Not the next Jordan, more like the next Russell.

[Man In Black]

http://www.foxsportssouthwest.com/05/24/12/Duncan-overlooked-in-search-for-next-MJ/msn_landing.html?blockID=734946&feedID=3581

May 24, 2012


Too bad for Tim Duncan the ghost of Michael Jordan defines any and everything that happens in the NBA.

While Kobe chases MJ's ghost, it haunts LeBron James. Kobe desperately wants a sixth title and the right to stamp his name next to Jordan's. LeBron hosted a hypothetical victory party to announce his desire for not one, not two, not three but seven titles so he can stamp his name above Jordan's.

So what should we do with Tim Duncan's name, especially if his Spurs win a fifth title?

Duncan is involved in a fascinating ghost story, too. He's chasing Bill Russell, the player more-seasoned NBA fans revere as the greatest of all time, the player who is inarguably the league's greatest winner.

[TDMVPDPOY]

whatta lame article

still looking for that next jordan wannabe or next player wannabe, every player is unique and wanting to build a name for themselves then living in someones shadow trying to be someone, unless ur kobe...

bill russell over glorified ben wallace

certainly duncan is makin a name for himself then trying to be the next russell, wilt or whoever...fck this shit

[z0sa]

First of all, Tim Duncan's ranked above Bill Russell at this point, with about 8 other players at least tbh..

There won't ever be another Jordan, second. Two three peats in 8 years is so extremely difficult that I doubt the next team that does it, if ever, will be constructed anything like those perimeter-oriented triangle teams. (IMHO If a team would do it, it'd be a deep, athletic, young and diverse team with their number 1 being a legit post threat.. a lot like the current Spurs but with more players closer to and in their primes) So basically there'll always be just one Jordan even if another team can manage to pull off the wins needed to accurately compare.

Which brings me to my final point: the disparaging effects of the lack of reason behind this futile chase upon the NBA. For example, Kobe fed on that mantra of "Jordan Jordan Jordan", even mimicing his style in ways. In this Kobe seems to forget many facets of his team's composition are completely different than Jordan's. This has never been truer than now under Mike Brown.

Besides, what gives? What is it all for? Tying him won't make Kobe the GOAT and probably he's still not even the best Laker of all time. He's past his prime at this point so they'll never say he was a more dominant scorer than Wilt or Kareem. It's fruitless. Just be Kobe, everyone will still love you. Of course some of that is Kobe's competitive drive, undoubtedly. Yet the League and the talking heads push this crap with reckless abandon so hard that if he didn't buy into it Kobe would probably be called out for lacking heart or drive or maybe they'd just call him 'boring.'

[100%duncan]

I think if we win it all TD will be better than Russ. No disrespect but TD might be even better than Russ to some now, but not me, but if TD wins his 5th then for me he overtakes Russ in the all time list.

[Arcadian]

I think the best comparison is with Kareem Abdul Jabbar. I still have Kareem ahead of Tim, but the argument can certainly be made either way...especially with Tim threatening to pass him in career playoff blocks. If Tim actually wins 6 titles, then I will move him past Kareem.

I have him ahead of Russell for sure...he's just way more skilled offensively. Put Duncan on those Celtics teams, and he'd win 11 titles (or more).

I have him behind Jordan just because it's hard to put anyone ahead of Jordan - but honestly, if I had to build a team from scratch, I'd pick Duncan before I'd pick Jordan. Post players FTW.

[KaiRMD1]

Tim Duncan is moreso gonna be the first and only Tim Duncan. He's not chasing anyone but they need something to write about concerning Duncan I guess.

[ambchang]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198209

People should read that thread and the associated article, one of the rare good threads started by H1N1.

The original premise of saying Duncan is the next Russell is the general concept of how one leader and superstar can put the team's goals above his own, and both Duncan and Russell were great in that. It isn't to say that Russell and Duncan have the same skills, or even the same impact, it's saying they have the same mindset.

Russell, due to the lack of stats, have been massively underrated in the new generation. He was willing to morph his game for the greater good of the team, and was very cerebral in his approach. These are some of the things that were exhibited by Duncan as well. Duncan, for all his individual dominance, was willing to adapt his game and sacrificed personal glory and still excel in most facets throughout his 14-year career. This is something that we haven't really seen since Kareem in the late eighties, but by the late eighties, Kareem was already way over the hill. Duncan did that in 2006, still close to his peak.

Russell was the greatest winner of all time because of multiple factors, but to attribute his 11 titles in 13 years entirely to the fact that he played in a smaller league with smaller players and having a bunch of HoF teammates is way over-simplifying it. There was never any doubt that the Celtics revolved around Russell, from his defensive dominance to his beautiful outlet passes, but Russell just kept changing with the game, kept changing with his teammates, and did what Auerbach asked him to do, and what the team needed him to do, while still being the undisputed head to the Celtics snake.

[Sec24Row7]

whatta lame article

still looking for that next jordan wannabe or next player wannabe, every player is unique and wanting to build a name for themselves then living in someones shadow trying to be someone, unless ur kobe...

bill russell over glorified ben wallace

certainly duncan is makin a name for himself then trying to be the next russell, wilt or whoever...fck this shit

Certainly... and go look up a video of a young chamberlain and see if you would take him over a young duncan.

Duncan is BY FAR the better Basketball player. Chamberlain has no left hand, PERIOD. Of course... having an off hand dribble didn't stop Robinson from being an all time great... but Chamberlain is much much worse.

Russel was 6 ft 9... 6 ft NINE. He of course was long... and athletic... and ran the court like a deer... (think Lebron James fast when he was younger) but he had no offensive skill set and mainly just made sure his shooters got the ball back on O and limited/blocked shot attempts on D.

You can't compare the 60's NBA to today's... In the 60's I would venture to say 40% of the league couldn't DUNK... if you dribbled between your legs... you were pulled for a "risky" play... heh

[tesseractive]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198209

People should read that thread and the associated article, one of the rare good threads started by H1N1.

The original premise of saying Duncan is the next Russell is the general concept of how one leader and superstar can put the team's goals above his own, and both Duncan and Russell were great in that. It isn't to say that Russell and Duncan have the same skills, or even the same impact, it's saying they have the same mindset.

Russell, due to the lack of stats, have been massively underrated in the new generation. He was willing to morph his game for the greater good of the team, and was very cerebral in his approach. These are some of the things that were exhibited by Duncan as well. Duncan, for all his individual dominance, was willing to adapt his game and sacrificed personal glory and still excel in most facets throughout his 14-year career. This is something that we haven't really seen since Kareem in the late eighties, but by the late eighties, Kareem was already way over the hill. Duncan did that in 2006, still close to his peak.

Russell was the greatest winner of all time because of multiple factors, but to attribute his 11 titles in 13 years entirely to the fact that he played in a smaller league with smaller players and having a bunch of HoF teammates is way over-simplifying it. There was never any doubt that the Celtics revolved around Russell, from his defensive dominance to his beautiful outlet passes, but Russell just kept changing with the game, kept changing with his teammates, and did what Auerbach asked him to do, and what the team needed him to do, while still being the undisputed head to the Celtics snake.

Dead on.

The other similarity: 40 years from now, people are going to be looking at old game film and say "damn -- Shaq was way better than Duncan! Look at the way he knocks people aside. Dude was unstoppable!" Which is what some people say now when they say Wilt > Russell.

Yet Russell pretty much always won everything that mattered -- Wilt won in '67, then stopped caring about winning as much, and Russell went right back to winning the next title.

Shaq had a better career than Wilt with respect to titles because he hooked up with Phil (and Kobe) and figured out how to play team ball for a while, but he still never really understood how building a winning organization starts from the ground up and gets measured in terms of hard work and sustainability.

Duncan built the same kind of career Russell did, and had the same kind of team built around him by Pop and the front office. And 40 years from now when people talk about how Duncan was overrated because he never really dominated the same way that some other players did, we can just smile and shake our heads and say "you kids just don't understand."

[Spurs da champs]

Wilt & Russel are so fucking overrated!

[Sec24Row7]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198209

People should read that thread and the associated article, one of the rare good threads started by H1N1.

The original premise of saying Duncan is the next Russell is the general concept of how one leader and superstar can put the team's goals above his own, and both Duncan and Russell were great in that. It isn't to say that Russell and Duncan have the same skills, or even the same impact, it's saying they have the same mindset.

Russell, due to the lack of stats, have been massively underrated in the new generation. He was willing to morph his game for the greater good of the team, and was very cerebral in his approach. These are some of the things that were exhibited by Duncan as well. Duncan, for all his individual dominance, was willing to adapt his game and sacrificed personal glory and still excel in most facets throughout his 14-year career. This is something that we haven't really seen since Kareem in the late eighties, but by the late eighties, Kareem was already way over the hill. Duncan did that in 2006, still close to his peak.

Russell was the greatest winner of all time because of multiple factors, but to attribute his 11 titles in 13 years entirely to the fact that he played in a smaller league with smaller players and having a bunch of HoF teammates is way over-simplifying it. There was never any doubt that the Celtics revolved around Russell, from his defensive dominance to his beautiful outlet passes, but Russell just kept changing with the game, kept changing with his teammates, and did what Auerbach asked him to do, and what the team needed him to do, while still being the undisputed head to the Celtics snake.


You can't be the head of the snake when you aren't running the offense... Cousy was the head of the Snake... make him dribble left.... heh

[Arcadian]

40 years from now, people are going to be looking at old game film and say "damn -- Shaq was way better than Duncan! Look at the way he knocks people aside. Dude was unstoppable!" Which is what some people say now when they say Wilt > Russell.

I completely disagree. If you watch a film of Duncan's highlights and watch a film of Shaq's highlights (seriously, do it right now on Youtube), Duncan's are way more impressive. You can easily see that he was the more skilled player overall.

The comparison of Wilt and Russell is completely different. Wilt had the skills, but Russel had the wins. Duncan has the best of BOTH.

[skulls138]

Dead on.

The other similarity: 40 years from now, people are going to be looking at old game film and say "damn -- Shaq was way better than Duncan! Look at the way he knocks people aside. Dude was unstoppable!" Which is what some people say now when they say Wilt > Russell.

Yet Russell pretty much always won everything that mattered -- Wilt won in '67, then stopped caring about winning as much, and Russell went right back to winning the next title.

Shaq had a better career than Wilt with respect to titles because he hooked up with Phil (and Kobe) and figured out how to play team ball for a while, but he still never really understood how building a winning organization starts from the ground up and gets measured in terms of hard work and sustainability.

Duncan built the same kind of career Wilt did, and had the same kind of team built around him by Pop and the front office. And 40 years from now when people talk about how Duncan was overrated because he never really dominated the same way that some other players did, we can just smile and shake our heads and say "you kids just don't understand."

I agree with this, Wilt was the most dominating b-ball player ever yet Russell got all the championships. Personally I think Duncan could score more if he wanted to but if he did that he wouldnt have more input from the rest of the team

[ambchang]

You can't be the head of the snake when you aren't running the offense... Cousy was the head of the Snake... make him dribble left.... heh

Was Richard Hamilton the head of Detroit in 04 and 05?

Was Duncan the head of the Spurs in 06, 08, and 09?

Wes Unseld was the head of the Bullets back in the day, and the guy couldn't score at all.

There really was no question Russell was the head of the snake for those 11 titles, Cousy backed it, Auerbach backed it, the entire team revolved around Russell. To even question it shows that you have never seen them play, and put in zero effort to know that team.

[PÒÓCH]

If Duncan had played in LA or Miami, New York or Chicago or Boston, or even Dallas, he'd have been bigger than Kobe-LeBron-D-Wade. Molly Ivins once called San Antonio "Monterrey North," while Mavericks owner Mark Cuban prefers to focus on "that ugly, muddy-watered thing," the River Walk. That it is the biggest tourist attraction in Texas says more about the state of attractions in the state than the little river that flows through the city.

[Sec24Row7]

Was Richard Hamilton the head of Detroit in 04 and 05?

Was Duncan the head of the Spurs in 06, 08, and 09?

Wes Unseld was the head of the Bullets back in the day, and the guy couldn't score at all.

There really was no question Russell was the head of the snake for those 11 titles, Cousy backed it, Auerbach backed it, the entire team revolved around Russell. To even question it shows that you have never seen them play, and put in zero effort to know that team.

No that would be billups... TP and Gino have alternated being our head of the snake... Why do you think TP had to develope a jumpshot? He was completely exposed by the Lakers in 2004 once they clogge the lane.

[mercos]

Bill Russell is a a good comparison, maybe not in terms of skill or style, but in terms of winning over a long period of time. Say what you will about Russell being overrated, but he was the best big man on a team that won 11 titles in 13 years. Regardless of how competitive the league was, that is impressive. Those teams won 8 consecutive titles. To retain the motivation to win for that long is awe inspiring. They could have easily just mailed it in a few times during that stretch and lost a title to Wilt, but they didn't.

I view Duncan's run in a similar way. He didn't get that many titles, but to keep the Spurs above 50 wins every season in a much more competitive league is nearly as impressive. This all happened despite constant rule changes that made the Spurs style harder to implement. If Duncan wins another title this year, his resume would compare favorably to just about any other in basketball history.

[ambchang]

No that would be billups... TP and Gino have alternated being our head of the snake... Why do you think TP had to develope a jumpshot? He was completely exposed by the Lakers in 2004 once they clogge the lane.

So how would you define "leading the offense"? And saying TP and Ginobili alternated being a head of the snake is a cop-out, how does it work?

And TP developing a jumpshot has nothing to do with leading an offense, he just improved it. Not sure why you took that into an argument.

[I. Hustle]

MMMaaannnnnn Bill Russell can eat a cawk. The dude is so pompous and thinks so damn much of himself.

[dbreiden83080]

Oh the hell with Michael Jordan.. Jordan in some ways was a bad thing for the NBA because all anyone wants to compare players to is Jordan. The press celebrates controversy more these days than greatness anyway. they don't want Lebron to win a title, because the better story would be for him to keep failing..

[Vito Corleone]

Seriously, I still hold that Hakeep Olajuwon was the best and most skilled of any big man in NBA history. Think Skills of Duncan with athleticism of Russell and the heart of a lion. Olajuwon was by far the best.

And this is coming from the worlds greatest David Robinson Fan.

I love Duncan but he doesn't have the explosiveness that Olajuwon had and he is as unstoppable as Olajuwon was. What Olajuwon did to David and Shaq both in 1995 was legendary

[therealtruth]

First of all, Tim Duncan's ranked above Bill Russell at this point, with about 8 other players at least tbh..

There won't ever be another Jordan, second. Two three peats in 8 years is so extremely difficult that I doubt the next team that does it, if ever, will be constructed anything like those perimeter-oriented triangle teams. (IMHO If a team would do it, it'd be a deep, athletic, young and diverse team with their number 1 being a legit post threat.. a lot like the current Spurs but with more players closer to and in their primes) So basically there'll always be just one Jordan even if another team can manage to pull off the wins needed to accurately compare.

Which brings me to my final point: the disparaging effects of the lack of reason behind this futile chase upon the NBA. For example, Kobe fed on that mantra of "Jordan Jordan Jordan", even mimicing his style in ways. In this Kobe seems to forget many facets of his team's composition are completely different than Jordan's. This has never been truer than now under Mike Brown.

Besides, what gives? What is it all for? Tying him won't make Kobe the GOAT and probably he's still not even the best Laker of all time. He's past his prime at this point so they'll never say he was a more dominant scorer than Wilt or Kareem. It's fruitless. Just be Kobe, everyone will still love you. Of course some of that is Kobe's competitive drive, undoubtedly. Yet the League and the talking heads push this crap with reckless abandon so hard that if he didn't buy into it Kobe would probably be called out for lacking heart or drive or maybe they'd just call him 'boring.'

The smartest thing Kobe could do would be to play of his big men like he used to with Shaq. He's too egocentric to figure that out. Same thing could have helped them in '04. The Lakers won the only game in the Finals where they were focused on going through Shaq.

[CosmicCowboy]

Seriously, I still hold that Hakeep Olajuwon was the best and most skilled of any big man in NBA history. Think Skills of Duncan with athleticism of Russell and the heart of a lion. Olajuwon was by far the best.

And this is coming from the worlds greatest David Robinson Fan.

I love Duncan but he doesn't have the explosiveness that Olajuwon had and he is as unstoppable as Olajuwon was. What Olajuwon did to David and Shaq both in 1995 was legendary

Kori came to the original Spurs forum after Olajuwon humiliated Robinson in the playoffs and used to infuriate Jimcs50 and Spursfan (now Marcus Bryant) by calling Robinson soft. It was freaking hilarious.

[ambchang]

Seriously, I still hold that Hakeep Olajuwon was the best and most skilled of any big man in NBA history. Think Skills of Duncan with athleticism of Russell and the heart of a lion. Olajuwon was by far the best.

And this is coming from the worlds greatest David Robinson Fan.

I love Duncan but he doesn't have the explosiveness that Olajuwon had and he is as unstoppable as Olajuwon was. What Olajuwon did to David and Shaq both in 1995 was legendary

In a game of 1-1, Hakeem will probably beat every single center in the history of the league, but the NBA is not a game of 1-1 (at least not until recently). Hakeem was a great player, but people don't remember why his teams were not successful for a good chunk of his career.

Part of it was because he had horrible teammates, but the other half is because of his style of play. Hakeem is a very ball-dominant player, and requires the entire paint area to be really effective. He doesn't do the little things like Duncan does (like setting solid picks on a continuous basis), and is generally the centre of all of the Rockets' offense and defense. He is sort of like Barkley (on offense) in that regard, only Hakeem is more skilled base, where Barkley was more brute force.

Part of what Hakeem did to Robinson and Shaq was because he had four shooters surrounding him with a shorter 3-pt line, and it really opened the floor in the middle for him. As a defender, you don't know what to do, should I double Hakeem and yield a 3, or should I single Hakeem and let the shooters beat you. Unfortunately, the Spurs did neither, they didn't double Hakeem, and they didn't close out on the shooters. It was an embarrassing series.

[polandprzem]

I've always compared Tim to Bill for the reasons ambchang posted. /gr8 post man/


You guys should check the history and how Bill Russell came to Boston and why all of sudden Celtics starts winning.

He is a winner and that's why I would say he was better then Wilt even though IMo Wilt was the best individual player of all time

[pgardn]

I think the best comparison is with Kareem Abdul Jabbar. I still have Kareem ahead of Tim, but the argument can certainly be made either way...especially with Tim threatening to pass him in career playoff blocks. If Tim actually wins 6 titles, then I will move him past Kareem.

I have him ahead of Russell for sure...he's just way more skilled offensively. Put Duncan on those Celtics teams, and he'd win 11 titles (or more).

I have him behind Jordan just because it's hard to put anyone ahead of Jordan - but honestly, if I had to build a team from scratch, I'd pick Duncan before I'd pick Jordan. Post players FTW.

Absolutely. Russell was the only black player on his first Celtics team. The best players were not on the NBA court. The damn Harlem Globe Trotters beat the Lakers back then. 9 to 12 teams... Jerry West could barely dribble left handed... Those times were lacking but young folks are told not to dis the old legends. Many of the guys on those courts could not take a step onto an NBA court today. Baylor, Robertson, Russell, Chamberlain, and there are more that could definitely play. But jeezz, some of those guys out there were just plain bad.

The comparisons are difficult though as we dont know what kind of training they would have had in each others day. But modern Duncan, on old Celtics... that would have been by far the greatest domination of all time. Jordan would have 2nd spot.

[polandprzem]

Sam Jones, KC Jones?

[pgardn]

Sam Jones, KC Jones?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1956-57-BOSTON-CELTICS-NBA-WORLD-CHAMPS-8X10-TEAM-PHOTO-/230644860562#ht_500wt_711


Count the black guys on the WORLD CHAMPS...

Very different times.

[polandprzem]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1956-57-BOSTON-CELTICS-NBA-WORLD-CHAMPS-8X10-TEAM-PHOTO-/230644860562#ht_500wt_711


Count the black guys on the WORLD CHAMPS...

Very different times.


Okay so make it 10 championships out of 13 yrs

:D



:rollin