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

[313]

Think youre SERIOUSLY downplaying Manus role in getting ring number 5. He was the the second MVP behind Kawhi in that series and dont forget his last second shot against OKC. It was that shot that made Spurs seem invincible....which they then became. Love Parker, who I am now calling mini-Hakeem, but pick Manu over him.

Duncan should get just as much credit on that 3 Manu hit against OKC tbh most obvious moving screen I can remember

[ElNono]

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?

lol doesn't deliver on Sundays

/chump

[cjw]

Duncan should get just as much credit on that 3 Manu hit against OKC tbh most obvious moving screen I can remember

And a beautiful one at that

[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.

Do you think the trend towards advanced metrics will do a service or disservice to greats like Gervin, tbh?

[DPG21920]

Do you think the trend towards advanced metrics will do a service or disservice to greats like Gervin, tbh?

Gut says it will be a very good thing. Advanced metrics are good to offensive players, especially efficient ones. The defensive advanced metrics aren't there yet so he won't get dinged.

[313]

And a beautiful one at that

[J_Paco]

Someone putting Manu ahead of DRob makes this entire thread worth reading. It's not even worth quoting because it's so terrible but damn if Spurstalk isn't entertaining at times.

Filled with a bunch of dumbasses, really. Ginobili and Parker are great, but Duncan, Robinson and Gervin are the three best players in franchise history. Gervin was an absolute scoring machine and had the burden of carrying the franchise alone for many seasons, while Parker and Ginobili always had one another, and to a much larger degree Duncan, to lean on.

[Aztecfan03]

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...

a credit to him as a person but not a credit (or discredit) to how good of a basketball player he was.

[Aztecfan03]

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.

So Robert Horry is better than all 3 of them, right? SEVEN RINGS!

[Mikeanaro]

So Robert Horry is better than all 3 of them, right? SEVEN RINGS!

Robert Horry was an elite role player, had the balls at key moments and made big shots, why are you bringing him into the conversation? Gervin was a coke bum, period.

[will_spurs]

Again, if we're ranking these players based on raw output and talent, then obviously Gervin is better than Tony and Manu. There's no discussion there.

But my point (and I suspect others') is that since we're ranking them according to their importance for the Spurs franchise, then things get muddled a bit. Gervin made the Spurs relevant after the merger, and probably contribued to the franchise staying in SA. But Tony and Manu are part of the winningest trio in the NBA, at a level of sustained excellence never seen in any American pro sport, also main contributors to 4 championships, and are not in any way, shape or form role players.

That's why I'd give them the nod as 3a/3b in terms of All-Time Spurs, even though they are not individually as good as Ice.

[ElNono]

a credit to him as a person but not a credit (or discredit) to how good of a basketball player he was.

Absolutely. If we're talking raw physical talent, skill and individual accolades alone, there's a plethora of players much better, including Gervin.

Again, if we're ranking these players based on raw output and talent, then obviously Gervin is better than Tony and Manu. There's no discussion there.

But my point (and I suspect others') is that since we're ranking them according to their importance for the Spurs franchise, then things get muddled a bit. Gervin made the Spurs relevant after the merger, and probably contribued to the franchise staying in SA. But Tony and Manu are part of the winningest trio in the NBA, at a level of sustained excellence never seen in any American pro sport, also main contributors to 4 championships, and are not in any way, shape or form role players.

That's why I'd give them the nod as 3a/3b in terms of All-Time Spurs, even though they are not individually as good as Ice.

bingo

And personally I'm not badmouthing Ice... no matter where you put him, he's definitely franchise top 5.

[DPG21920]

The logic has already been explained - old heads just get grumpy and confused (since those arguing for TP Manu are teenagers)

[skulls138]

So Robert Horry is better than all 3 of them, right? SEVEN RINGS!

If you want to say that then I could compare Gervin to Iverson and we know that despite Iversons talent his style of play is anti-team and doesnt produce championships. On the contrary his style of play takes away from the potential contributions of his teammates.

[barbacoataco]

If you want to say that then I could compare Gervin to Iverson and we know that despite Iversons talent his style of play is anti-team and doesnt produce championships. On the contrary his style of play takes away from the potential contributions of his teammates.

Comparing G to Iverson is absurd. Gervin was a high % shooter who also got to the line a lot. Also, for the umpteenth time, his team were good teams that won a lot of games, often winning their division, making deep runs in the playoffs etc. Just because they came up a hair short doesn't make him a "loser" or his career worthless.

Look at the list of all-time too 10 Point guards and you'll see several guys who never won championships. While I do think it's a big factor in comparing greats and making lists, it's a little too much sometimes. Everyone is all up Steve Nash's nutsack when talking all time PG's, and he never won a championship.

If you're a younger person that wasn't around at the time, spend a few minutes on basketball-reference and educate yourself before forming opinions.

[Kawhitstorm]

If you want to say that then I could compare Gervin to Iverson and we know that despite Iversons talent his style of play is anti-team and doesnt produce championships. On the contrary his style of play takes away from the potential contributions of his teammates.

Again the closest thing to Gervin is Durant; even Carmelo isn't as good as Ice.

[will_spurs]

Comparing G to Iverson is absurd. Gervin was a high % shooter who also got to the line a lot. Also, for the umpteenth time, his team were good teams that won a lot of games, often winning their division, making deep runs in the playoffs etc. Just because they came up a hair short doesn't make him a "loser" or his career worthless.

Maybe you don't remember who Iverson was... he brought his team to the Finals, was MVP once, his scoring average is higher than Gervin's (but he was clearly a much worse shooter), and what he loses in rebounds he gains in assists. He was no slouch (and here I am defending a player I dislike).

[Kawhitstorm]

Maybe you don't remember who Iverson was... he brought his team to the Finals, was MVP once, his scoring average is higher than Gervin's (but he was clearly a much worse shooter), and what he loses in rebounds he gains in assists. He was no slouch (and here I am defending a player I dislike).

Iverson is a 1st ballot HOFer but his game was NOTHING like Gervin's besides the fact they both led the league in scoring multiple times.

[Gagnrath]

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.

DRob and Duncan got two les together. Just so you know.

[ElNono]

DRob and Duncan got two les together. Just so you know.

Oops, you're correct. But you know what i was going with that. Ac ulation of superlative talent doesn't always translate into rings.

[Mikeanaro]

Its okay, when the judgment day comes Manu will forgive every doubter, but only after swatting their foreheads like he did to that bat of course.

[skulls138]

Comparing G to Iverson is absurd. Gervin was a high % shooter who also got to the line a lot. Also, for the umpteenth time, his team were good teams that won a lot of games, often winning their division, making deep runs in the playoffs etc. Just because they came up a hair short doesn't make him a "loser" or his career worthless.

Look at the list of all-time too 10 Point guards and you'll see several guys who never won championships. While I do think it's a big factor in comparing greats and making lists, it's a little too much sometimes. Everyone is all up Steve Nash's nutsack when talking all time PG's, and he never won a championship.

If you're a younger person that wasn't around at the time, spend a few minutes on basketball-reference and educate yourself before forming opinions.

Im not necessarily picking Manu over Gervin, Im just saying people want to punish Manu for winning championships. That a champion becomes a champion by becoming selfless, making his stats less, hes not as good. We could come up with a million examples to contradict each others other examples. Look at Kobe and Shaq, who was number two there? Is either one of those two just a number two? As we can see by Manus Argentinian team beating a US team with Duncan, Manu isnt just a number 2.

[Mikeanaro]

Im not necessarily picking Manu over Gervin, Im just saying people want to punish Manu for winning championships. That a champion becomes a champion by becoming selfless, making his stats less, hes not as good. We could come up with a million examples to contradict each others other examples. Look at Kobe and Shaq, who was number two there? Is either one of those two just a number two? As we can see by Manus Argentinian team beating a US team with Duncan, Manu isnt just a number 2.

Yes but you must have in mind most of these fans love fantasy that transcends the game like if you have a regular season MVP you are a hall of famer and one of the best ever, if you played some in media product like the ASG you are top tier and because Manu went just 2 times he is miles away from their poster heroes, Manu is there to win no matter what he is not about inflating stats thats why some want that fantasy illusion about certain player scoring like and playing little D and if that player were with our current Spurs he could win like 32 championships, they cant even understand in their tiny minds that winning Spurs dont have one main scorer thats why Aldridge dipped his stats here when he is a great scorer in any other team... fantasy minds, Spurs dont have one main gun thats the beauty but yet the ¨puristic¨ Spur Fan thinks Gervin would score 40 points a night playing with Duncan and company while winning everything avaiable.

[will_spurs]

Iverson is a 1st ballot HOFer but his game was NOTHING like Gervin's besides the fact they both led the league in scoring multiple times.

That's exactly what we're getting at: Iverson was a superior talent without a ring, much like Gervin. They have much in common in terms of achievements.

[skulls138]

Yes but you must have in mind most of these fans love fantasy that transcends the game like if you have a regular season MVP you are a hall of famer and one of the best ever, if you played some in media product like the ASG you are top tier and because Manu went just 2 times he is miles away from their poster heroes, Manu is there to win no matter what he is not about inflating stats thats why some want that fantasy illusion about certain player scoring like and playing little D and if that player were with our current Spurs he could win like 32 championships, they cant even understand in their tiny minds that winning Spurs dont have one main scorer thats why Aldridge dipped his stats here when he is a great scorer in any other team... fantasy minds, Spurs dont have one main gun thats the beauty but yet the ¨puristic¨ Spur Fan thinks Gervin would score 40 points a night playing with Duncan and company while winning everything avaiable.

Not comparing Spurs fans to what Im about to say but it reminds me of what Durant had to say about Kawhi being a "system" player. If I was on his team and read that my heart would sink because I would see that much of my efforts are in vein because of that kind of thinking.