Is Donovan Mitchell still a superstar? Cuz AR does what he does but passes better

[QUOTE=tpols;15040534]And thats why I'm asking why. His defense wasnt that great. He actually made some really boneheaded plays on defense in the playoffs that cost spurs a title... straight up. His game was scoring and genius passing at times. Reaves can dime too and has a higher scoring ceiling. Its just wierd that you have a huge rift between them. Manu on a bad team isn't a known player.[/QUOTE]

Pop wouldnt have played reaves other than maybe a steve kerr role. Playing d mattered. Bowen sucked but he played

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15040536]Manu wasnt just any 6th man. :facepalm[/QUOTE]

But he still only avg. 25mins a game. It would of been more if Pop thought he deserved it.

He literally beat a superteam of NBA players as the #1 guy in 2004 on the world's biggest stage.

I think he proved at the very least he could be the #1 guy on a title contender. He already proved he could float between a 1.b to #3 option on a dynasty. That's quite a difference than being an underperforming #3 option on two first round exit teams and a #5 option on a WCF team.

If he proved he could be the #1 option on a contender just by watching the 2004, obviously a team would've thrown BIG $ at him to run their offense.

How can a player whose the 6th man the majority of his career have been a 3rd option on a dynasty or any team for that matter?

[QUOTE=Hey Yo;15040539]But he still only avg. 25mins a game. It would of been more if Pop thought he deserved it.[/QUOTE]

Averaged between 28 and 34 in the playoffs in their first 3 championship runs. Spurs invented load management. Manu was there when they needed him most. Reeves over mitchell if you choose but he had done nothing to even be mentioned in the same breath as manu

[QUOTE=Carbine;15040537]He literally beat a superteam of NBA players as the #1 guy in 2004 on the world's biggest stage.

I think he proved at the very least he could be the #1 guy on a title contender. He already proved he could float between a 1.b to #3 option on a dynasty. That's quite a difference than being an underperforming #3 option on two first round exit teams and a #5 option on a WCF team.[/QUOTE]



I rep Manu for 2004 Olympics all the time but its beyond naive to think that because he won in a 1 and done tournament he could carry an NBA team as 1st option through 82 game season and 20+ playoffs games. Theres 0 chance his body would even hold up to that load. So no.... he absolutely did not prove that.

In a short season? With 1 and done playoff series? He could pull an Eli Manning and beat Brady. But then again if AR is dropping 50 point triple doubles in the short term he could too.

You didnt have to post it twice to get it to this page. I quoted the original goofy.

[QUOTE=Hey Yo;15040541]If he proved he could be the #1 option on a contender just by watching the 2004, obviously a team would've thrown BIG $ at him to run their offense.

How can a player whose the 6th man the majority of his career have been a 3rd option on a dynasty or any team for that matter?[/QUOTE]

Reading this question of yours makes me feel bad

[QUOTE=FultzNationRISE;15040504]The issue for him when hes not ball dominant is the same as with Luka, and Mitchell, and a bunch of other ball dominant guys. [B]Hes not an impact off-ball player. He's not a rim running threat, hes a decent spot up shooter but I wouldnt say knockdown. And hes not a defensive plus.[/B] So he really has to have the ball to be valuable. But in that specific role... yeah, hes pretty damn good.[/QUOTE]

I've seen you get on Tatum a lot, even using Reaves as a comparison in this thread. He is all three of these things here. Even if his shot is not falling he's a huge positive because of all the little things he does.

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15040518]Hopefully la gives him max. [B]Two guys other teams want to put on an island on max deals[/B]. Good luck with that formula! :cheers:[/QUOTE]


Trade for Toody and theyll have three of those guys.

[QUOTE=FultzNationRISE;15040546]Trade for Toody and theyll have three of those guys.[/QUOTE]

Besides for his age gobert would certainly make sense. Lets hope la doesnt get the gift of rudy. La can have ayton. :cheers:

[QUOTE=tpols;15040543]I rep Manu for 2004 Olympics all the time but its beyond naive to think that because he won in a 1 and done tournament he could carry an NBA team as 1st option through 82 game season and 20+ playoffs games. Theres 0 chance his body would even hold up to that load. So no.... he absolutely did not prove that.

In a short season? With 1 and done playoff series? He could pull an Eli Manning and beat Brady. But then again if AR is dropping 50 point triple doubles in the short term he could too.

You didnt have to post it twice to get it to this page. I quoted the original goofy.[/QUOTE]

Manu only had one significant injury in his first 8 years. He was playing around 73 games per season on average until he was 34 years old and not withstanding the one season he got hurt for half the season.

He averaged right around 28-30 minutes per game during this time. Giannis is his MVP season averaged 30 minutes a game.......

I can absolutely say his body would hold up. It did back then to the tune of 73 games per season on 28-30 minutes a game..... in todays soft era, YES absolutely YES he could replicate those minutes and games played.

Class dismissed. Go grab your troll costume and get knockin'

[QUOTE=Carbine;15040544]Reading this question of yours makes me feel bad[/QUOTE]

Reading your answer is a huge tell that a 6th man can't be s 3rd option.... unless he gets inserted a few minutes into the game (in each half) and play the majority of the game. Can't be 3rd option if you qualify for the 6th man award

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15040545]I've seen you get on Tatum a lot, even using Reaves as a comparison in this thread. He is all three of these things here. Even if his shot is not falling he's a huge positive because of all the little things he does.[/QUOTE]


Defense of course, I agreed with that. I dont think Tatum is much of a difference maker as a rim runner. He's not Lebron, Aaron Gordon, Derrick Jones Jr, Giannis, Zion. And I definitely dont consider him a knockdown shooter. He's similar to Reaves there too. Capable, but streaky.

So I stand by the comparison offensively. I think Reaves is actually craftier/more slippery. Tatum is a bit stronger. Altogether I think it's a wash.

He never did those minutes or times as 1st offensive option though. Duncan and Parker did. What youre saying makes no sense. And I'm a huge manu fan. Wearing size 14 shoes with a size 8 feet you are. :lol

[I]*Honk honk*[/I]

[QUOTE=Hey Yo;15040551]Reading your answer is a huge tell that a 6th man can't be s 3rd option.... unless he gets inserted a few minutes into the game (in each half) and play the majority of the game. Can't be 3rd option if you qualify for the 6th man award[/QUOTE]

Are you 12 years old? Honest question.

I watched all those Spurs games. Every single one of them. Manu could be argued as the #1 offensive producer for the 2005 playoffs (not to be confused with the best player) and was every single year from 2004 until he was 34 years old AT WORST the #3 option. Most times aruably #2. I believe he was voted top 10 MVP three times in his late 20s.....

If he wasn't the #3 guy, who was?

Bruce Bowen? Brent Barry?

Come on. You have to be smarter than this, no?