# Best 6th Man of All Time?



## Guth (Feb 23, 2005)

I know it was only one game, but the way that Manu played, and more importantly that the team played in Wednesday's game, raised an important question in my mind: Does Manu coming off the bench now become a viable option for the rest of the time that he is with the Spurs?


This is probably a little presumptuous seeing as how it only worked in one game and Manu is obviously the better player than Brent Barry, but in conjunction with what happened last year, I think this question can be raised. For those of you who don't remember (and I know all of you do, but just for clarity's sake), for a lot of the season, Manu played as the 6th man, more for Hedo Turkoglu's confidence than anything else, but he excelled in that role along with Hedo flourishing in his (except for the playoffs). Now, Brent Barry gets the start on Wed. and goes 4-4 from 3, with Manu providing the much needed explosiveness off the bench, and more importantly, our team played great.

We all know that Manu is an incredible player, with the skill set to start for any and every team in this league, but do you guys think that this is something that could be used in the future? I am not saying that Manu will never start again, because he will probably be in the starting lineup at the beginning of every season, but whenever the team gets into one of the ruts that it is so prone to doing, I can see Pop changing the lineup around to give some shooter the confidence to hit shots, with Manu off the bench. And as we have seen, the difference in PT when this happens is really only, as Brent Barry said, that "you get your name called when the lights are dark". Manu would still be playing in crunch time and would be playing starters minutes, just not those first 4-5. Other great players have done this in the past. The example that is always brought up is John Havlicek, who was a vital part of those great Celtic teams. Great players can, and have, come off the bench in the past.


I am not advocating the permanent benching of Manu Ginobili, but I would love to get your opinions on 1) whether this is an option, 2) whether you would feel cheated as a fan if a guy getting $66 million is coming off the bench, 3) whether Manu would have the right attitude to accept something like this (I say yes), and 4) whether or not I am delusional for even bringing this up.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> 1) whether this is an option


Well, it is an option, because obviously Pop isn't afraid of doing something like this, and Manu's personality allows for it to work out. We don't have a say whether or not it's an option, and the man who does have a say obviously is going to keep this as an option.





> 2) whether you would feel cheated as a fan if a guy getting $66 million is coming off the bench





If anybody is getting cheated it's Manu. It goes without saying, but Manu is a huge fan favorite so of course there will be some grumblings, but if the team is performing well AND Manu is playing well, it's all gravy for everyone. I'll just say this about my feelings for Manu: If Pop benched Manu or continues benching him as a way to punish him, it's a flat out ridiculous situation. That doesn't appear to be the case, since Manu was one of the bright spots in Game 1, and has been pretty damn good all season long. The bottom line for me is that if Manu starting off on the bench betters the team, I'm all for it, as long as it doesn't cause Manu to want to leave or anything like that. 





> 3) whether Manu would have the right attitude to accept something like this



No doubt that this answer is a yes, at least for the short term. They guy has amazing character and personality, and because of that Pop probably felt comfortable with the decision. As for the long term, who knows. Manu isn't a guy for the individual stats and rewards, but I think if we continue going with him off the bench and we really don't have sucess with it, he's going to eventually get bothered by it. 





> 4) whether or not I am delusional for even bringing this up



Nah. If Manu would have started all season long last year and this would have happened I would call you delusional, but Manu is a proven threat off the bench, and Pop has used him off the bench quite frequently. 







My initial reaction to his benching when I was in the arena was, well, to sum it up: "WTF?" I'm assuming we all know what those 3 initials stand for. I knew Manu wasn't injured after watching him throw down dunks in warmups and hop around during introductions, so I was left thinking why? I really didn't like the move at first because if you guys know me well enough, probably not, but I'm a conservative personality, and personally I thought that changing the starting lineup all of the sudden was risky. For me, it was like "Why take Manu out? What did he do wrong?" But obviously, Pop didn't take Manu out of the starting lineup for anything he did wrong.


----------



## Guth (Feb 23, 2005)

KokoTheMonkey said:


> The bottom line for me is that if Manu starting off on the bench betters the team, I'm all for it



I thought you had said something very deep here, and then I realized that I had just read it wrong. Nevertheless, it gives us a pretty good picture of this situation. I thought you had said that if Manu is "starting off the bench" then you are OK with it, and I thought that was the best way to describe how he is being used. He is a starter, playing starter's minutes, but he just happens to be coming off the bench. He is "starting off the bench".


Just thought I would share that revelation with all of you.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

Guth said:


> I thought you had said something very deep here, and then I realized that I had just read it wrong. Nevertheless, it gives us a pretty good picture of this situation. I thought you had said that if Manu is "starting off the bench" then you are OK with it, and I thought that was the best way to describe how he is being used. He is a starter, playing starter's minutes, but he just happens to be coming off the bench. He is "starting off the bench".
> 
> 
> Just thought I would share that revelation with all of you.





Pretty funny. You thought I had a brilliant comment but when you double checked what I said it was just a simple comment. I'm not going to lie, starting off on the bench was probably a poor way to say that, but I do understand what you took out of it. He's still going to get his 30 minutes, so it really doesn't matter whether he's starting or "starting off on the bench"



My bad. If you think there is something intelligent that I wrote, it has to be by mistake.


----------



## FreeMason Jr. (Jul 12, 2004)

hmmm...my first couple posts when I joined this site were in an arguement about whether Manu should start are still be our 6th man or not. I Guess I wasn't so wrong after all, huh texan?


----------



## TheRoc5 (Mar 1, 2005)

ya i agree enless i see other wise i say we have him off the bench b/c it brings energy and scoring off the bench and has give brent more confidence for his 3s, i agrre with it and if manu is the manu i think he is then i dont think he will mind to much


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

ezealen said:


> hmmm...my first couple posts when I joined this site were in an arguement about whether Manu should start are still be our 6th man or not. I Guess I wasn't so wrong after all, huh texan?


At the time of that thread, we had no other starting SG. We all assumed that Barry would back-up at both the PG and SG and would do more of the ball handling that he does now, and possibly conflict with Tony Parkers game. I never said Manu off the bench was a bad thing, just that he deserves to start and we need to maximize his potential by starting him. I'm fine with him coming off the bench every once in a while, but permanently moving him to the bench seems somewhat ridiculous to me. I want his energy on the floor when the game starts, not 4 or 5 minutes into the game. He is our 3rd or possibly 2nd best player, and he should not be coming off the bench. So to answer your question ez, I still disagree with you.


----------



## FreeMason Jr. (Jul 12, 2004)

texan said:


> At the time of that thread, we had no other starting SG. We all assumed that Barry would back-up at both the PG and SG and would do more of the ball handling that he does now, and possibly conflict with Tony Parkers game. I never said Manu off the bench was a bad thing, just that he deserves to start and we need to maximize his potential by starting him. I'm fine with him coming off the bench every once in a while, but permanently moving him to the bench seems somewhat ridiculous to me. I want his energy on the floor when the game starts, not 4 or 5 minutes into the game. He is our 3rd or possibly 2nd best player, and he should not be coming off the bench. So to answer your question ez, I still disagree with you.


I didn't say I wasn'y wrong. I admited being wrong a couple times. All I said was that I wasn't *so* wrong.


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

ezealen said:


> I didn't say I wasn'y wrong. I admited being wrong a couple times. All I said was that I wasn't *so* wrong.



You weren't wrong. Manu would be great off the bench, because he is a great player, but he is more valuable to us as a starter. We can still play Barry with Duncan, but moving Manu to the bench is not the ideal way to accomplish that. I think that with two penetrating threats of Parker and Manu, it opens up alot of lanes and gives us infinite more scoring opportunities than if only one is. 

The ideal solution IMO to getting BB those outside scoring opportunities is to start Barry over Bowen. Bowen is pretty much a negative on offense, and could be used off the bench as a defensive specialist. Manu is a good enough perimeter defender to guard elite wing players effectively while maintaining his offensive prowress, and Brent would benefit greatly from the penetration of Manu AND Parker, and the constant being open off of Duncan double teams.


----------



## Camaro_870 (Mar 12, 2005)

manu is definately our 2nd best player right now... and i love the way texan put it. As for the "fan getting cheated part", Manu is my favorite player right now and he's been my favorite player since the '03 season, i wouldnt feel cheated that he isnt starting but if this becomes a permanent thing i'd definately feel dissapointed cause manu deserves to be starting


----------



## TheRoc5 (Mar 1, 2005)

texan said:


> You weren't wrong. Manu would be great off the bench, because he is a great player, but he is more valuable to us as a starter. We can still play Barry with Duncan, but moving Manu to the bench is not the ideal way to accomplish that. I think that with two penetrating threats of Parker and Manu, it opens up alot of lanes and gives us infinite more scoring opportunities than if only one is.
> 
> The ideal solution IMO to getting BB those outside scoring opportunities is to start Barry over Bowen. Bowen is pretty much a negative on offense, and could be used off the bench as a defensive specialist. Manu is a good enough perimeter defender to guard elite wing players effectively while maintaining his offensive prowress, and Brent would benefit greatly from the penetration of Manu AND Parker, and the constant being open off of Duncan double teams.


the lanes will be open from people to having to guard brent barry on his 3s. some players are just ment to come off the bench and manu for us is one of those players. when ever were in a drought we have manu to come and give us lots of pts. i think its a better idea and im happy that manu doesnt mind. if you say that the fans get cheated well hes probaly going to get the same playing time just not a starter, we need bruce to start b/c dpoy can close down kobe or ray allen and thats a good thing its self but i see his min. getting less min. and giving it to manu so he can have around the same pts.


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

TheRoc5 said:


> the lanes will be open from people to having to guard brent barry on his 3s. some players are just ment to come off the bench and manu for us is one of those players. when ever were in a drought we have manu to come and give us lots of pts. i think its a better idea and im happy that manu doesnt mind. if you say that the fans get cheated well hes probaly going to get the same playing time just not a starter, we need bruce to start b/c dpoy can close down kobe or ray allen and thats a good thing its self but i see his min. getting less min. and giving it to manu so he can have around the same pts.



Manu is not meant to come off the bench. He is a legit All-Star *Starting* shooting guard, and not starting him is a waste. He benefits from playing with Duncan and Parker as much, if not more, than Brent Barry does. He benefits by getting the open 3's(which he can hit), and more open lanes to penetrate in. Also, defensively, he is allowed to gamble b/c he has Duncan and Mohammed/Nesterovic behind him.

Sure, he would provide a great energy boost off the bench, but so do Devin Brown and Robert Horry. We don't need Manu on the bench. I don't mind it every once in a while, but this should not be an everyday thing.

Like I have said, Bowen needs to be given less minutes. Sure, he is a great defender, but he can be a defensive specialist off the bench to come in if someone gets hot. Manu is a more than capable defender, and can guard the elite level wing players most of the time. I know this is far-fetched, because Pop is in love with Bowen's defense, but it would give us a lot more flexibility on offense, while we would still be very good defensively.

This is my view point on whether Manu should start or not, and how to get Barry the maximum amount of open looks, but if we are winning with Manu coming off the bench, and Manu is happy, then I really won't complain.


----------



## Guth (Feb 23, 2005)

Texan, I definitely agree that this should not be a permanent thing, and that Manu is a legit All-Star starting shooting guard, but I just think this could be a good idea from time to time.


As far as the Bruce Bowen thing goes, I have to thouroughly disagree. I know you said that he could come in if some other superstar gets hot, but if said superstar is already hot, most of the time there isn't anyone in the leauge that can stop him, even Bruce. The key to getting a superstar down is to get after him early and ride him for the whole game and that is what Bruce does so well. Why else do you think all of those opposing "stars" complain after playing him? It is because he gets on them and never lets up. I agree that Manu is a good on ball defender, but I think benching Bruce for more offense is doing something to the complexion of our team that I, personally, do not want to see done.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

The problem with Manu defending the top perimeter players is that he gets into foul trouble way too quickly. We need a guy like Bowen who wiil guard these guys, because if Bowen gets into foul trouble, we'll be better off coming with Devin and Brent Barry, instead of Manu getting into foul trouble and coming with Bruce Bowen.


----------



## TheRoc5 (Mar 1, 2005)

KokoTheMonkey said:


> The problem with Manu defending the top perimeter players is that he gets into foul trouble way too quickly. We need a guy like Bowen who wiil guard these guys, because if Bowen gets into foul trouble, we'll be better off coming with Devin and Brent Barry, instead of Manu getting into foul trouble and coming with Bruce Bowen.


ya i think manu would gamble to much


----------



## TMTTRIO (Mar 10, 2005)

I just hate that every year he gets benched but whatever it takes for the Spurs to win and as long as he's ok with it. This is why I love the guy. Instead of whining or complaining about it he just goes out and does anything to win. I hope it works. It'll be interesting how minutes work out. Coach Bud said the other night the problem would be to get him enough minutes coming from the bench.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

TMTTRIO said:


> I just hate that every year he gets benched but whatever it takes for the Spurs to win and as long as he's ok with it. This is why I love the guy. Instead of whining or complaining about it he just goes out and does anything to win. I hope it works. It'll be interesting how minutes work out. Coach Bud said the other night the problem would be to get him enough minutes coming from the bench.






I agree with everything you said. 




Pop only pulled this move off because of Manu's personality. He knew that Manu wouldn't throw a sissy fit and complain, rather he knew Manu would take it professionally and make the most out of it.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

It doesn't matter if you start the game, it's if you finish it.


----------



## TheRoc5 (Mar 1, 2005)

thats not what players usally think mentaly but it is true for the most part


----------



## FreeMason Jr. (Jul 12, 2004)

Theo! said:


> It doesn't matter if you start the game, it's if you finish it.


What does that even mean? If you survive the game? Yeah...I guess that's true...


----------



## TheRoc5 (Mar 1, 2005)

ezealen said:


> What does that even mean? If you survive the game? Yeah...I guess that's true...


thats true this yr for the spurs lol


----------



## FreeMason Jr. (Jul 12, 2004)

TheRoc5 said:


> thats true this yr for the spurs lol


Atleast for Manu lol. I guess that's what Theo! was implying.


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

Theo means that it doesn't matter who starts the game, but it matters who is in at the end of the game, to finish it.


----------



## FreeMason Jr. (Jul 12, 2004)

texan said:


> Theo means that it doesn't matter who starts the game, but it matters who is in at the end of the game, to finish it.


No it doesn't. What if it's a blowout? That means it's the better players who started and the scrubs who ended it. I liked my version of what he said better...even though it wasn't rite :biggrin:


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

The move to put Gino on the bench has worked really well. Udrih has been a beneficiary of playing more with Ginobili as has Horry, IMO. He is still playing great and playing a lot, so I'm content with the decision. I'd still like to see more out of Barry though.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

How many guys do you see dominate off the bench like Manu has? This guy has dominated. It's not the least bit absurd to say that.


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

KokoTheMonkey said:


> How many guys do you see dominate off the bench like Manu has? This guy has dominated. It's not the least bit absurd to say that.



He dominates everywhere :biggrin:, and its great to hear him get booed everytime he touches the ball. Its great to see sour Nuggets fans just b/c Manu is soo good.


----------



## FreeMason Jr. (Jul 12, 2004)

texan said:


> He dominates everywhere :biggrin:, and its great to hear him get booed everytime he touches the ball. Its great to see sour Nuggets fans just b/c Manu is soo good.


You're rite. Literally everytime he touched the ball they'd boo, but after Manu made that three at the end of the game everyone cheered. It was most likely not for Manu, but it was RITE after he made that three.


----------



## TheRoc5 (Mar 1, 2005)

ezealen said:


> You're rite. Literally everytime he touched the ball they'd boo, but after Manu made that three at the end of the game everyone cheered. It was most likely not for Manu, but it was RITE after he made that three.


i noticed that to, lol i think it was b/c it will be the last time they see them this season


----------



## FreeMason Jr. (Jul 12, 2004)

TheRoc5 said:


> i noticed that to, lol i think it was b/c it will be the last time they see them this season


:rofl:

But why was it rite after he made the three nad not after the game? It was almost like they were cheering for him. It reminds me of the game in dallas during the 2003 WCF where Kerr made those threes. After the game was practicly over EVERYONE started cheering for the spurs, when just five minutes ago, before Kerr went nuts, they were cheering like crazy for the Mavs.


----------

