Reply With Quote
Didn´t he win 2 NBA Championships with S.A?????
where were you in 2002 and 2005?
I aint trolling,And I stand by my coments.
I never said Manu was better tham Gervin,But I did say that (IN MY OPINION)He and Tony as well took the spurs to the international scenario,cause right now the spurs have more fans in the world tham any other Basketball team in the world,And I also know that Gervin helped the spurs become an NBA francise for good,and to stay in the NBA .
Didn´t he win 2 NBA Championships with S.A?????
where were you in 2002 and 2005?
Antonio Daniels > George Gervin?where were you in 2002 and 2005?
In 2002, I was watching the Lakers beat the Spurs 4-1 in the 2nd round, where were you?Didn´t he win 2 NBA Championships with S.A?????
where were you in 2002 and 2005?
And if you mean 2003, that's the year Ginobili averaged a whopping 9.4 ppg in 27.5 mpg in the playoffs.
What kind of glory is that? Oh wait! You ONLY count the number of championships won, in which case Kerr > Gervin ... sorry, my wrong AGAIN, ranking Player A above Player B does not equal mean Player A > Player B. I am confused, what does it mean exactly? That there were more accomplishments as a Spur? Or, how they would rank them based on a sample of 18-22 year olds? A potential future accomplishment ranking? but we know damn sure it's not a "what if scenario" ranking even though you used the what if Michael Jordan scenario right after you said you are not interested in guessing how many les Gervin would have won with a dominant big man like Robinson or Duncan.
Besides, should we consider stats (see post 347 and 349)? You first said you consider stats, then said you don't rank them by stats.
While we are at it, why are we ranking players based on teams (see 341), should we not have ranked which year's Spurs were the best, rather than the players?
And this one takes the cake, post 319
And yet you acknowlegdged that without Gervin, there'd be no Spurs. I suppose keeping a franchise from going bankrupt doesn't hold a lot of water these days.
BTW, how the could you have followed the Spurs since 1984, and not watched any Gervin games (262)? What the were you following? Boxscores?
I ment 2003,my bad,but I haven´t seen You saying something about the 2005 season?Is there a reason why you only brought up Manu´s ROOCKIE season?
I guess you´re just another Ginobili hater,and as far as I´m concerned you can keep on hating,and them jump on his bandwaggon When he helps the spurs getting another CHAMPIONSHIP RING.
Last edited by ArgSpursFan; 03-05-2007 at 09:39 AM.
I ment 2003,my bad,but I haven´t seen You saying something about the 2005 season?Is there a reason why you only brought up Manu´s ROOCKIE season?
I guess you´re just another Ginobili hater,and as far as I´m concerned you can keep on hating,and them jump on his bandwaggon When he helps the spurs getting another CHAMPIONSHIP RING.Thank you for your insight into my psyche, despite the fact that I said earlier that I love Ginobili’s game. I also happen to think that he is the second most important piece to the Spurs’ success next to Tim Duncan. In fact, YOU brought up 2003 (well, 2002 when you meant 2003), the only season that Manu played great and the Spurs won a championship was 2005. So with his single year where you claim Manu was the main reason the Spurs won a championship, despite Duncan winning an MVP, Bowen putting the clamps on Billups, and Manu injured since Game 3, he is > Gervin? Is that what passes for legends nowadays?I ment 2003,my bad,but I haven´t seen You saying something about the 2005 season?Is there a reason why you only brought up Manu´s ROOCKIE season?
I guess you´re just another Ginobili hater,and as far as I´m concerned you can keep on hating,and them jump on his bandwaggon When he helps the spurs getting another CHAMPIONSHIP RING.
Find me ONE quote where I said I do not like Ginobili, but even the most blinded Manu-homer cannot ever rank Gervin below Manu.
Back to the original topic, please try to nail down your criteria in ranking Spurs players, because I sure as can’t understand your logic. Go back to post 381, please answer at least some of the questions. I am most interested in how you were following the Spurs back in 1984.
Also, please state your stance on whether Dumars, Maxwell and Worthy > Barkley, Malone and Stockton.
So, are you saying then that if I think George Gervin was a more signficant, better Spur than Manu Ginobili that I'm a Ginobili hater?I ment 2003,my bad,but I haven´t seen You saying something about the 2005 season?Is there a reason why you only brought up Manu´s ROOCKIE season?
I guess you´re just another Ginobili hater,and as far as I´m concerned you can keep on hating,and them jump on his bandwaggon When he helps the spurs getting another CHAMPIONSHIP RING.
That's got to be the cherry atop this series of ridiculous arguments.
I think Manu Ginobili is one of the 5 most important Spurs ever, but I'm a hater because I think a guy who reached the Hall of Fame based solely on his accomplishments with the Spurs was more important to the history of the franchise.
Without Gervin the spurs don't have a team now. They would not have gotten into the nba if they were a bad team when the merger happened.
He is the most important spur of all time and put the spurs on the nba map.
To me, that's pretty much at the core of every CoM argument.
Oh, of course it is. I'm just wondering how exactly one can be a "hater" in agreeing that a player is one of the five most significant/valuable/best players in the history of the franchise. I suppose, however, that question is rhetorical, given the usual CoM position on most things.
First of all,I wasn´t talking to you,so I don´t know where I called you a hater.I was talking to somebody else,who I called a hater,Not you,given my ¨actual coM position¨.
But I hold the same position that ambchang does -- are you now going to tell me that I'm not a hater, but ambchang is? particularly after ambchang has spent a great deal of time praising Manu, just as I have?
You´re putting words on my mouth,I never called you a hater,but if your buddie needs a lower,that´s fine with me.I don´t need one,even with my actual coM position.
if that is not ginobili hating.tell me what it is.(FWDT)
Saying Ginobili has an accomplished resume as a member of the Argentinian basketball team is hating? What kind of Argentinian are you?
Read up buddy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_Ginobili#Awards
Awards as a member of the Argentinian basketball team:
2002 All-Tournament Team, FIBA World Championship
2004 Ideal Olympics Team
2004 Summer Olympic Games Most Valuable Player
2004 Olympic Gold Medal
2006 All-Tournament Team, FIBA World Championship
Awards as a Spur:
2005 NBA All-Star
2005 Nike Baller Of The Year (fan poll)
2003 NBA Champion
2005 NBA Champion
Both teams won, and yet Manu was obviously way more accomplished in international compe ion. Unless you want to say that Nike Baller of the Year > Ideal Olympics Team, or All Star > Olympics NBA. But with the way you rank Manu over Gervin, that may well be true .....
Ginobili hating would be arguing that Manu played little or no significant role in either of the championships that he's won with the Spurs (of course, that would be erroneous as well). Recognizing that Manu is probably best known worldwide for his fabulous play for the Argentinian National Team doesn't strike me as hating -- it strikes me as the acknowledgment of a fact.
Manu is going to the Hall of Fame, I think, but he's doing so mostly because of all that he did for his country; Ginobili's accomplishments with the Spurs, standing alone, wouldn't get him a sniff of the Hall of Fame.
Thinking about it, I think an argument can be made that Parker should be above Ginobili in this list. My first reaction was to put Ginobili ahead of both Parker and Elliott, but thinking about it more ... I'm not so sure.
Obviously, Ginobili's 2005 playoff run was more impressive than anything Parker has ever done. But in 2003, Ginobili played well against the Lakers, however he struggled in every other series. Parker was far and away the second leading scorer that year and was vastly more important in that season's playoffs.
Then you look at two All-Star selections to one, the fact that Parker has been with the Spurs a year longer, averages more points and more assists ... and it has to make you think.
Again, Ginobili was my initial pick for number 4, but I'm not sure now that I think about it. Was Ginobili's awesome 2005 playoff run alone enough to trump everything that Parker and Elliott (another two-time All-Star) ever did?
Discuss.
Cause you´re down playing Ginobili,thats why I said that.
I know what he did for Argentina,but I belive we are talking Spurs here.
And my point is that He actually did more for the spurs,as far as taking the club to the international scenario,being a KEY player for the 2005 Championship,and a big contributor in 2003(BTW his roockie year)and a KEY player on this year´s spurs bounce back,after the ASG brake.
But it´s just my opinion,and I stand by what I think.
BTW,I never said I was a spurs fan since 84,I said I followed the NBA since 84,and I wasn´t able to watch the games live back them in the 80´s in Argentina.I started watching live games in 1993 when ESPN started broadcasting in Arg.,before we just were able to follow stats on the papper and some games every now and them.(not live)
BTW ArgSpursFan, I am seriously doubting your earlier claim that you started to follow the Spurs since 1984, and I am thinking that instead you were born in 1984. It may not be true, but your claims doesn't add up. How in the world can you not watch any Gervin games if you were following the Spurs then? What prompted you the follow the Spurs from Argentina? Why not the Celtics, Lakers, or the 76ers? Why the Spurs?
And your claim about the 18-22 year old. Why 22? Doesn't it usually go 18-21, or 18-25? 22 seems like an odd number, other than the fact that if you were born in 1984, you'd be 22 now (well, or 23, but 2007 is only a little more than 2 months deep).
I am not calling you a liar, but you are rousing my su ion.
Interesting points, but when all is said and done, I think Manu will (as of right now anyway) be remembered much more as a playoff performer as oppose to TP. I'm sure Manu did struggle in the other series besides the lakers one in 2003, but I hardly remember that.
All I remember about Manu in 2003 was him stealing the ball from Richard Jefferson just past midcourt and going for a breakaway dunk that changed the game and sparked our 4th quarter comeback in game 6 en route to our 2nd championship.
While Parker has improved every year, i think when it comes to the playoffs I remember him carving the lakers up in 2004 for the first two games and then when Jackson ordered the Lakers to pack the lane Parker was rendered useless and we blew the series.
This isn't to say parker hasn't had his playoff moments, such as destroying Payton in the Seattle series of 2002 (I think it was) as well as the early part of he most recent Lakers series, but I remember that OT game against denver in the 2005 playoffs that he was responsible for us sealing the W.
While Ginobili may have made one of the biggest playoff blunders in NBA history with his foul on dirk, I still think he's far far more clutch player than parker.
Parker is not nearly as multi dimensional as Ginobili, and if Manu's shot isn't falling he can help you in so many other ways whereas if TP can't get in the lane he tends to struggle (though he is only 24 with plenty of time for his game to expand)
So if you ask me, it's no contest Ginobili should be higher than TP. TP may be more consistent over the course of a regular season, but it's the playoffs that make you memorable not the regular season.
Ask Robert Horry.
(and probably why kerr got ranked so highly)
I was borned in 1974,and I play BB since I´m 9yrs old,and yes I follow the NBA since 1984,and to be Honest I wasn´t a fan but the Magic´s lakers were my team back them.
ic, so you were following the NBA since then with stats and boxscores every now and then.
And I was talking about the Spurs, and YOU said I am hating because I ranked Ginobili's accomplishments as an Argentinian national team member above his accomplishments as a Spur. What am I supposed to do? Somehow not mention his pre-Spurs days to refute your claims?
Why in the world would being an MVP and best player in international compe ion be less of an accomplishment as a key member of 2 NBA le? Especially when one was as a rookie who averaged less than 10 points and 28 minutes? He was the MVP of the 2004 Olympics, what is so shameful about that? He took basketball to Argentina because of what he did in the Olympics AND what he did as a Spur, not strictly what he did as a Spur. He was even MORE of a key player in the success of the Argentinian national team, and what is so downplaying about that?
By your logic, if I say I'd rather have 15 lbs of gold than 10 lbs of gold, I am dissing the 10 lbs of gold.
Back to the original topic.
So now your logic is that he brought basketball to the worldwide scene as a member of a Spur, therefore he is more valuable to the Spurs than Gervin? Correct me if I am wrong, but going bankrupt is much worse than not being recognized internationally, if you know what I mean.
I apologize for doubting your claims, but there is no way I would ever agree with your claim of ranking Manu over Gervin, and I still don't know how your logic works.
Because your logic would exclude every US player from the top, because they didn't take the NBA to the international scene. , Parker and Manu > Gervin, Duncan and Robinson.
After being labelled a hater of Manu, it would be weird for me to argue for him, but I would.
Manu is not about stats, his game is about passion. He may not make the perfect play every time, but his all-out play helps his team wins.
Manu steps up at the more defining moments to make the little plays that helps his team wins. His basketball IQ is also through the roof. He makes the right plays which may not result in anything on the scoreboard. A pass here, a deflection there to disrupt the opposition's offense, a tip to his teammate, or an irritating flop that frustrates the opponent, he does it all.
His outside shot also allows the Spurs to space the floor better and he is almost as good a penetrator as Parker.
The difference is hair-thin, but if I were to pick them based on past accomplishments, or pick between to two for one single season, Manu would win out by a thin margin. If I were to pick someone to build a team right now, I would go with Parker.
Parker yes, Elliott no...mainly because Elliott was a career Spur and went through so much that SA was a part of.
Neither Parker nor Elliott have ever been as key to a le run as Manu was in 05.
If I'm building a team right now and I can have any of them from any year of their careers I take Manu in 05. I probably take Elliott last.
Something to remember about 03 though...Bowen was huge in that le run. I'd say a case could be made for Bowen being the second or third most important player in that run...ahead of Jack.
I'd also say that a pretty good case could be made for Bruce deserving to be in the top 10.
Bruce's is one of the best defensive players in NBA history, most of that done as a Spur.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions