Reply With Quote
actually, thats exactly what im trying to say. 35% three point shooting is pretty good. while its not mindblowing, its definitely not, in your words, "terrible"
you should stop smoking whatever you are smoking dude.
It´s killing your brain cells.
actually, thats exactly what im trying to say. 35% three point shooting is pretty good. while its not mindblowing, its definitely not, in your words, "terrible"
The Jazz send players to the line more than any team in the NBA. It's part of their strategy.
There's no way around it.
You said all the calls were bad and Manu deserved none of them. Why back off from that now?
I watched the game. I like Manu, but he flails around too much when there is minimal contact. I could just imagine my thoughts on him if he wasn't on the Spurs.
Way to over-exaggerate.
everyone wants to be a winner. it feels like sh.. everytime our team loses. But we have to take it in stride, let's rest timmy and make sure he's healthy before he plays. Haven't we learned popovich's principle? we play in the regular season to prepare for greater battle ahead. Go spurs go!
Fine, he shot a lot of free throws; my point has little to do with how many points he scored and a whole lot to do with the fact that Manu made a substantial difference in that game in areas that have little to do with scoring the basketball. Again, I thought your point in distinguishing Manu from Duncan was saying that Tim can impact a game (in a positive way) even when he isn't shooting the ball well; my response to you is that for as much as you want to blast Manu for not doing that in Oakland, I can counter you with the non-scoring contributions that Manu made against Utah (and frankly, has made in a significant number of games this season).
I'm not arguing that Manu is more important to the Spurs than Tim or that Manu is a franchise player. The point is that Manu is a player who can (and frequently does) have a significant positive impact on the game even when he isn't scoring the basketball.
I'm not even going to with this response, because I agree with it almost totally. I will say one thing, there isn't much to learn that's positive from Popovich. He's cost the Spurs at least one championship. I have no doubt in my mind that's the truth.
The Authority, answer me this:
Hmm, and I'm sure that .4 and a bad foul cost the Spurs 2 les -- it's probably time to deal Manu since the dude just doesn't get it done when it matters most and obviously doesn't know how to contribute to winning les.
I don't question he impacts the game in other areas. My assertion was that he doesn't impact the game the way a franchise player does. Manu is not used to be the guy they key in to stop night in and night out. Like a Vince Carter, Kobe Bryant, AI(6ers), etc. He's never proven that he can be "the man".
You're getting the wrong impression. lol I do like Manu. I have a ing Manu jersey. I don't discredit anything he's done for the Spurs. My main points are:
1) He doesn't impact the game the way Duncan, or any other franchise player does.
2) He didn't bring the effort I expect of a professional basketball player against the Golden State Warriors.
Like a Vince Carter
we've already tried basic reasoning and logic. but its ok, you didnt know that.
Like it or not, Spurs fans... Vince Carter is one of, if not the most talented offensive player in the league. He is like the Randy Moss of the NBA. If he tries and his head is right, the guy cannot be guarded. That's what seperates him and Kobe, Kobe has the fire... Vince used to have it, and now it's gone.
I don't know any reasonable poster around here who has ever argued that Manu is a franchise player. Certainly, there is a big leap from being an All-Star to being a franchise guy, but I have no doubt that Manu is in the former category and not the latter category. I'm not sure why there's any point in really arguing that -- I'm not sure who might have argued that Manu was anything more than an All-Star caliber player.
Ironically enough, Vince Carter's career shooting percentage translates close to 9-for-21 . . .
35% in my eyes is terrible. Sorry, there's no way to change my mind. I don't care what the league average is. Do they count half court 3's at the end of quarters? Probably. Do they count 3's hoisted up by big men to beat a shot clock every now and then? Probably.
I would rather have Matt Bonner.Second of all, would you rather have a player who shoots 50% who never shoots three-pointers or a three-point shooter who only shoots threes but makes 35% of his attempts? Thanks in advance.
I'm not questioning whether you like or dislike Manu, I'm questioning your apportionment of blame for the seasons in which the Spurs tragically failed to win les.
That aside, what strikes me as odd about this thread is the fact that you've gone to such lengths to bash a guy whose supreme effort is unquestionable in 99% of the games that he plays. Manu had a bad night and didn't appear to play very hard; I don't think any reasonable person would dispute those statements. The question is whether he should be ripped to shreds because, for the first time this season, those things could be said about him. Ginobili's effort is one of the few constants for the Spurs over the last 4-5 years; to lambaste him for having one subpar game in that regard strikes me as ridiculously over-demanding.
There are a lot of people around this board that think he has the capability to be a franchise player after he has a couple of good games.
Vince Carter has gotten double and triple teamed his entire career. It's a little different from Manu. He doesn't have a Tim Duncan to divert all of the attention away from him. Also, factor in that some nights he just doesn't care. He'll take 32 foot 3's, etc. etc.
So your post is aimed entirely at those who are most unreasonable around here?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions