Polished Spur: San Antonio's 1999 pick Ginobili is the talk of Indianapolis

Ginobili is a waif. Shooting guard in the NBA...starter, Yeah, especially with Duncan. Star...hmmmm, really???

Although his team won, Pierce owned him. Ginobili's talk-of-the-town drives were stopped more often than completed. I saw him get to the rim once. I saw Pierce block him twice, and he eventually started trying to flip in scoop shots without trying to get to the rim. There is a striking difference in Pierce's driving and shooting versus Ginobili, and Gino was going against man-on-man versus collapsing zones that Pierce was up against.

star? I don't think so. Hell, is he better than Derek Anderson?

oh, and btw: <b>Pierce is younger than Ginobili</b>

 

<blockQUOTE>Originally posted by TheFreak
Griffin will not be better than Duncan. Ming has the potential to be. Duncan is the first or second-best player in the NBA. Those players don't come around everyday, and they're usually not #7 picks in drafts. </blockQUOTE> Griffin has a great chance of being a better defender than Duncan, and that in itself is quite a player. Griffin has a great chance to develop an offensive game equivalent to Rasheed's. So is Rasheed's offense plus better defense a better player? No, because I believe Duncan is better than Garnett, but we are still within talking distance. It is at least as close as comparing Francis to Isiah.

Had Duncan been drafted as a freshman, he would not have gone #7, and Griffin fell for non-basketball reason anyhow, so I don't see your point about draft position.

 

I notice the Spurs board now requires a 'request' to view it. I guess the paranoia continues.

Too bad. I wanted to see the topic where Ming was supposedly dunked on.

 

Well Griffin is already behind Duncan defensively, since he didn't make All-NBA in his rookie year. Okay, so he came out after his freshman year -- that means he better at least make the All-Defensive team in his second year to be Duncan's equal, since one NBA season equals about 3 college ones.

We're talking about probability here. Are the chances good that Griffin will ever be the first or second-best player in the NBA? No, I would not say there is a GOOD chance of that happening. A remote chance, maybe. Is it likely? Absolutely not.

Francis is not in the same league as Isiah...I don't know that I'd compare them.

I don't know how Duncan did his freshman year, so I can't comment on his hypothetical draft slot. But if all or most of the top 7 were underclassmen or high school guys at that time, as they were in Griffin's year, I wouldn't be suprised to see Duncan near the top. Would anyone have picked Chandler and Curry over a freshman Duncan? Again, I don't know how good Duncan was at that time, but I doubt it.

 

limited offensive game my ass.

Just keep telling yourself that SpursHomer.

no freaking clue at all.

 

<blockQUOTE>Originally posted by TheFreak
Well Griffin is already behind Duncan defensively,</blockQUOTE> Griffin is dramatically behind Duncan in everything. Duncan is incomparable until Griffin can play defense against PFs. I agree; there is no use discussing Griffin's shotblocking if he can't stop strong players from backing him down. Duncan destroys Griffin. Kenny is a better defender on Duncan, right now.

That said, if Griffin gets as strong as Hakeem/Garnett, all bets are off when it comes to defense. Duncan is a very smart, positional defender, but Griffin has that special ability of mind-boggling timing, though.

 

I am inclined to tolerate subjective statements by non-Rockets fans here b/c I know sports fans are supposed to be irrational about their own team.

But I can't resist jumping in b/c the above statement is plain ignorant.

 

btw, TheFreak, Duncan's freshmen year was

9.8 ppg and 9.6 rebounds with 3.75block/gm

Those numbers pailed in comparison to Eddie's. Duncan was 6-10 at the time. But, by his sophmore year, Golden State did say they were going to take him #1...soo....at 19yr's old (Duncan skipped a school yr), some teams did say they'd take both Duncan and Griffin as #1.

 

Okay, let's agree that draft position doesn't mean as much as it used to, due to all the underclassmen. The point I was trying to make is that the Shaqs, Duncans, Hakeems, even the Webbers of the world are usually all number one pick sure things. You didn't have that with Griffin. He only had one year of college, but high school kids were picked ahead of him, so that argument doesn't really work.

hp, those are pretty good numbers for a freshman! Didn't realize he was only 6'10". I tend to think that a true 6'10" freshman with size/strength to match that put up a near double-double with 3.75 blocks in the ACC at a time when college basketball was at least slightly more competitive than it is today would have a pretty darn good shot at going number 1 right now.

 

Who the hell cares if Ming and Griffin will be as good as Duncan?!?! They probably wont be. But last time I checked basketball was a team game. Duncan might be the best player, but Rockets will have a better team.

MrSpur can cry all about Duncan having a big time advantage over Griffin. Well Steve Francis will almost have that same advantage over Jesus.

 

<blockQUOTE>Originally posted by TheFreak
hp, those are pretty good numbers for a freshman! Didn't realize he was only 6'10". I tend to think that a true 6'10" freshman with size/strength to match that put up a near double-double with 3.75 blocks in the ACC at a time when college basketball was at least slightly more competitive than it is today would have a pretty darn good shot at going number 1 right now. </blockQUOTE>Griffin had vastly superior numbers. You cannot write that off as ACC versus Big East, or a weaker NCAA. Your remark about going behind 7'er high schoolers and underclassmen and foreigners just proves that the drafts now are much more competitive than before. Before, you were basically going against your class, and the Junior class, with the occassional Webber/Kidd/Magic/Isiah type sophmore who simply dominated. Now you are going against Pau Gasol and all college players. Nothing is for certain except Yao Ming and a 3rd-4th yr Duncan. In that environment with Duncan's stats 10/10/3.75, I don't think he goes #1 unless he was 7 foot tall. Glenn Robinson, Jason Kidd and Grant Hill were 1,2,3 in that draft. That is 2 HOFers if Hill didn't get injured, plus and a man (Glenn) en fuego in the tourny. Duncan might not go top 5 in that draft.

He was 6'10 his sophmore year when GS said they'd take him number one, when most GMs disagreed, Joe Smith was a lock. Was that a GM saying the truth, or trying to get him out to trade down and take Kevin Garnett instead.

The other thing you must agree on is that 2001 draft might go down as one of the best ever, since the great Tony Parker was taken #28. j/k, but drafts are deeper now than in Duncan's day.

You can't really say the best in the game go #1 anymore. Garnett is arguably better than Duncan to some fans. You can't write off Chandler just yet, either. McGrady and Kobe are equal except for that 7ers are always better. Nitwitz is an equal offensive player, and Pau will probably exceed Nitwitz in overall game.

 

I wasn't writing anything off, just pointing out Griffin's numbers weren't "vastly superior". I'm guessing Duncan's FG% was well into the 50s, versus Griffin's low-40s. Duncan was also a true post player with more size (I'm assuming). The rebounding and blocks were the same. The only thing is Griffin averaged more points. In addition, Griffin and his team imploded at the end of the year -- what kind of team was Duncan on? That's something else to consider. You don't care that college ball may have been more competitive then? Or that Duncan may have been in a tougher conference? I think that's pretty relevant.

I think it's just the opposite. The draft now is filled with inexperienced, unproven players. Two high school players taken in the top 5 means the draft is weaker, not stronger. It's competitive like the WNBA is competitive. That doesn't mean the talent is there.

That is an example of how the drafts used to have more talent. Why would you compare a freshman Duncan with those players, two of them seniors? I thought we were comparing Duncan and Griffin as freshmen. I was trying to see where Duncan would go in last year's draft had he been a freshman like Griffin, not a much deeper previous draft (how is that relevant?).

I guess I agree and that's why I amended my #7 statement. I still think the sure things go #1 though, there just aren't very many anymore because you're always dealing with a bunch of inexperience.

 

Or if you're a fan that has common sense. If you think that Ming has a "limited" offensive game, you really need to watch some games. He's going to get even stronger in the upper body... and against the US in these World Championships he's shown a superb baseline turnaround, a great hook inside, the ability to take it off the dribble, the ability to shoot threes, and to bang inside with defenders like Ben Wallace. What can't he do? He's pretty damn athletic too, whether or not you choose to acknowledge it.

I agree with you concerning Griffin, but to dismiss Ming as lacking athleticism and having a "limited" offensive game is ignorant.

 

hold on. The ACC was not vastly better than the Big East in that time period, in comparison to Eddie doubling Duncan's pt production. Eddie put up Joe Smith type numbers and Smith was a lock to go ahead of Duncan's sophmore year numbers.

I was comparing Duncan (a freshman) to that class, because I thought we were talking about whether Duncan would go #7 in that year. Griffin was definitely top 5 and dropped to 7 for non-bball related issues, and because of Pau Gasol.

If we are talking about Duncan's freshman numbers to Griffin's draft class, then I say a raw 6'9 to 6'10 talent, it is not for certain whether a freshman Duncan would go ahead of a freshman Griffin or not. Duncan was fairly new to the game, but learning rapidly. Chandler still would have been taken ahead of him, imo, and so would Pau. Jordan was just an idiot gambler (he does gamble) for taking Kwama.

How can you say that the drafts in the '90s are more competitive than now. That doesn't make sense. The world is better now, and inexperience, aside, several <19 yr old players are the real deal. Seniors don't stay in anymore, that doesn't not make the drafts weaker. When literally dozens of people go early or are international players, the Seniors have more competition.

imo, all you are saying is that previous drafts had more "Sure Things" than now. But there were are still plenty of busts. You make it sound like talent is getting weaker.

Basketball is getting better all the time.

 

Leave it to a Spurs homer to call Rockets fans on a Rockets board homers.

 

The difference between Garnett and Duncan are the teams they play for. But I forgot that is the great and powerful Duncan, NOBODY is better then Duncan! He is All-World, All-Galaxy, All-Universe!

Considering you haven't seen Ming play in one NBA season I would call you a Spurs homer. It's called debating what Ming can do. You know the same way Spurs fans did with Duncan. I'm guessing you guys thought Duncan's would be a star, and other didn't think he could lace up Hakeem's, or Mournings, or Shaq's boots. Hey, didn't stop you from calling us Rockets homers! Duncan isn't exactly Rasheed Wallace, so saying he is far more athletic then Ming is ridiculous. The Rockets have two potential franchise big men, Griffin and Duncan. If a star big man is more valuable then a star little man then we're in great shape because we have two big men who look like they will be star big men, and a star little man. But I guess you would blow that off to us being Rockets "homers". Oh well.

<b>But of course Rockets homerism knows no bounds in this 'NBA forum'. Potential to be better than Duncan. Riiiight.

</b>

I love how fans of other teams, like MrSpur, whine and cry because Rockets fans think positively about their team ON A ROCKETS BOARD! *Gasp*, we're not sucking up to Duncan and the Spurs, so this MUST not be an NBA Forum. If you have trouble with this NBA Forum I'm pretty sure the Spurs have message boards. Then again you're talking about the same "reasonable" Spurs fans who were last year debating whether Tony Parker was better then Steve Francis. But of course they're not homers. No sir, not Spurs fans!