I don’t agree, but also don’t disagree. The biggest difference between both of their scoring was the efficiency. Manu scored when he needed to, he was clutch. But he also created highlights for others and knew the strategy in order to win the game. The Pacers version of Paul George was an insane elite scorer, but the Pacers consistently never went anywhere post-season.
paxusromanus811
I didn’t make it past the first few seconds so somebody correct me if I’m wrong. But my thoughts are young kids who din’t watch ginobili just look at his career stats and think he was ” a really really good role player” instead of arguably one of the top 20 shooting guards of all time. Said kids who have never watched him then proceed to argue with a person who obviously has and to get butt hurt over the idea that he was a better player than Paul George.
Bonesawisready5
This is dumb. Sure PG has more on his resume as #1 option but Manu had everything he had and more and most of all, was hurt far less
SongYoungbae
Dude went to the Stephen A Smith school of journalism. Just be loud enough and fucking obnoxious enough and you’ll at least convince yourself of something I guess.
KDslimreaper
Most casuals don’t recognise the greatness of Manu
RenHisagi
People can disagree with me but… Manuuuu Manu Manu Manu manuuuuuu manuuuuuu
yeah_car
GINOBILIIIIII!!
ChucoTeacher
The Spurs paradox…….
No Spurs player was that good because he had better teammates than whoever he’s being compared with.
At the same time, somehow, each teammate is not that good because they had that aforementioned player as a teammate.
Somehow the following statements becomes true….
“Tim Duncan wasn’t that good, he always had Manu and Tony”
“ Oh come on, Manu was an average guard who got lucky to play with Tim Duncan”.
moonshadow50
I think people need to stop taking offence to everything anyone says about the Spurs – because I am 99% sure that most of those who were in keys positions with the team do not give a rats ass. (My guess is that Tony is the one guy who’s personality doesn’t quite fit this, but still absolutely sacrified his game for the team)
Part of any successful team is sacrificing yourself for the whole, and that is even moreso when you are playing under Pop and alongside guys like David and Timmy (and most other guys that have come through SA). For a lot of those guys, that is very much a conscious decision of wanting to stay with this team and strive for championships, rather than chase individual numbers or fame elsewhere.
The reality is that because of that – we just can’t fairly compare Manu to guys like PG, Manu never got to be “the guy” for sustained periods of time, just as PG never got to play on the same calibre of team or under as good as Pop.
I think Manu would chose his career 100 times out of 100. So who cares what anyone else thinks.
10 Comments
Dumbest shit I’ve seen today. Maybe this week.
I don’t agree, but also don’t disagree. The biggest difference between both of their scoring was the efficiency. Manu scored when he needed to, he was clutch. But he also created highlights for others and knew the strategy in order to win the game. The Pacers version of Paul George was an insane elite scorer, but the Pacers consistently never went anywhere post-season.
I didn’t make it past the first few seconds so somebody correct me if I’m wrong. But my thoughts are young kids who din’t watch ginobili just look at his career stats and think he was ” a really really good role player” instead of arguably one of the top 20 shooting guards of all time. Said kids who have never watched him then proceed to argue with a person who obviously has and to get butt hurt over the idea that he was a better player than Paul George.
This is dumb. Sure PG has more on his resume as #1 option but Manu had everything he had and more and most of all, was hurt far less
Dude went to the Stephen A Smith school of journalism. Just be loud enough and fucking obnoxious enough and you’ll at least convince yourself of something I guess.
Most casuals don’t recognise the greatness of Manu
People can disagree with me but… Manuuuu Manu Manu Manu manuuuuuu manuuuuuu
GINOBILIIIIII!!
The Spurs paradox…….
No Spurs player was that good because he had better teammates than whoever he’s being compared with.
At the same time, somehow, each teammate is not that good because they had that aforementioned player as a teammate.
Somehow the following statements becomes true….
“Tim Duncan wasn’t that good, he always had Manu and Tony”
“ Oh come on, Manu was an average guard who got lucky to play with Tim Duncan”.
I think people need to stop taking offence to everything anyone says about the Spurs – because I am 99% sure that most of those who were in keys positions with the team do not give a rats ass. (My guess is that Tony is the one guy who’s personality doesn’t quite fit this, but still absolutely sacrified his game for the team)
Part of any successful team is sacrificing yourself for the whole, and that is even moreso when you are playing under Pop and alongside guys like David and Timmy (and most other guys that have come through SA). For a lot of those guys, that is very much a conscious decision of wanting to stay with this team and strive for championships, rather than chase individual numbers or fame elsewhere.
The reality is that because of that – we just can’t fairly compare Manu to guys like PG, Manu never got to be “the guy” for sustained periods of time, just as PG never got to play on the same calibre of team or under as good as Pop.
I think Manu would chose his career 100 times out of 100. So who cares what anyone else thinks.