, even though he's a shooting coach, not a physical trainer, tbh...
My reasoning of why I disagree with that take is that he's played 35+ mpg in the NT, sometimes back to back and sometimes 3 games in 4 days in his prime, and he performed. When he had coaches that didn't think he needed his minutes limited, and played him many mins, he did so and at a high level. Now, some people might say that wouldn't translate to the NBA, and I have no way to argue that one way or another, so that's fine. But the sample I've seen tells me he was a fine player with a lot of mins (again, in his physical prime, around 2005).
Jamal winning the 6th Man award three times just shows how much of a joke the award is. It's ironic that you accuse DAF of valuing excitement over effectiveness and then go to bat for Jamal. Jamal is the ultimate "excitement over effectiveness" player. Before he got too old and completely went to , he could pad stats in the regular season, he could dazzle crowds with his AND1 dribble moves, but he was still a terrible basketball player. Awful shot selection, no defense, no rebounding, won't pass the ball.
Never mind prime Manu or prime Jamal. The Clippers would be a better team right now with a 39-year-old Manu instead of Jamal.
Was prime Manu better than Chris Paul?
No, he said:
That "also" there implies that the "he would struggle against the double and triple teams a franchise player gets" argument is a different and separate argument from the "minutes/role" one.
"as a franchise guy..." denotes heavy minutes.
Don't be a bag, Balky.
The "heavy load/minutes" thing had already been adressed, him adding an "also" after that shifts the topic of the argument into another direction: "the struggle of double and triples teams", which is further explicited by the addition of the bit: "the franchise players get", at the end; implying that franchise players get double and triple teams that second and third options don't.
Last edited by DAF86; 05-29-2017 at 09:18 PM.
No, dippy. The two parts of the statement are connected by "also" so it means he'd face those for heavy minutes, not just end of game situations where Tim Duncan is still on the floor.
Whatever son, I'm not gonna keep arguing about this with a guy that gets a pathological hard-on from spinning, twisting and squeezing internet arguments just to have the last word. To me it's pretty clear what he said, if he meant another thing he should have phrased it differently. Take it from a guy that spent more than 10 years of his life studying every little subtle grammatical aspect of the English language (I know you won't, and will have something else to say, but whatever).
Take it from a guy that spent his entire life speaking it. That's what he meant.
Speaking a language your entire life doesn't mean you know more about it than a guy that studied it at college level (in fact, most times it's the other way around, tbh), it just means that you are more fluent at speaking it. I bet I can name you more than a couple concepts, about the English language, that you never even heard of, tbh. Unless, that is, you are a student of the language too, in which case I stand corrected.
I don't give a if you taught it at Harvard, you didn't understand what was being said in the paragraph you quoted.
A. More minutes
ALSO
B. heavier defense
You think A and B are exclusive of each other but they aren't. You used "also" to create that narrative in your head.
Dumb mother er
DMC is fat and has admitted he has never touched any basketball in his life. He's an edgy poster with an extremely low understanding of the game as is the case with most 300 obese Americans.
Manu would have been fine. Is he a franchise player at the level of Durant, Kawhi, lebron etc? A player that carries their team night in and night out..probably not.
But he was a third team all nba level player. He could be the best player of a team that finishes top 6 in the west provided he has the right personel.
Lowlifes should stop limiting the term franchise to players to players that can turn a team into championship caliber..
There's only maybe 4 players in the league that make that claim.
You build a team around a franchise player. You don't ask him to come off the bench.
Manu would have been fine starting his entire career as part of the big 3. A team with Manu as the best player of a big 3 wouldn't have been a very good team, but it could have been done. The fact nobody did it tells me it wasn't a desireable thing to do. You could make JJ Barea a franchise player if you wanted to build around him. You'd be stupid, but you could do it.
Imagine Manu as the best player on the Spurs team for 10 years. How many playoff appearances do they have?
Imagine Manu doesn't re-up after his 1st contract is up and he goes to some team like the Bucks. They decide to build around him. Was he better than Michael Redd was during that time? Who do they put around Manu to make an effective team?
So no, he could have been a starter on any team in the league, probably a top 3 player on almost any team, but not a centerpiece.
/thread
Last edited by DMC; 05-30-2017 at 11:31 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions