David Robinson on Dan Patrick Show

[ace3g]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1g8u_IfC2s

[siraulo23]

:tu

[Spur|n|Austin]

Good stuff :toast

[Kindergarten Cop]

The Admiral is my All-Time favorite player and as much as I agree that Tim is one of the best players to ever lace 'em up, I can't agree with taking him over Jordan.

[Kidd K]

Lmao. "My like son's 6'7", and I'm tryin' to teach him to be a big man, and every time he runs to the three point line. I'm like what. . .what are you doing!? Why would you do that?" lol

[dbreiden83080]

D-Rob takes Tim over Jordan to start a team..

I love it..

[dbreiden83080]

The Admiral is my All-Time favorite player and as much as I agree that Tim is one of the best players to ever lace 'em up, I can't agree with taking him over Jordan.

I wish Jordan's Bulls had done it one more year and Spurs would have beat them in 99.. It would have been a true passing of the torch.

[Ice009]

I'd always choose a big man first over Jordan if starting a team. I won't name names, but I will say that Tim would be one of my top choices (I'm slightly biased though), but I'd never choose Jordan first. I'd pick him second or third. No disrespect to MJ in regards to his individual game, but I'd always want to start a team with a great big man that can anchor both the defense and offense rather than go with a guard first up. I don't see anything wrong at all with what Drob said.

[Brunodf]

The Admiral is my All-Time favorite player and as much as I agree that Tim is one of the best players to ever lace 'em up, I can't agree with taking him over Jordan.
A PF/C has a much bigger impact on the game than guards... Even if the guard is slightly better than the big man, ur team will be better with the PF/C...

[Kindergarten Cop]

I'd always choose a big man first over Jordan if starting a team. I won't name names, but I will say that Tim would be one of my top choices (I'm slightly biased though), but I'd never choose Jordan first. I'd pick him second or third. No disrespect to MJ in regards to his individual game, but I'd always want to start a team with a great big man that can anchor both the defense and offense rather than go with a guard first up. I don't see anything wrong at all with what Drob said.

I agree with your take 100% if the players in question are virtually equal talent-wise - but when the guard that we are looking at is the best player ever (at least in the eyes of most), I've got to go with the guard. Also, let's not pretend that Jordan couldn't hold his own defensively. Regardless, I didn't say that David was out of his mind for saying it - just that I disagree. I'm actually happy that he feels that way, but I honestly feel that he lacks objectivity (understandably, of course) and I disagree with the take. Now, if you were asking me who I would take between Kobe or Tim - then the answer would be a resounding one in favor of Timmy. Heck, I'd probably begin my team with Tim over ANYONE other than MJ - but that's just my take.

Anyways, I never thought that I'd be in a debate with other fellow Spurs' fans in an argument "against" one of my favorite players - especially a few days after we won the championship. I apologize for detracting from what should be an amazing moment of celebration.

:flag:

[Ice009]

I don't even think MJ is the best overall individual player of all time, but if we're talking about crunch time with the game on the line, then I don't know if there is anyone better than MJ. That is where he excelled IMO. In crunch time, with the game on the line, he was a killer and I don't know if I would pick anyone else over him in those situations.

[therealtruth]

If you need to remind yourself of how good MJ was. Watch his last game in '98. An absolute masterpiece. Few players would be able to pull out the win in a situation like that. It's not like he had a hot shooting night. He just played a fundamentally sound basketball game. Jordan's ability to score in the low post negated the need for having a big man.

[ajh18]

Bill Simmons' most recent article makes a good case for why, if you're starting a franchise and get a player for the entirety of their career, you'd look at Kareem and/or Duncan first. It's not saying Jordan isn't the greatest player in NBA history. But with those two you're looking at big men who dominate both ends of the court, with relatively little off-the-court drama, for upwards of 20 years. Many franchises would take that over the best player in history for the 11 years he dominated.

Simmons concludes that Kareem had the better career (so far) and was more dominant overall than Duncan, but that Duncan is probably the better teammate and cultural foundation for a team. I think that article makes a good case for picking a Duncan or Kareem as the top pick if starting a franchise from scratch.

http://grantland.com/features/24-lingering-questions-from-the-nba-finals/

[Thomas82]

I'd always choose a big man first over Jordan if starting a team. I won't name names, but I will say that Tim would be one of my top choices (I'm slightly biased though), but I'd never choose Jordan first. I'd pick him second or third. No disrespect to MJ in regards to his individual game, but I'd always want to start a team with a great big man that can anchor both the defense and offense rather than go with a guard first up. I don't see anything wrong at all with what Drob said.


A PF/C has a much bigger impact on the game than guards... Even if the guard is slightly better than the big man, ur team will be better with the PF/C...


I agree with your take 100% if the players in question are virtually equal talent-wise - but when the guard that we are looking at is the best player ever (at least in the eyes of most), I've got to go with the guard. Also, let's not pretend that Jordan couldn't hold his own defensively. Regardless, I didn't say that David was out of his mind for saying it - just that I disagree. I'm actually happy that he feels that way, but I honestly feel that he lacks objectivity (understandably, of course) and I disagree with the take. Now, if you were asking me who I would take between Kobe or Tim - then the answer would be a resounding one in favor of Timmy. Heck, I'd probably begin my team with Tim over ANYONE other than MJ - but that's just my take.

Anyways, I never thought that I'd be in a debate with other fellow Spurs' fans in an argument "against" one of my favorite players - especially a few days after we won the championship. I apologize for detracting from what should be an amazing moment of celebration.

:flag:


Bill Simmons' most recent article makes a good case for why, if you're starting a franchise and get a player for the entirety of their career, you'd look at Kareem and/or Duncan first. It's not saying Jordan isn't the greatest player in NBA history. But with those two you're looking at big men who dominate both ends of the court, with relatively little off-the-court drama, for upwards of 20 years. Many franchises would take that over the best player in history for the 11 years he dominated.

Simmons concludes that Kareem had the better career (so far) and was more dominant overall than Duncan, but that Duncan is probably the better teammate and cultural foundation for a team. I think that article makes a good case for picking a Duncan or Kareem as the top pick if starting a franchise from scratch.

http://grantland.com/features/24-lingering-questions-from-the-nba-finals/


+1

[SnakeBoy]

Have to agree on TD over Jordan to start a team, especially in the current NBA. Imagine what prime TD would do to the league right now, hell '92 Admiral would demolish the league right now.