Reply With Quote
Nobody arguing that. But it's ridiculous to say that Manu has been more important for the Spurs franchise than George Gervin.
Like I said before,Manu still have a long way to go,maybe not as great as Gervinīs carrer,but with a handfull of NBA rings.
And I guess thatīs ok for him, and for the spurs fans as well.
Nobody arguing that. But it's ridiculous to say that Manu has been more important for the Spurs franchise than George Gervin.
I would like to ask that question to 18-22 yrs old kids in S.A and all over the world Spurs fans.
Not saying Gervin wasnīt all that,but just wondering.
You canīt just not hear what youngers fans think about it.
If we limited the vote to 18-22 year old kids, Beno would be on the list.
what Iīm saying is ,while Gervin helped the franchise stay on the NBA,guys like Manu and TP,have taken the spurs to a WORLDWIDE level,the spurs is one the most admired/liked Basketball teams in the whole world right now,and not because of Gervin.
If Gervin made the spurs Big in the NBA,other guys made the spurs Bigger.
Yeap, before DRob, it was George Gervin, the original icon of Sports in Cen/South Tex. Before Gervin, there was nothing...and without him, that's what we'd likely have now.
Would the Spurs even have been one of the teams to make the NBA jump without Gervin? Would they have even been in position to make that jump as anything but a joke without Ice? Would the Spurs ownership have even attempted it in SA without Ice?
In addition to his groundbreaking game, he was also just about the coolest mofo to ever step foot on the court, an appeal that remains to this day an appeal that was key to the Spurs survival in San Antonio.
Ice is an all time basketball legend remembered with extreme fondness by many a hall of fame player.
It would bother me a lot less to see him ranked #1 than it would to see him outside of the top 3.
Without Gervin...there would be nothing to take to a WORLDWIDE level.what Iīm saying is ,while Gervin helped the franchise stay on the NBA,guys like Manu and TP,have taken the spurs to a WORLDWIDE level,the spurs is one the most admired/liked Basketball teams in the whole world right now,and not because of Gervin.
Itīs just about Spurs Glory.
Just wanted to put it out there that while I love Manu, some of these Argentinian fans are insane if they think he belongs above Gervin.
I'm fine with the rankings as long as Manu is no lower than 4th, but I understand there is a big gap between the top 3 and # 4. As long as he's above Elliott and Tony I'm good. Argspursfan has a point, Manu's playoff accomplishments do deserve some bonus points, which is why I would place him above Tony and Sean.
But yes, when their careers are over both Manu and Tony will be in the HOF because the Hall gives you way more consideration if you're a foreign player.
The top 30 NBA Spurs: No. 6, Tony Parker
Web Posted: 03/03/2007 09:20 PM CST
San Antonio Express-News
Thirty years ago, in 1976, the Spurs played their first season in the NBA after being absorbed into the older league along with three other teams from the American Basketball Association. To commemorate the milestone, the Express-News each Sunday will recognize our selections as the 30 greatest NBA Spurs. Here is No. 6:
Tony Parker, 2001-present: When the Spurs made Parker the 28th selection in the first round of the 2001 draft, few could have predicted the impact a 19-year-old from France would have over the next six seasons. But Parker, whose father had played at Loyola of Chicago and in Europe, became a starter just five games into his Spurs career. The first European guard to be named to the All-Rookie first team, Parker showed off both his quickness and toughness that season.
advertisement
By the end of Parker's second season, he had earned his first championship ring as a starter and recorded the highest scoring average by a Spurs point guard (15.5 points per game) since James Silas averaged 17.7 in 1979-80.
Still just 24 years old, Parker has remained on a steep learning curve, his ability to penetrate and score at the rim improving each season. He shot 48.2 percent from the field in the Spurs' championship run in 2005. When his perimeter shooting began to improve in 2005-06, the result was a career-best scoring average of 18.0, a career-best shooting percentage of 54.8 and his first appearance in the All-Star Game.
This season, Parker is averaging 18.8 points and went to his second-straight All-Star Game.
In his five-plus seasons, Parker has risen to No. 3 on the Spurs' all-time assists list, passing David Robinson last week, with 2,442. He also has moved into No. 6 on the all-time scoring list, with 6,980 points as of Saturday.
Already having played 80 playoff games in his five seasons, Parker ranks fourth on the Spurs' all-time postseason list in points (1,361), third in assists (345), fourth in free throws (539), fourth in 3-pointers (53) and fifth in steals (74).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the Spurs page on MySA.com for Nos. 30-7.
Parker's placement is about right, given that: (1) he doesn't yet have the long-term resume of a guy like Sean Elliott; and (2) he doesn't have as great a share in a championship as Ginobili has. I still think Ginobili ends up at 5, Elliott at 4, with the Big 3 to follow.
Make this list in 5 more years and Parker might very well be in the top 4.
The list as it stands
6. Tony Parker
7. Larry Kenon
8. Avery Johnson
9. James Silas
10. Alvin Robertson
11. Mike Mitc
12. Artis Gilmore
13. Johnny Moore
14. Bruce Bowen
15. Malik Rose
16. Terry mings
17. Billy Paultz
18. Dennis Rodman
19. Robert Horry
20. Mark Olberding
21. Steve Kerr
22. Vinny Del Negro
23. Mario Elie
24. Gene Banks
25. Mike Gale
26. Chuck Person
27. Coby Dietrick
28. Dave Corzine
29. Willie Anderson
30. Stephen Jackson
I know this is heresy to the TD and Robinson folks out there because of their part in the Sours finally winning the NBA championships--but I can make an argument that Gervin should be the number 1 Spur of all time.
Why? Because Gervin took a town that had no natural affinity for basketball-- much less for an 'inferior' league--and made San Antonio a hotbed of basketball fans. NOBODY--and I mean nobody--in this town expected the Spurs to become as wildly successful an entertainment venue as they became or our national flagship to the world. The betting at first was that the team--and the new league with the funny red, white and blue ball--wouldn't last a year.
His unbelievable shotmaking ability showed San Antonians that basketball wasn't just a sport for their kids to fool around with while waiting for football season--but a game played by the greatest athletes in the world. A fast-paced game of grace, precision, athleticism, that could get their blood racing and their emotions involved. It was fun to watch and worth every penny of your $5 or $10 dollar ticket.
He was the X-factor that built the Spurs games into the entertainment mecca of San Antonio--the place to be for rich and poor alike. Without Gervin in those early years, the basketball organization we know as the San Antonio Spurs might have gone the way of the San Diego Conquistadors or the Kentucky Colonels.
So George Gervin has a legitimate claim in my book to being Number 1 in the Top Thirty Spurs of all time.
Well said.
Ranking Spurs individual players is not about individual achievements, but team rankings? I probably missed it in your earlier post, I am too lazy to dig it up, but this is the first time I heard. In that case, the ranking is easy, we now know that Kerr > Gervin too.
Stop wasting my time in looking up numbers. Before I did, I thought Prince fell off the face of the earth, but he actually average 11ppg, 5.7 REB, 2.6 AST, and 1.14 STL, that compared to 14.7 PPG, 5.3 REB, 3 AST and 0.7 STL in the regular season. There is a grand total of ONE bad game Prince had. This is not ownage.he defended Prince
BTW,He didnīt defend Him,He owned him.
Go look at Princeīs Numbers on the 2005 Finals.
Stop going around in circles and try to come up with ridiculous arguments, you still haven't answered whether:
Dumars > Barkley, Malone and Stockton
Maxwell > B, M & S
Worthy > B, M & S
Jaren Jackson > Gervin
Kerr > Gervin
Stephen Jackson > Gervin
Could you update me on the part where Gervin had the best part of his career has a non-Spur?
BTW, Manu got most of his "glory" as a rep of Argentinian basketball team.
Please lay it out for me.
You evaluate a player's importance based on
les
WF les
Playoff games played/won
of which Steve Kerr beat Gervin Gervin in 2 of the 3 categories.
So ..... Kerr > Gervin?
Could you please, clearly state how you measure player importance, instead of jumping from post to post? You said you take into account statistical accomplishment (individual accomplishments), but then a few post back, you said you only put into account team glory.
So which one is it?
Last edited by ambchang; 03-04-2007 at 05:47 PM.
But since you came up with the Jordan scenario (where if he played one year as a Spur, then got traded, yada yada yada), and infamously stated that you are not interested in what COULD happen, but what actually did, what is the logic of future, un-accomplished feats?
I understand you are trolling, but at least be consistent in the same thread.
5. Elliott
4. Manu
3. Gervin
2. Admiral
1. Duncan
ArgSpursfan, give it up.
Like I said there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 on the list, but I think there is an argument to be made for Tony at 5 above Sean because when it's all said and done both Manu and Tony will be in the HOF and Sean won't.
They should have put in his list of accomplishments: Is also banging Eva Longoria.
Manu might make the Hall of Fame -- I've argued before that he should -- but that accomplishment likely won't be based solely on things he did with the Spurs. Manu is going in, but he's going in because he might be the most valuable non-American in international compe ion during the Dream Team era.
Absent some dramatic change in his career path, Tony Parker isn't likely to be a Hall of Famer at any point in time, though he might end up being the 4th best Spur ever. He might be a multi-time All-Star and he might end up with 3 or 4 les during his career, but there are guys who were much, much better players who haven't even sniffed the Hall of Fame. Unless Tony leads France to some era of dominance internationally, I can't see him being anything more than a very good NBA player who'll be remembered as that.
Don't be so sure. The basketball hall of fame is by far the easiest to crack and they give extra consideration to international players.
The list is the 30 best Spurs, not the potential 30 best Spurs. Both Sean and Manu should above Tony. But Tony might end up being above both in 10 years.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
