Reply With Quote
Robert Horry's 6 rings say hi.
Kobe's 5 championships and 2 gold medals say hi.
Horry > Duncan
Kobe >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duncan
What makes you think I haven't watch the Spurs much? Because I'm not knobslobbing him the way you, and other blatant Spurs homers do, doesn't mean anything.
Considering he isn't the teams best scorer, isn't the teams best rebounder, isn't the teams best passer, isn't the teams court leader, has a lower usage % than the Big 3, and arguably isn't even the teams best defender still, yet is at least adequate (if not solid) in all of those areas, I don't see how he is anything more than a glue guy.
Robert Horry's 6 rings say hi.
Kobe's 5 championships and 2 gold medals say hi.
Horry > Duncan
Kobe >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duncan
I think you two guys are severely underestimating Dirk's career....dude is on the short list of greatest players of this generation.
Because I know you like to talk without actually watching or knowing much of what you're arguing (lol Tony Allen/Shane Battier type player). If you would have watched the Spurs enough times you would know Leonard is either 1a or 1b alongside Duncan in terms of relevance to this team. There's just no other way around it.
Nope, I know how great Dirk is. I think you're the one underestimating Manu's accomplishments, specially for a non US born player.
Horry has always been a role player. The only time Manu was a role player on his many championships was on his first NBA ring. And lol comparing winning Gold with the USNT against winning it anywhere else.
Bonner 2rings dirk 1 ring. Lolololollolol
I never said he wasn't relevant to the team. All I said is that he was a glue guy. Scottie Pippen was a glue guy too, but he was incredibly important to the Bulls. Dennis Rodman was a glue guy, yet was incredibly important to the Pistons. You could even argue Kobe for the first 3-peat Lakers was a glue guy.Because I know you like to talk without actually watching or knowing much of what you're arguing (lol Tony Allen/Shane Battier type player
"Glue guy" refers to a skill set (being incredibly versatile). There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a glue guy. I don't know why you think it's some sort of insult
Yep, because it's Dirk's fault that his international teams completely sucked , whereas Manu's international teams was littered with NBA talent.
Oh, so basically other factors, such as team surroundings, role, etc... make a big difference on a team's success? Glad you finally see the point, unfortunately you are too much of an unintelligent smelly argy [email protected] to realize what stupidity you spew when saying Manu > Dirk. Great job
Spurs 5 allas 1. Lolooloolo
I guess Dirk was born in New Berlin, Texas..........
That's exactly why I said it, tbh. Reading comprehension son.
I guess Dirk was born in New Berlin, Texas..........
Last edited by DAF86; 02-15-2015 at 06:57 PM.
"Glue guy" is a term usually reserved for guys that have a very important role on their team but that are nothing more than role players, you will never hear anyone call Lebron a "glue guy" despite being the most versatile player in the World. Kawhi isn't a "glue guy" for the Spurs, he's arguably the best player on the team.I never said he wasn't relevant to the team. All I said is that he was a glue guy. Scottie Pippen was a glue guy too, but he was incredibly important to the Bulls. Dennis Rodman was a glue guy, yet was incredibly important to the Pistons. You could even argue Kobe for the first 3-peat Lakers was a glue guy.
"Glue guy" refers to a skill set (being incredibly versatile). There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a glue guy. I don't know why you think it's some sort of insult
And how does any of that disproves my point? We're talking careers here, not who's the better payer or hypotheticals. Would have Manu lead Argentina to Gold medal with lesser teammates? Probably not but he did have those teammates and he did win Gold and that Gold alongside his many other accomplishments make Manu's overall basketball career > Dirk's, imho.Yep, because it's Dirk's fault that his international teams completely sucked , whereas Manu's international teams was littered with NBA talent.
Oh, so basically other factors, such as team surroundings, role, etc... make a big difference on a team's success? Glad you finally see the point, unfortunately you are too much of an unintelligent smelly argy [email protected] to realize what stupidity you spew when saying Manu > Dirk. Great job
4 NBA rings, Gold and Bronze Olympic medals, Silver WC medal (only 'cause Manu missed the final if not it would be Gold) all while being a star of his teams > NBA ring, NBA MVP.
That's my opinion anyway, you can have yours but I think I'm making a pretty fair point (arguable at the very least, tbh).
Listen dude....I know it's blasphemous for somebody to tell you that your Argentine hero is not as good as some other player. But I think most NBA fans (excluding people with personal agendas) would say that Dirk's career has been more impressive than Manu's.
Announcers all the time for opposing teams ask, "Is Manu a Hall of Fame guy?" They don't even ask that question when it comes to Dirk. That's because he's a ing lock. And yes...the HOF takes everything into consideration....even all those things thatNon US people care about
You're seriously using things like Gold Medals and 4>1 rings here? Argentina's team>>>>>>>Germany's team. And the Spurs roster>>>>>>>>Mavs roster.
BTW.....I ing hate Dirk.
Again, what does anything of what you're saying has to do with what we're arguing? Read above son, this isn't a "who's better" argument, this is a "who's had a better career?" argument. Yes, Manu has had more help on his teams (that also plays against individual stats and recognition, btw) but that's irrelevant to the discussion. You said Dirk has had a better career than any Spur not named Duncan while some of us argue that Manu's overall basketball accomplishments are better than Dirk's. Those who ask whether Manu is a hall of Famer or not are ignorant folks, anyone that knows better knows that Manu is just as " ing lock", first ballot Hall of Famer as Dirk, tbh.Listen dude....I know it's blasphemous for somebody to tell you that your Argentine hero is not as good as some other player. But I think most NBA fans (excluding people with personal agendas) would say that Dirk's career has been more impressive than Manu's.
Announcers all the time for opposing teams ask, "Is Manu a Hall of Fame guy?" They don't even ask that question when it comes to Dirk. That's because he's a ing lock. And yes...the HOF takes everything into consideration....even all those things that
You're seriously using things like Gold Medals and 4>1 rings here? Argentina's team>>>>>>>Germany's team. And the Spurs roster>>>>>>>>Mavs roster.
BTW.....I ing hate Dirk.
BTW... I don't ing hate Dirk. I think he's one of the few NBA stars that doesn't act like a and is all around a cool dude, beside I like watching him make tough fadeaway jumpers.
Try watching other teams then when Spurs play them
They are good players out there
I watch a lot of teams (I have probably watched as much Warriors and Bulls games as Spurs games) just haven't the chance to see many Mavs games this season.
BTW, Parker's career is probably > Dirk's too, tbh.
4 NBA rings, finals MVP and the Euro (a tournament Dirk would love to win) is probably > NBA ring, reg. season and finals MVP.
It's okay "son".....we can agree to disagree. It's fine..........Again, what does anything of what you're saying has to do with what we're arguing? Read above son, this isn't a "who's better" argument, this is a "who's had a better career?" argument. Yes, Manu has had more help on his teams (that also plays against individual stats and recognition, btw) but that's irrelevant to the discussion. You said Dirk has had a better career than any Spur not named Duncan while some of us argue that Manu's overall basketball accomplishments are better than Dirk's. Those who ask whether Manu is a hall of Famer or not are ignorant folks, anyone that knows better knows that Manu is just as " ing lock", first ballot Hall of Famer as Dirk, tbh.
BTW... I don't ing hate Dirk. I think he's one of the few NBA stars that doesn't act like a and is all around a cool dude, beside I like watching him make tough fadeaway jumpers.
I'll take Dirk's career over Manu's career.....and I'll stick with my Tim Duncan is the only Spurs player that's had a better career than Dirk. Are other Spurs' players like Manu and The Admiral in the discussion? Yes they are. Some people will agree with me.....and some will agree with you. It doesn't mean that either of us are right or wrong.
However, posters who say stupid like Kawhi has already had a better career than Dirk need to be (as Venti Quattro put it) ethered out of the Earth.....
Don't get mad at the "son" schtick, son. It's a ST thing, this is what we do, tbh.
Don't get mad at the "son" schtick, son. It's a ST thing, this is what we do, tbh.I'm not mad bro....
Nice arguing with you son....we'll have to do it again sometime in the near future
I'm surprised you haven't bragged about the Jazz's great future.
1) "Arguably" is why it's laughable. He has never been unquestionably the best player on his team, and hasn't exactly displayed some immense ability to be just that. So considering the context of this entire discussion, to compare what he has meant to his team, to what Dirk has meant to his team, is ridiculous.
2) Being the "best player on the team" doesn't necessarily mean anything. MCW is probably the best player on the 76ers, but that doesn't make him a great player. Granted, that is an extensive hyperbole, but the point is, being the best player on your team, if your team isn't exactly brimming with success, doesn't mean anything. Are the Spurs good? Sure. Do they appear to be a serious championship contender as of right now? Not really, they have some serious flaws (although they could certainly be fixed in time).
So far, nothing has proven that Kawhi should be anything more than a glue guy. And comparing this year to last year, it appears that the team is better with him being a glue guy, as opposed to a leader, considering how much better they were last year, and now that Parker and Manu has taken a step back this year, and more opportunity has arisen for Kawhi to step into their role, but the team in general has had a notable decline in the quality of their play (yes, there have been injuries, but even when healthy, the team clearly does not look as good as they have been the past few years), obviously his ability to be a leader is lacking. So again, going back to the initial discussion at hand, Kawhi was not snubbed at all for the All-Star game. He simply was not deserving as other players have been.
Accolades and career are two different things.
Horry has more accolades than Ron Artest and Juwan Howard. But that certainly does not mean he had a better career as a basketball player. That just meant he was in the right place at the right time more frequently.
Same for Manu and Dirk. Manu may have a few more accolades, but he certainly has not had a better career as a basketball player than Dirk. Manu will always be remembered as a fantastic player with tons of heart. But Dirk will be remembered as a legend who changed strategy, and changed the way the game was played in general.
I don't give a about the All-star game. I'm glad Tim is in, but apart from that, I'm not that interested in the game. Kawhi's play in the playoffs is all that I'm interested in. He'll be hunting All-stars in the playoffs.
Funny that you say that 'cause some days ago I read an article about how Manu was one of the pioneers of the way the game is played on this modern era of NBA basketball by attempting a lot of shots at the basket and three pointers with very little mid-range jumpers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
