Shannon Sharpe says Manu is not a top 30 player

[daslicer]

11 time all star at a time when pizzazz and 20 ppg regardless of anything else was punching the card, and at a time when he could take 25 shots a game. GTFO LMAO

that still makes you an all-star today.

[ginobilized]

Better question is where does Shannon Sharpe rank in all-time sports broadcasters?
Top 3,000?

[DAF86]

There’s no need to denigrate AI to prop up Manu. Iverson was absolutely an all time great. To suggest otherwise comes off as silly hating. He was not without flaw. But in his prime, he was nearly as impossible a guard as Shaq was. One defender simply couldn’t stay in front of him to even attempt to stop him. And for his offensive greatness to carry that horse of a Sixers team to the Finals, I don’t care if it was in a conference, it personified his dominance. He was a one man offensive team. Sure at times he was inefficient. And his defense was only about playing passing lanes for steals. Same could be said of the defense of plenty of HOFers. Iverson was more than just fun to watch. And he played with a similar drive and intensity that Manu did. As off court personalities go, extremely different. As compe ors, very much similar types.

As for Manu, he’s not a top 30 player. No shame in that. There have been tens of thousands of players over 70 some years of the league. He’s not a top 50 guy either. But he’s definitely a HOF player when you add his international career into the mix. If it was just NBA, it’s be a much tougher argument. For all the points about sacrificing individual stats for the good of the team and intangibles, it’s just tough to ignore the lack of individual stats and awards. Say he was named FMVP in 2005. I think that by itself would be something that would put him over the top, no question. But he wasn’t. So you go by what he did accomplish.

Statistically speaking and awards/accomplishments, and I realize many view his greatness way beyond his stats, I look at him as a similar player to guys like Terry Porter and Detlef Schrempf. And neither of those guys are knocking on the HOF door. It’s the international career that gives Manu the invitation to the party.

Tell me what made Iverson a better player than Manu.

[SpurOutofTownFan]

There’s no need to denigrate AI to prop up Manu. Iverson was absolutely an all time great. To suggest otherwise comes off as silly hating. He was not without flaw. But in his prime, he was nearly as impossible a guard as Shaq was. One defender simply couldn’t stay in front of him to even attempt to stop him. And for his offensive greatness to carry that horse of a Sixers team to the Finals, I don’t care if it was in a conference, it personified his dominance. He was a one man offensive team. Sure at times he was inefficient. And his defense was only about playing passing lanes for steals. Same could be said of the defense of plenty of HOFers. Iverson was more than just fun to watch. And he played with a similar drive and intensity that Manu did. As off court personalities go, extremely different. As compe ors, very much similar types.

As for Manu, he’s not a top 30 player. No shame in that. There have been tens of thousands of players over 70 some years of the league. He’s not a top 50 guy either. But he’s definitely a HOF player when you add his international career into the mix. If it was just NBA, it’s be a much tougher argument. For all the points about sacrificing individual stats for the good of the team and intangibles, it’s just tough to ignore the lack of individual stats and awards. Say he was named FMVP in 2005. I think that by itself would be something that would put him over the top, no question. But he wasn’t. So you go by what he did accomplish.

Statistically speaking and awards/accomplishments, and I realize many view his greatness way beyond his stats, I look at him as a similar player to guys like Terry Porter and Detlef Schrempf. And neither of those guys are knocking on the HOF door. It’s the international career that gives Manu the invitation to the party.

What a total ing piece of garbage. So many things wrong.

I don't even know where to start. I won't.

[lefty]

But Thkip

[Spurtacular]

that still makes you an all-star today.

It means the metric doesn't mean . Manu made two all-star teams to Iverson's eleven. Manu is better than Iverson; and it's not even close.

[Spurtacular]

Better question is where does Shannon Sharpe rank in all-time sports broadcasters?
Top 3,000?

Currently? Probably not. Dunno if he should even be doing high school croquet games in Northern Alaska.

[Since89]

There’s no need to denigrate AI to prop up Manu. Iverson was absolutely an all time great. To suggest otherwise comes off as silly hating. He was not without flaw. But in his prime, he was nearly as impossible a guard as Shaq was. One defender simply couldn’t stay in front of him to even attempt to stop him. And for his offensive greatness to carry that horse of a Sixers team to the Finals, I don’t care if it was in a conference, it personified his dominance. He was a one man offensive team. Sure at times he was inefficient. And his defense was only about playing passing lanes for steals. Same could be said of the defense of plenty of HOFers. Iverson was more than just fun to watch. And he played with a similar drive and intensity that Manu did. As off court personalities go, extremely different. As compe ors, very much similar types.

As for Manu, he’s not a top 30 player. No shame in that. There have been tens of thousands of players over 70 some years of the league. He’s not a top 50 guy either. But he’s definitely a HOF player when you add his international career into the mix. If it was just NBA, it’s be a much tougher argument. For all the points about sacrificing individual stats for the good of the team and intangibles, it’s just tough to ignore the lack of individual stats and awards. Say he was named FMVP in 2005. I think that by itself would be something that would put him over the top, no question. But he wasn’t. So you go by what he did accomplish.

Statistically speaking and awards/accomplishments, and I realize many view his greatness way beyond his stats, I look at him as a similar player to guys like Terry Porter and Detlef Schrempf. And neither of those guys are knocking on the HOF door. It’s the international career that gives Manu the invitation to the party.

Agree on the international thing. But he is a way better player than Porter and Detlef. No comment on AI.

[Spurtacular]

You can't debate Manu being a Hall of Fame player. But I think the Top-30 argument is debatable, depending on your criteria for determining that status.

To me he is top 30. But to a football talking head, I can understand his confusion. He's reading a stat sheet. He'd probably rank Dwight Howard over Manu.

NFL and NBA don't have all that much overlap. And even during the NFL season, NFL practices are during the day and NBA games at night. Shannon Sharpe has seen pretty much as much NBA as the next person. He's just an idiot.

[Chris Fall]

Tell me what made Iverson a better player than Manu.

He could carry a team offensively for an entire season with absolute around him. That’s proven. Not just for a stretch in a game. Not just for a game. Not for a handful of games. An entire season. With a poor supporting cast and opposing team defenses game planning to stop him and only him. He was a 5’11, 165 pound version of Shaq in that regard. Teams would play zone against AI teams just to try to stop him from getting in the lane, with multiple defenders shading off their man just to help. In the early 2000s era of the NBA, it was Shaq and AI who were completely unguardable one-on-one players. With Shaq it was size and strength and his athleticism for that size. With AI it was speed and agility and handle. You couldn’t guard them with one guy.

Thats what made Iverson a better player than Manu. I love Manu. But if you can’t see that opinions on these boards are a bit skewed by fans with emotional ties and nostalgia attached to Manu, then no matter what response I give, it won’t change your opinion. That’s fine. But it’s not unreasonable to believe AI was the better player than Manu. It’s actually more unreasonable to think otherwise.

[sasaint]

If I were a GM I would trade AI for Manu straight up.

After his retirement Manu was at PRACTICE!

[sasaint]

You can't debate Manu being a Hall of Fame player. But I think the Top-30 argument is debatable, depending on your criteria for determining that status.

To me he is top 30. But to a football talking head, I can understand his confusion. He's reading a stat sheet. He'd probably rank Dwight Howard over Manu.

Spot on!

[BSfromTX]

Unfortunately, most NBA fans equate greatness with scoring average and what is being sold. I watch kids today and they mostly play the AI, Carmelo, Kawhi iso game leaving the rest of their team pretty much useless. Manus basketball mind is on level with Bird, Jordan, magic, and Timmy. Iversons game was simple compared to Manu. Manu made guys like Blair relevant and dangerous. It’s hard to pick very many guards that ran the p n r as well as Manu, or saw passes that most would think impossible, or block guys like Durant, Wade, and Garnett at the rim. Outside of scoring on high volume shooting, Iverson offered very little other than steals

[lefty]

This has olajuwon at 23 Spurmsfans

Hakeem is the GOAT center imo

[TimmyBuckets]

Wade>Manu>AI

[DAF86]

He could carry a team offensively for an entire season with absolute around him. That’s proven. Not just for a stretch in a game. Not just for a game. Not for a handful of games. An entire season. With a poor supporting cast and opposing team defenses game planning to stop him and only him. He was a 5’11, 165 pound version of Shaq in that regard. Teams would play zone against AI teams just to try to stop him from getting in the lane, with multiple defenders shading off their man just to help. In the early 2000s era of the NBA, it was Shaq and AI who were completely unguardable one-on-one players. With Shaq it was size and strength and his athleticism for that size. With AI it was speed and agility and handle. You couldn’t guard them with one guy.

Thats what made Iverson a better player than Manu. I love Manu. But if you can’t see that opinions on these boards are a bit skewed by fans with emotional ties and nostalgia attached to Manu, then no matter what response I give, it won’t change your opinion. That’s fine. But it’s not unreasonable to believe AI was the better player than Manu. It’s actually more unreasonable to think otherwise.

Manu has also proven being able to carry offensively a team for an entire season, but instead of doing it by averaging 30 ppg on 27 shot, he did it his way: by making people around him better.

The supporting cast argument with Iverson doesn't fly either. On philadelphia he had the absolute perfect set of players to suit him. He was never a player that was able to share touches. That's why he didn't work with Webber and Carmelo, that's also why Philadelphia had to get rid of Stackhouse when AI got there.

How do you think that Iverson lead team would have done against Argentina's lead Manu? What team would have won on a playoffs series? If a Manu lead team would have beaten an Iverson lead team on the playoffs, would you still be thinking Iverson is better than Manu?

I don't care if the opinion of other people is skewed here, all I can do is talk for myself. And I think Manu is a clearly better player than Iverson not for some super subjective reason, but because being a hardcore fan of both I got to see them, in full detail, play throughout the years and every relevant metric out there supports what my eye test tell me: that Manu is a clearly superior player to Iverson, and the only reason most NBA fans think otherwise is becuase they never got to see Manu lead a team for an extended period of time.

[Harry Callahan]

My week was saddened by Manu calling it a career. I had the priviledge of seeing hundreds of games and all of his games the last 2-3 years.

I don't know if he is top 30 or top 75 or top 150. He had something extra (like Timmy) that set him apart. I'm amazed he ended up being the last of the Big 3 to leave.

I love the Spurs - I always will. But I'm afraid the franchise will never be able to capture what just concluded over the last 2 years with 21, 20 and 9 going away.

I'm a spoiled Spurs fan. I will not apologize.

[Harry Callahan]

Also, why does the Urban Community always denigrate the Spurs with the stupid "boring" remark. I think winning around 70% of your games and an NBA le every fourth year over the past 20 year is a pretty exciting exercise.

"Mumbles" Sharpe is the second best football player in his own house growing up. Sterling was smart enough to play well and be quiet. Cris Carter is a pretty rotten human being overall given his history of drug and alcohol abuse. CTE seems to be in his immediate and long term future.

[Harry Callahan]

I can't stand Skip Bayless, but the Spurs homer act is still pretty funny. He is the puppet master when it comes to controlling his co-hosts on either Fox or ESPN.

[Daddy Long Dik]

You don’t mean that son.

[J_Paco]

There’s no need to denigrate AI to prop up Manu. Iverson was absolutely an all time great. To suggest otherwise comes off as silly hating. He was not without flaw. But in his prime, he was nearly as impossible a guard as Shaq was. One defender simply couldn’t stay in front of him to even attempt to stop him. And for his offensive greatness to carry that horse of a Sixers team to the Finals, I don’t care if it was in a conference, it personified his dominance. He was a one man offensive team. Sure at times he was inefficient. And his defense was only about playing passing lanes for steals. Same could be said of the defense of plenty of HOFers. Iverson was more than just fun to watch. And he played with a similar drive and intensity that Manu did. As off court personalities go, extremely different. As compe ors, very much similar types.

As for Manu, he’s not a top 30 player. No shame in that. There have been tens of thousands of players over 70 some years of the league. He’s not a top 50 guy either. But he’s definitely a HOF player when you add his international career into the mix. If it was just NBA, it’s be a much tougher argument. For all the points about sacrificing individual stats for the good of the team and intangibles, it’s just tough to ignore the lack of individual stats and awards. Say he was named FMVP in 2005. I think that by itself would be something that would put him over the top, no question. But he wasn’t. So you go by what he did accomplish.

Statistically speaking and awards/accomplishments, and I realize many view his greatness way beyond his stats, I look at him as a similar player to guys like Terry Porter and Detlef Schrempf. And neither of those guys are knocking on the HOF door. It’s the international career that gives Manu the invitation to the party.

Manu is top 50, maybe (not in my mind), but definitely top 100 all - time. Manu coming off the bench a majority of career and having his minutes limited throughout hurt his case.

Obviously, had he played a bigger role instead of being the "third wheel" throughout chunks of his NBA career, then no one would question his placement on any list.

Was he as talented as almost any top 30 player (excluding top 10), yes, but his (raw) career numbers and accomplishments don't bare that out. His advanced metrics give you a better idea of his impact and talent level.

I would place him anywhere between 50 - 65 and right outside the top 10 SG's ever based on his NBA career.

[Canyonero]

This dude should check himself for CTE fwiw

[rascal]

Manu rode Duncan's coat tails. Much of his so called NBA accomplishments listed in this thread are team accomplishments (success tied directly to Duncan).

[rascal]

He could carry a team offensively for an entire season with absolute around him. That’s proven. Not just for a stretch in a game. Not just for a game. Not for a handful of games. An entire season. With a poor supporting cast and opposing team defenses game planning to stop him and only him. He was a 5’11, 165 pound version of Shaq in that regard. Teams would play zone against AI teams just to try to stop him from getting in the lane, with multiple defenders shading off their man just to help. In the early 2000s era of the NBA, it was Shaq and AI who were completely unguardable one-on-one players. With Shaq it was size and strength and his athleticism for that size. With AI it was speed and agility and handle. You couldn’t guard them with one guy.

Thats what made Iverson a better player than Manu. I love Manu. But if you can’t see that opinions on these boards are a bit skewed by fans with emotional ties and nostalgia attached to Manu, then no matter what response I give, it won’t change your opinion. That’s fine. But it’s not unreasonable to believe AI was the better player than Manu. It’s actually more unreasonable to think otherwise.

Agree, you swap Manu and AI. Manu wins no les and gets no where near the Hall of Fame.

[rascal]

Unfortunately, most NBA fans equate greatness with scoring average and what is being sold. I watch kids today and they mostly play the AI, Carmelo, Kawhi iso game leaving the rest of their team pretty much useless. Manus basketball mind is on level with Bird, Jordan, magic, and Timmy. Iversons game was simple compared to Manu. Manu made guys like Blair relevant and dangerous. It’s hard to pick very many guards that ran the p n r as well as Manu, or saw passes that most would think impossible, or block guys like Durant, Wade, and Garnett at the rim. Outside of scoring on high volume shooting, Iverson offered very little other than steals

Scoring is the most important stat in basketball.