Manu has a legit argument for third best spur ever behind TD and Drob..

[Kawhitstorm]

It really says nothing you spoiled african prince, like your Durant riding fascination.

Comparing Manu with that old finished dog, all that whistle flash just to kiss Lebron´s ass.

Just thinking about KD at 38 makes me

[tmtcsc]

LOL not to give away my age, but my first Spurs game was against the St Louis Spirits. ABA Red, White, and Blue ball.

Tony shouldn't be in the conversation. Manu has an argument. I'm not basing my opinion just on stats because Manu came off the bench most of his career. That didn't mean the guy in front of him was better by any stretch of the imagination. Also, DRbob and Gervin were the focal points of the offense for most of their careers. If Manu played a Harden type of role on a lesser team, his stats would have been much, much better.

If I had to pick one of those 3 players to roll with in a do-or-die game, I'm taking Manu over Gervin and Robinson. This is not meant to disrespect Ice or DRob but Manu was the fiercer compe or in my opinion and helped put his team over the top.

[DPG21920]

Look, I get the ICE never had a great team argument. I also get that Manu/TP had Duncan. But let's not so casually dismiss winning. If DPG fluked out and won a single le then faded off, I could understand. But we are talking about 15 years of unprecedented success in the best era of basketball ever.

To dismiss that is beyond disrespectful Imo. I'm not punishing Manu & TP because they had Tim & sacrificed a lot of personal accolades to win. That adds to them as a Spur, it does not detract. I'm not sure the Spurs, or any franchise will see the level of excellence we've seen ushered in by DPG ever again.

Just like its somewhat of a cop out to say Ice "didn't have to focus on defense" it's a cop out to point to individual accolades when Manu/TP sacrificed to win over and over and over again. I don't like dealing in hypotheticals because it's tough. Could Ice have been a role player on multiple le teams? Would he be willing to sacrifice? Would he play defense "if he had to"?

I don't know. I do know for a fact that both Manu & TP absolutely proved they could win. They adapted every single time they had to in order to keep winning too. I'm not discounting winning.

[Pauleta14]

1 - Timmy
2 - DRob
3a - TP
3b - Manu
3c - Ice

[skulls138]

So you're telling me that you would take Manu over Durant?

Prime vs prime? Easily. Durants got the scoring talent but Manu has everything else and the offensive talent isnt even that big of a gap.

[Spurs 4 The Win]

I get sick of reading all the posts disrespecting Gervin. Just because Gervin wasn't a part of the Duncan era doesn't make him any less impressive or great. If you so called fans can't even respect the Spurs history, don't expect anyone else to.

Gervin is a clear cut number 3 over Manu and Parker, its just a bunch of teenagers who dont know about our teams history

[ElNono]

Look, I get the ICE never had a great team argument. I also get that Manu/TP had Duncan. But let's not so casually dismiss winning. If DPG fluked out and won a single le then faded off, I could understand. But we are talking about 15 years of unprecedented success in the best era of basketball ever.

To dismiss that is beyond disrespectful Imo. I'm not punishing Manu & TP because they had Tim & sacrificed a lot of personal accolades to win. That adds to them as a Spur, it does not detract. I'm not sure the Spurs, or any franchise will see the level of excellence we've seen ushered in by DPG ever again.

Just like its somewhat of a cop out to say Ice "didn't have to focus on defense" it's a cop out to point to individual accolades when Manu/TP sacrificed to win over and over and over again. I don't like dealing in hypotheticals because it's tough. Could Ice have been a role player on multiple le teams? Would he be willing to sacrifice? Would he play defense "if he had to"?

I don't know. I do know for a fact that both Manu & TP absolutely proved they could win. They adapted every single time they had to in order to keep winning too. I'm not discounting winning.

That's how I feel and you can add Pop, and to an extent RC/Holt to that list, tbh... again, if you're looking at this through the "individual accolades" lens, then sure, they don't stack-up (although Manu particularly has some historical stuff under his belt under FIBA).

But if you look at this through the winning culture of the franchise, and raising this franchise not just past the "survival" level, but to the NBA's model franchise level, it's difficult to argue they're not at the very top.

[Vito Corleone]

So being good is about a popularity contest? thats the measuring stick? Even Kiwi is better than Gervin and cant make it, is Kobe a better player than Kiwi to take his spot?
Even Vince Carter gave his spot to old fat MJ, does that make VC a lesser player?



Gervin was a face of the franchise, so is DeMar DeRozan, Gordon Hayward, Carmelo but like those he never accomplished a thing except doing coke, the history makers were TD, DRob Manu Parker Bowen, the fact that Gervin kept the franchise in SA is not important since they could win in another team with another name in another city, the point is winning something not who was before and had no relationship with the success, DRob came to SA 4 years after Gervin left to steal some money in Chicago and Europe.


I would love to see Gervin carrying his NT to something or even winning something in Europe

¨The last NBA game of Gervin's career was Jordan's 63 point game against the Boston Celtics in the playoffs on April 20, 1986. Gervin recorded 1 assist and 1 personal foul in five minutes of play for the Bulls¨

Light years ahead I guess...

The last NBA game for Jordan was a meaningless non-playoff game for the Washington Wizards, but I guess that means he wasn't the greatest to ever play the game.

Congrats you just made my ignore list.

Gervin is a clear cut number 3 over Manu and Parker, its just a bunch of teenagers who dont know about our teams history

BINGO

[DPG21920]

Ya - I sound like a teenager

[Mikeanaro]

That Vito Barzini is an asshole, and not very italian by the way.

[Kawhitstorm]

Prime vs prime? Easily. Durants got the scoring talent but Manu has everything else and the offensive talent isnt even that big of a gap.

Manu wasn't so hot when he had to go up against an elite perimeter defender: Ron Artest (2006 playoffs)

[skulls138]

And Kawhi slowed Lebron, Lebron slowed Harden so whats your point? I didnt say Manu was invincible.

[spurraider21]

Look, I get the ICE never had a great team argument. I also get that Manu/TP had Duncan. But let's not so casually dismiss winning. If DPG fluked out and won a single le then faded off, I could understand. But we are talking about 15 years of unprecedented success in the best era of basketball ever.

To dismiss that is beyond disrespectful Imo. I'm not punishing Manu & TP because they had Tim & sacrificed a lot of personal accolades to win. That adds to them as a Spur, it does not detract. I'm not sure the Spurs, or any franchise will see the level of excellence we've seen ushered in by DPG ever again.

Just like its somewhat of a cop out to say Ice "didn't have to focus on defense" it's a cop out to point to individual accolades when Manu/TP sacrificed to win over and over and over again. I don't like dealing in hypotheticals because it's tough. Could Ice have been a role player on multiple le teams? Would he be willing to sacrifice? Would he play defense "if he had to"?

I don't know. I do know for a fact that both Manu & TP absolutely proved they could win. They adapted every single time they had to in order to keep winning too. I'm not discounting winning.

speaking of hypos we know gervin was a multiple time scoring champ, leading a team to playoff births and winning records. those are bigger accomplishments than being good #2 or #3 offensive options imo

[skulls138]

speaking of hypos we know gervin was a multiple time scoring champ, leading a team to playoff births and winning records. those are bigger accomplishments than being good #2 or #3 offensive options imo

But of four championships. Theres only one ball with three hall of fame players

[barbacoataco]

speaking of hypos we know gervin was a multiple time scoring champ, leading a team to playoff births and winning records. those are bigger accomplishments than being good #2 or #3 offensive options imo

Agree. Bottom line a lot of fans don't know history. Gervin was one of the top 2-3 players in the NBA. That's what fininshing 2nd in MVP voting twice means. He led teams to success, but lost close battles to great teams in the playoffs. And he didn't play in the ancient past. He played at a great period in the NBA.

Another way to look at this. As good as Duncan was in his prime, if he had a player as dominant offensively as Gervin next to him, he would have won even more rings.

Think of the top 3 offensive players in the NBA, like Curry, James and Durant, and that is Gervin. So what he wasn't a great defender. Neither were a lot of great players.

[barbacoataco]

I would say that Manu is one of the hardest players to rank or compare against other greats. He never played as many minutes as most, and often had nagging injuries or seemed less than full strength. In 2005 he really played like a real stud and that was his peak imo. And he's always been a guy who can do something great or terrible at any moment. Who else plays with such abandon, on the edge of greatness and failure at all times?
Still, advanced stats show that he's one of the most efficient players of all time. Very unique player and one of the greats. Go Spurs

[spurraider21]

But of four championships. Theres only one ball with three hall of fame players

i think you need an extraordinarily strong case for a 2nd/3rd option to rank higher than a guy who was a successful #1 option. i'm a huge manu fan (have had the same avatar since i joined this site), but i dont think its the case here

[ElNono]

i think you need an extraordinarily strong case for a 2nd/3rd option to rank higher than a guy who was a successful #1 option. i'm a huge manu fan (have had the same avatar since i joined this site), but i dont think its the case here

When he was the clear cut #1 option, he won. Sure, it wasn't the NBA, so the comparison doesn't necessarily match, but also makes you wonder what he would have looked like as a #1 in the NBA (shorter career for sure, IMO).

But then this is where DPG's comment comes in. He embraced a lesser role to win and he won a lot. That's a credit to him, not a slight, tbh...

[skulls138]

i think you need an extraordinarily strong case for a 2nd/3rd option to rank higher than a guy who was a successful #1 option. i'm a huge manu fan (have had the same avatar since i joined this site), but i dont think its the case here

Part of the equation though. Gervin gets points for being the primary talent on his team by far (though Artis Gilmour was an All Star) AND taking them to the playoffs true but we're talking FOUR championships and currently being a contributing part one of two of the best team in the NBA. Manu has proven through winning the gold medal that its no fluke and just a product of the system.

[barbacoataco]

Also the Spurs in 1979 lost a heartbreaker 7 game series with a lot if controversial officiating against the Bullets in the Conference Finals. They were literally within a shot if being in the Finals with a good chance of winning.
So Gervin came very close to leading a team to a championship as the #1 option.

[ElNono]

Another way to look at this. As good as Duncan was in his prime, if he had a player as dominant offensively as Gervin next to him, he would have won even more rings.

Top heavy doesn't always translate though. Plenty of examples (KD/Westbrook, James/Wade/Bosh losing 2 Finals, Harden/Howard, even going back Tim/DRob only got one). You need those other guys that do the other little things and translate to wins.

From a pure offensive talent standpoint, there's no doubt Gervin was superior. From a winning, elevating the franchise to excellence standpoint, that's more debatable.

[Mikeanaro]

Lol re s claiming Gervin was the best thing ever, any clown can pad stats and accomplish nothing, but I forgive you all, tbh.

[spurraider21]

When he was the clear cut #1 option, he won. Sure, it wasn't the NBA, so the comparison doesn't necessarily match, but also makes you wonder what he would have looked like as a #1 in the NBA (shorter career for sure, IMO).

But then this is where DPG's comment comes in. He embraced a lesser role to win and he won a lot. That's a credit to him, not a slight, tbh...

lol necessarily

/chump

[spurraider21]

i love that manu accepted a role to win, but does that make him better than every #1 option legend who never rang? is he better than malone too?

[steeledl]

... Did someone really compare Manu to durant? This is why we can't have reasonable conversations here.... Too much emotion and bias. The rest of he unbiased NBA world would all over you.