DRob vs Timmy

[STEVEYCU]

Okay I am a bartender at a sports bar and it seems like every year everyone gets into who was the better player....
Drob was a fuckin hoss won almost every indvidual title possible in the NBA. Along with a quad double, 71 points in one game, and 2 gold medals. He also probably played with less talent and a MUCH higher level of competition then Duncan has although he never got to the finals till Duncan arrived.

Timmy though has pretty much been the ideal leader wich Dave never seemed to be and even though he dosnt have the stats to back him up like Robinson he has 2 mvps, 1 more ring and as long as he is even 50 percent the spurs are still one of the teams picked to win every year.

Myself I love Tim and wouldnt trade him for anyone, but big D if he had played in his prime with the lower levels of competiton that are around today (easp at the center position) would far eclipse Duncan..... Hey it is pretty nice to have had two such great players to compare though

[BeerIsGood!]

TD - One more Ring than Robinson. 2005.

[whottt]

Robert Horry...3 more rings than Duncan.

[dimsah]

Can we not do this again? Can someone resurrect one the countless other threads about this?

[baseline bum]

I hate this thread. Seems like it comes up about once a month. Man, a lot of us, at least myself, took David for granted so many years. Even at age 38, with a destroyed back and a bum knee, he was still better than anyone else the Spurs have ever had at center.... by far. I know I won't make the same mistake with Tim, even if TP or Manu are putting up better PPG.

[Phenomanul]

I hate this thread. Seems like it comes up about once a month. Man, a lot of us, at least myself, took David for granted so many years. Even at age 38, with a destroyed back and a bum knee, he was still better than anyone else the Spurs have ever had at center.... by far. I know I won't make the same mistake with Tim, even if TP or Manu are putting up better PPG.


True...


All that has to be said is that Timmy's supporting casts have been far better than David's were before Tim's arrival.

[Mr. Body]

Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan. Duncan.

etc.

Robinson is HOF great, but Duncan understands the game far better.

[THE SIXTH MAN]

We're fortunate to of had both on our team.

[JamStone]

D-Rob in his prime was an athletic wonder. Tim in his prime was an unstoppable post player.

I think the separation might be Tim's skills in the post. While David Robinson was an inexplicable athlete in terms of agility and quickness for his size, the one valid knock on him was his inability to ever develop a solid back-to-the-basket game for a center. Tim was such a perfect complement to D-Rob because D-Rob could play the high post in the high-low offense.

They were both extremely good defenders. Both capable scorers. But, again, you cannot dismiss the fact that the Spurs didn't win it all until Tim joined the Spurs. And, then the Spurs won it again without David.

David is one of the greatest centers in the history of the game. Tim Duncan is the best power forward ever to play the game.

[Texas_Ranger]

Robinson was great but Tim is greater.

[THE SIXTH MAN]

D-Rob in his prime was an athletic wonder. Tim in his prime was an unstoppable post player.

I think the separation might be Tim's skills in the post. While David Robinson was an inexplicable athlete in terms of agility and quickness for his size, the one valid knock on him was his inability to ever develop a solid back-to-the-basket game for a center. Tim was such a perfect complement to D-Rob because D-Rob could play the high post in the high-low offense.

They were both extremely good defenders. Both capable scorers. But, again, you cannot dismiss the fact that the Spurs didn't win it all until Tim joined the Spurs. And, then the Spurs won it again without David.

David is one of the greatest centers in the history of the game. Tim Duncan is the best power forward ever to play the game.
:tu Good post.

[dbreiden83080]

I have said this before and i truly believe it. Ewing was a better player than Robinson, so to me Duncan is vastly better. D-Rob was the centerpiece of so many 50 plus win Spurs teams and they never got to a finals until Duncan got there. The Knicks had to deal with Jordan and the Bulls every damn year, they went to the finals and won it all. Who did the Spurs have to deal with in the west, that prevented them from going to the finals. Sonics, Jazz, Blazers, Suns, Rockets all these teams were rotating in and out of the finals and the Spurs with D-Rob never made it.

[Phenomanul]

D-Rob in his prime was an athletic wonder. Tim in his prime was an unstoppable post player.

I think the separation might be Tim's skills in the post. While David Robinson was an inexplicable athlete in terms of agility and quickness for his size, the one valid knock on him was his inability to ever develop a solid back-to-the-basket game for a center. Tim was such a perfect complement to D-Rob because D-Rob could play the high post in the high-low offense.

They were both extremely good defenders. Both capable scorers. But, again, you cannot dismiss the fact that the Spurs didn't win it all until Tim joined the Spurs. And, then the Spurs won it again without David.

David is one of the greatest centers in the history of the game. Tim Duncan is the best power forward ever to play the game.

The Spurs won without David due to the resurgence of the back court -- the title in '05 was due in large part to Manu's heroics - and not to mention a performance for the ages by Big Shot Rob at the Palace.

Give David that type of supporting cast throughout his career and history would have told a different story -- as in being able to win without Tim.

[dbreiden83080]

Once Tim won it without David he cemented his legacy forever as being the better player. Most already believed he was but the title in 05, only further confirmed it.

[Phenomanul]

Once Tim won it without David he cemented his legacy forever as being the better player. Most already believed he was but the title in 05, only further confirmed it.


Titles alone should not be the determining factor.... otherwise Parker >>>> Stockton... and we all know that this is not the case (at least not yet)

[JamStone]

As if Terry Cummings, Rod Strickland, and Sean Elliot were bums.

[Phenomanul]

I have said this before and i truly believe it. Ewing was a better player than Robinson, so to me Duncan is vastly better. D-Rob was the centerpiece of so many 50 plus win Spurs teams and they never got to a finals until Duncan got there. The Knicks had to deal with Jordan and the Bulls every damn year, they went to the finals and won it all. Who did the Spurs have to deal with in the west, that prevented them from going to the finals. Sonics, Jazz, Blazers, Suns, Rockets all these teams were rotating in and out of the finals and the Spurs with D-Rob never made it.


During their short overlapping prime vs. prime matchups spanning '89-'94 Robinson completely schooled Ewing. Look it up.

[DieMrBond]

The Knicks had to deal with Jordan and the Bulls every damn year, they went to the finals and won it all.

Do you mean, Jordan went to the finals and won it all? Or the Knicks (with Ewing did?) If you meant the Knicks, they never won. They lost.

And on most peoples list, its Hakeem > Robinson >>> Ewing

[whottt]

Boy the Spurs front office sure are some dumbasses for paying Parker and Manu 6-9 million per season...

All they need is Duncan...why waste all that money?

[Phenomanul]

As if Terry Cummings, Rod Strickland, and Sean Elliot were bums.


Let me see... Rod Strickland comitted a series defining turnover... in a game 7, no less.

Cummings only had 2 good post seasons - he was hurt for the other ones...

Elliott wasn't clutch 'till 1999, the year the Spurs won their first title - and even then that year the deadliest post-season shooters on the squad were Mario Elie and Jaren Jackson - not Elliott.

I might as well mention Rodman... who bewilderingly enough became a 3pt chucker for us against Houston... and who consistently let his man drain 3 after 3 after 3 against us (Horry).

No... I would say it would be unfair to compare Tim and David solely on their post season successes considering that Tim's teams were by far more complete, clutch and deep...

[whottt]

Bullshit...

Everyone knows, Vinny Del Negro = Manu

Vinny Del Negro also = Clyde Drexler, Kobe Bryant and Dwayne Wade for that matter.

[dbreiden83080]

Do you mean, Jordan went to the finals and won it all? Or the Knicks (with Ewing did?) If you meant the Knicks, they never won. They lost.

And on most peoples list, its Hakeem > Robinson >>> Ewing

What i said was implied by the rest of my post when i said who did the Spurs have to deal with, that prevented them from going to the finals? The answer is that there was no dominant team in the west during those years that should have prevented the Spurs from getting there at least once. I don't want to hear about stats, who scored more points against who. The only number that means anything is that Spurs went to ZERO finals in the D-Rob era before Duncan showed up. Ewing and the Knicks went once when Jordan retired and lost to the Rockets. You can't count 99 because Ewing got hurt, although they would have lost anyway. Hakeem was better than both D-Rob and Ewing so they lost the 94 series. D-Rob never won anything until Timmy got there, so the overall perception is that Timmy is the better player.

[THE SIXTH MAN]

Give David that type of supporting cast throughout his career and history would have told a different story -- as in being able to win without Tim.
What about the 94-95 season?

[whottt]

Vinny Del Negro = Manu, AJ = Tony Parker

[K-State Spur]

Tim has had the better supporting cast, that is for certain. From one perspective, that may hamper him a bit though because he has had good players he can defer to at times which has kept his own numbers down. There were a few years there where he could have topped 30 ppg if he was willing to be more selfish. Tim's career high for shots per game is around 18. Kobe Bryant has topped 30 ppg twice in his career needing 23 & 27 shots per game in those seasons.

And it's evident that there are some on this board who already have forgotten how good DRob really was. Ewing???

[dbreiden83080]

What about the 94-95 season?

Exactly no supporting cast HUH, 62 win season and did they go to the finals? NO!!! The following year 59 win season and again no finals.

[dbreiden83080]

And it's evident that there are some on this board who already have forgotten how good DRob really was. Ewing???

Ewing made his teamates better than D-Rob did?

[Phenomanul]

What about the 94-95 season?


Again, if David's team was so complete... why was David consistently doubled off of one or both of the guards??? He played the entire Houston series being doubled or triple-teamed.

Teams have paid dearly for doubling onto Duncan because he has had the luxury of being supported by shooters -- not counting the Hedo brickfest fiasco of '04 or the Anderson injury of '01...

And I need not repeat that Rodman played like a mole during the Houston series... he helped Houston more than San Antonio.

[whottt]

Yeap...Vinny = Manu and AJ = Parker. Everyone knows this.
Oh, and Bob Hill = Pop.

Just go look...the 94-95 NBA champs were the Hakeem Olajuwons. Last years champs were the Dwayne Wades.

The Tim Duncans have won 3 Championships. Would have been four if we hadn't lost in 7 to the Dirk Nowitskis.

He needs 3 more to tie the 90's Michael Jordans.

And Chauncey Billups = 1 Finals MVP

Kevin Garnett = 0 Finals MVP

Therefore, Chauncey Billups > Kevin Garnett.

The Chauncey Billups' were afterall the 2004 NBA champions.

[gospursgojas]

Two completely different players, with two completly different teams, that played the same (kinda) position.

Next, lets discuss if Bruce or Sean was better

[THE SIXTH MAN]

Again, if David's team was so complete... why was David consistently doubled off of one or both of the guards??? He played the entire Houston series being doubled or triple-teamed.

Teams have paid dearly for doubling onto Duncan because he has had the luxury of being supported by shooters -- not counting the Hedo brickfest fiasco of '04 or the Anderson injury of '01...

And I need not repeat that Rodman played like a mole during the Houston series... he helped Houston more than San Antonio.
Ill agree with whotts points, tp,mg>aj,vd. But I don't know where your trying to go with David being doubled teamed argument? Or Tim having shooters around him argument. Hakeem light up david during that series, not to mention the fact that Clyde, Sam cassell, Robert horry, and Kenny smith where apart of that rocket team. In retrospect that rocket team was a bad team, not bad meaning bad but bad meaning good. As for the shooters, what series are you making that argument on? If its the 05 Detroit series, Nazr was crucial for us in that series rather than our "shooters".

[Phenomanul]

Ill agree with whotts points, tp,mg>aj,vd. But I don't know where your trying to go with David being doubled teamed argument? Or Tim having shooters around him argument. Hakeem light up david during that series, not to mention the fact that Clyde, Sam cassell, Robert horry, and Kenny smith where apart of that rocket team. In retrospect that rocket team was a bad team, not bad meaning bad but bad meaning good. As for the shooters, what series are you making that argument on? If its the 05 Detroit series, Nazr was crucial for us in that series rather than our "shooters".



Manu was by far more of a crucial player in our series against Detroit than Nazr was... see games 1, 2 and 7.

As for being triple teamed... what I'm implying is that David struggled because he was constantly facing 2 or 3 defenders, and none of his shooters were able to keep his double or triple teamer honest. Houston's strategy -- smother David -- none of the other Spurs will hurt us. Game Over.

The other side of the coin is that we couldn't double Hakeem because their shooters actually made us pay... Cassell, Horry, Smith, not to mention you forgot Elie... so yeah Hakeem went off... the dude was immensely talented. If swapped (David a Rocket and Hakeem a Spur) David would have done the same to Hakeem.

[THE SIXTH MAN]

Manu was by far more of a crucial player in our series against Detroit than Nazr was... see games 1, 2 and 7.

As for being triple teamed... what I'm implying is that David struggled because he was constantly facing 2 or 3 defenders, and none of his shooters were able to keep his double or triple teamer honest. Houston's strategy -- smother David -- none of the other Spurs will hurt us. Game Over.

The other side of the coin is that we couldn't double Hakeem because their shooters actually made us pay... Cassell, Horry, Smith, not to mention you forgot Elie... so yeah Hakeem went off... the dude was immensely talented. If swapped (David a Rocket and Hakeem a Spur) David would have done the same to Hakeem.
You can make all the points you want, But I'm not arguing about any series played between the two. Just arguing the fact of players they were surrounded with. But just to clarify for you, I do agree that Tim has had better players around him rather than David. Although I will not take a side on this subject, bottom line is they're both Hall of Famers and have done many things for this franchise in their own way. In my opinion David=Tim, our franchise would be nothing with out either of them. :toast

[DieMrBond]

What i said was implied by the rest of my post when i said who did the Spurs have to deal with, that prevented them from going to the finals? The answer is that there was no dominant team in the west during those years that should have prevented the Spurs from getting there at least once. I don't want to hear about stats, who scored more points against who. The only number that means anything is that Spurs went to ZERO finals in the D-Rob era before Duncan showed up. Ewing and the Knicks went once when Jordan retired and lost to the Rockets. You can't count 99 because Ewing got hurt, although they would have lost anyway. Hakeem was better than both D-Rob and Ewing so they lost the 94 series. D-Rob never won anything until Timmy got there, so the overall perception is that Timmy is the better player.

So, Ewing is better because the Knicks had to go through Jordan? Okay, except for the fact that when they made it to the finals, he didnt have to go through Jordan as he had retired (as you just said).

[JamStone]

Hakeem light up david during that series, not to mention the fact that Clyde, Sam cassell, Robert horry, and Kenny smith where apart of that rocket team. In retrospect that rocket team was a bad team, not bad meaning bad but bad meaning good.


That 1995 Houston Rockets team that beat the Spurs in the playoffs won 47 regular season games.

47.

[THE SIXTH MAN]

That 1995 Houston Rockets team that beat the Spurs in the playoffs won 47 regular season games.

47.




In retrospect that rocket team was a bad team, not bad meaning bad but bad meaning good. And they also won back to back championships. Your point?

[SpursWillOwn]

drob was like amare in the past jus ran and dunked on everyone while tim is jus tim gettin to the hoop with less flair but still gets the job done but with more effectiveness

[JamStone]

And they also won back to back championships. Your point?

My point is that the Spurs should have beaten them in 1995. That 1995 Rockets team was a bad team, not bad as in meaning good, but bad as in meaning bad.

[nkdlunch]

are you serious with this question? No doubt Duncan >>>> DRob. It's not even close. DRob is a great weapon in the team, Duncan IS the team

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

A young DRob would have owned the league now. Especially the way the game is called these days.

TD is awesome is his own right.

All I can say is I'm glad they both wore the silver and black.

[cheguevara]

come on. have some balls and pick one. :)

Duncan is a top 10 player all-time(probably top 5). Robinson is not.

[Phenomanul]

come on. have some balls and pick one. :)

Duncan is a top 10 player all-time(probably top 5). Robinson is not.


Based on what, titles or talent? Because if you are basing it on titles.... I would remind you that teams win titles... not individual players.

Listen to Duncan on that one... It takes FIVE.

[ambchang]

I actually had to read it multiple times, Ewing > DRob? Robinson beats Ewing in everything, individual awards, numbers, team success.
And the argument is that because Ewing led teams went to finals once (twice counting 99), he is > DRob? How about the East sucking BAD outside of the Bulls in the 90's? How about Ewing having Oakley, Starks and Anthony Mason as his running mates, while DRob had only Sean Elliott/Rodman and ...... nobody else ....
Even if you take that weak argument, the logic is flawed.
Team A > Team B
Team B > Team C
Team A > Team D
Therefore Team D > Team C.
Check the awards, head-to-head during their prime years. Not even die-hard Knicks fans would argue Ewing > DRob, let alone a supposed Spurs fan.

[K-State Spur]

That 1995 Houston Rockets team that beat the Spurs in the playoffs won 47 regular season games.

47.

Anybody who saw that team that year though knew they were better than that. They LOAFED through the regular season like no other team I have seen, evidently not giving a crap about homecourt. Then, once they turned it on, they were championship caliber.

[cheguevara]

Based on what, titles or talent? Because if you are basing it on titles.... I would remind you that teams win titles... not individual players.

Listen to Duncan on that one... It takes FIVE.

You are looking too much into the ADIDAS commercial.

Duncan has been the reason why Spurs have 3 titles. Conincidence? NOT.

Did we beat the Lakers or Pistons because we played great as a team? partly, but mostly because we had Duncan.

They were all better teams when you exclude Duncan.

Everytime the difference was Duncan.

Listen to Barkley on this one, if Duncan is hurting, the Clippers could win the West.

[duncan2k5]

i dont understand why ppl always say duncan had better [;ayers. its not like manu and tony came on the team as all stars. who is to say that duncan's greatness didnt bring out the greatness in his teammates? part of being a great player is making those around you better. robonson had better stats, and was one of the greates in his own right...but duncan made those around him better every year.

so many years we put different people around duncan. when they work out, fols always say "spurs found another gem." or "duncan always has great teammates." no one EVER says "duncan makes his teammates better." anyway what do i know?

[wildbill2u]

Duncan was/is supurb as a PF--but he hasn't had much competition league wise at that slot for one reason or another. He was always a better shot maker than DROB as far as pure shooting ability goes. He's not as good in pure athletic ability to run, jump and be mobile.

DROB played center at a time when there were some awfully good centers around, not like today when you can count them on two fingers. He was a better athlete than Tim and could actually get more than 2" off the ground. I think he was a better defender because he was more mobile. He had to be on most of his teams. DROB had his moments in scoring and he led the team scoring because he was the go-to guy, not because he was a great natural shooter.

Comparing teams and teammates and single events that can affect a series are pointless. Will someone in the future say: "Timmy would have won in 2006 if it hadn't been for Manu's brain fart and therefore he's better than....) Only their physical abilities are comparable and even those are so different that it's hard to make a choice.

IT's like making me choose between a beautiful blonde and a gorgeous redhead. Why choose--take 'em both. :hungry:

[dbreiden83080]

I actually had to read it multiple times, Ewing > DRob? Robinson beats Ewing in everything, individual awards, numbers, team success.
And the argument is that because Ewing led teams went to finals once (twice counting 99), he is > DRob? How about the East sucking BAD outside of the Bulls in the 90's? How about Ewing having Oakley, Starks and Anthony Mason as his running mates, while DRob had only Sean Elliott/Rodman and ...... nobody else ....
Even if you take that weak argument, the logic is flawed.
Team A > Team B
Team B > Team C
Team A > Team D
Therefore Team D > Team C.
Check the awards, head-to-head during their prime years. Not even die-hard Knicks fans would argue Ewing > DRob, let alone a supposed Spurs fan.

Oh please don't give me this supposed Spurs fan crap because i think Ewing was better than Robinson. How many times did i come in here and see people talking shit about Tim Duncan. During the 05 finals, people on this board were talking about Timmy like he was a fucking bum and riding Manu's jock. Well low and behold Manu sucks against Dallas last year and Timmy was amazing and then all these people got back on his bandwagon. So if i am disloyal for saying this then i guess all those people and they know who they are, were disloyal for saying all those things about Timmy.

[ambchang]

i dont understand why ppl always say duncan had better [;ayers. its not like manu and tony came on the team as all stars. who is to say that duncan's greatness didnt bring out the greatness in his teammates? part of being a great player is making those around you better. robonson had better stats, and was one of the greates in his own right...but duncan made those around him better every year.

so many years we put different people around duncan. when they work out, fols always say "spurs found another gem." or "duncan always has great teammates." no one EVER says "duncan makes his teammates better." anyway what do i know?

Not saying Tim didn't make those around him better, because he sure did. But check out players like Vinny Del Negro, Avery Johnson, Sean Elliott, and such, players who actually had career years in Robinson's MVP season. Players who couldn't get off the bench became starters next to Robinson. Point is, you can't make steak out of burger meat.

[ambchang]

Oh please don't give me this supposed Spurs fan crap because i think Ewing was better than Robinson. How many times did i come in here and see people talking shit about Tim Duncan. During the 05 finals, people on this board were talking about Timmy like he was a fucking bum and riding Manu's jock. Well low and behold Manu sucks against Dallas last year and Timmy was amazing and then all these people got back on his bandwagon. So if i am disloyal for saying this then i guess all those people and they know who they are, were disloyal for saying all those things about Timmy.

I didn't say anything about Manu or bashed Duncan, so you are preaching to the choir.
But there is not one solid reason you can give to say that Ewing is better than Robinson. He went to the finals twice? SO what? He had better supporting cast in a weaker conference. It's comparing apples to oranges.
Robinson had more MVPs, DPoY, All NBA teams, ALl Defensive Teams, well, everything you could name, and both played their prime years at around the same time. So how could you argue otherwise in an objective manner?

[maddnezz]

During their short overlapping prime vs. prime matchups spanning '89-'94 Robinson completely schooled Ewing. Look it up.
Thank you!!!!!!!! :king
The dream was the only one,besides Shaq who really gave Dave problems but at the same time the could only smell his farts as he blew past them!! Unstopable when he was foucused!!!!! Same with Tim!!! What a blessing to have been around to see that magic every game! :santahat

[dbreiden83080]

I didn't say anything about Manu or bashed Duncan, so you are preaching to the choir.
But there is not one solid reason you can give to say that Ewing is better than Robinson. He went to the finals twice? SO what? He had better supporting cast in a weaker conference. It's comparing apples to oranges.
Robinson had more MVPs, DPoY, All NBA teams, ALl Defensive Teams, well, everything you could name, and both played their prime years at around the same time. So how could you argue otherwise in an objective manner?

A better supporting cast, LOL like who, do you know how many all stars Ewing played with in his prime? The answer is 1, Starks got there in the 94 season, when they went to the finals. By 97, when they brought in Larry Johnson, he was way past his prime and Houston never fit in right with the team until Ewing had left. Both Ewing and Robinson got whipped by Hakeem in the playoffs. D-Rob needed for me anyway to get his Spurs to the finals one time. The west was not as loaded as you seem to think. There was no dominant team in the west at all in the Spurs way. So what they were not better at any point then the, Blazers or the Suns or Rockets or the Sonics, Jazz all these teams in and out of the finals every year. Knicks are losing to MJ and the Bulls every year and they pushed them every year. Knicks having that team in their way is a much bigger challenge then what D-Rob had in the west, there is no questioning that.

[maddnezz]

A better supporting cast, LOL like who, do you know how many all stars Ewing played with in his prime? The answer is 1, Starks got there in the 94 season, when they went to the finals. By 97, when they brought in Larry Johnson, he was way past his prime and Houston never fit in right with the team until Ewing had left. Both Ewing and Robinson got whipped by Hakeem in the playoffs. D-Rob needed for me anyway to get his Spurs to the finals one time. The west was not as loaded as you seem to think. There was no dominant team in the west at all in the Spurs way. So what they were not better at any point then the, Blazers or the Suns or Rockets or the Sonics, Jazz all these teams in and out of the finals every year. Knicks are losing to MJ and the Bulls every year and they pushed them every year. Knicks having that team in their way is a much bigger challenge then what D-Rob had in the west, there is no questioning that.
I can respect that. Good point! :fro

[THE SIXTH MAN]

My point is that the Spurs should have beaten them in 1995. That 1995 Rockets team was a bad team, not bad as in meaning good, but bad as in meaning bad.

Are you serious? Or are you to much of a douche bag to realise that we lost to that years CHAMPIONS. I don't recall regular season records having to do a damn thing with post season play(look up last years pistons). Any body who watched that series wouldn't say that about that team. So again I ask, your point is?

[maddnezz]

Are you serious? Or are you to much of a douche bag to realise that we lost to that years CHAMPIONS. I don't recall regular season records having to do a damn thing with post season play(look up last years pistons). Any body who watched that series wouldn't say that about that team. So again I ask, your point is?
Don't worry Six, that fool is smoking draino!!! :drunk

[whottt]

Or are you to much of a douche bag

You have to ask?

[Nikos]

David was the superior regular season player. Duncan played better than his regular season self regardless of his supporting cast in the playoffs. David almost every season did worse than his regular season capapbilities. Some of that is bad teamattes, bad matchups, and just plain bad luck.

Not sure who was the real BETTER player. If Drob just played near his regular season output for half of his playoff appearences in his prime -- then I would say David was superior. But Duncan's playoff success bumps him up in career value.

Excluding the playoffs -- I would take Drob. Better defense, and slightly better offense.

[Phenomanul]

i dont understand why ppl always say duncan had better [;ayers. its not like manu and tony came on the team as all stars. who is to say that duncan's greatness didnt bring out the greatness in his teammates? part of being a great player is making those around you better. robonson had better stats, and was one of the greates in his own right...but duncan made those around him better every year.

so many years we put different people around duncan. when they work out, fols always say "spurs found another gem." or "duncan always has great teammates." no one EVER says "duncan makes his teammates better." anyway what do i know?

Manu was an MVP type player (albeit in the Euroleague) before joining the Spurs... and he also proved he could be a leader and a winner even without Duncan as his running mate ('04 Olympics)...

As Pop would say it, "Manu is a stud"....

Winning titles has everything to do with constructing complete and deep teams around star player(s)... by getting role players who know their niche... clutch players who can deliver when it matters most... and competitive players who can drive themselves without being pushed and who never give up on plays...

DRob's teams never had that combination of players... EVER.
It wasn't 'till Robinson became second fiddle himself that he was able to see the promised land. But also because those teams were complimented with the addition of clutch performers such as Jaren Jackson, Mario Ellie, Steve Kerr, and to an extent Stephen Jackson. Not to mention the sprinkle of luck that is needed to win Championships (Horry's missed shot in GM5 of 2003 playoffs, Elliott's MDM vs Portland)...

From the get-go Duncan has had the advantage and fortunately for us Spurs fans he has capitalized by leading HIS teams to titles. That however does not automatically suggest that Duncan >>> Robinson. Much like one can't say that Rip Hamilton >>> George Gervin.

[baseline bum]

That 1995 Houston Rockets team that beat the Spurs in the playoffs won 47 regular season games.

47.

That 95 Rockets team also went through a 60-win Utah team in the first round, a 59-win Phoenix team in the second, a 62-win Spurs team in the WCF, and a 57-win Orlando team in the Finals. They might have had the toughest playoffs of any champ I've ever seen. Anyone who followed that season has to remember all the hype about the Rockets just resting Olajuwon a lot of that year at the expense of regular season wins.

[ZStomp]

I hate this thread. Seems like it comes up about once a month. Man, a lot of us, at least myself, took David for granted so many years. Even at age 38, with a destroyed back and a bum knee, he was still better than anyone else the Spurs have ever had at center.... by far. I know I won't make the same mistake with Tim, even if TP or Manu are putting up better PPG.


Exactly. Agree 100% I guess Kris doesn't. :depressed

[ambchang]

A better supporting cast, LOL like who, do you know how many all stars Ewing played with in his prime? The answer is 1, Starks got there in the 94 season, when they went to the finals. By 97, when they brought in Larry Johnson, he was way past his prime and Houston never fit in right with the team until Ewing had left. Both Ewing and Robinson got whipped by Hakeem in the playoffs. D-Rob needed for me anyway to get his Spurs to the finals one time. The west was not as loaded as you seem to think. There was no dominant team in the west at all in the Spurs way. So what they were not better at any point then the, Blazers or the Suns or Rockets or the Sonics, Jazz all these teams in and out of the finals every year. Knicks are losing to MJ and the Bulls every year and they pushed them every year. Knicks having that team in their way is a much bigger challenge then what D-Rob had in the west, there is no questioning that.

It would be all nice if it was true:
Starks was an all-star in 1994, all defensive in 1993.
Oakley was an all-star in 1994, all defensive 1st in 1994.
Anthony Mason, though not an all-star, was better than any low-post side kick Robinson ever had outside of Duncan and Cummings, and Duncan came in after DRob’s prime and took the Spurs to another level, while Cummings crapped out after three seasons with DRob.
He also played with a Bill Cartwright who, despite hurt, still averaged 17 ppg in 1987
ROY Mark Jackson from 88 to 92
Had Rod Strickland, the best point guard Robinson ever had in his career, as a backup point guard in 89
An over the hill Kiki Vanderwedge who still averaged 16 ppg.

Who did Robinson have?
Sean Elliott, All Star in 93 and 96
Terry Cummings, no all-star appearances with DRob
Rod Strickland, his best ever point guard, aka back up for Mark Jackson the year before with the Knicks
Willie Anderson with broken legs
Journeyman Avery Johnson as his second best point guard
Don't even mention Dennis Rodman, for he was just a wacko who destroyed any chance the Spurs had of winning anything in his two years with teh Spurs.
Remember when Sweet Pea Lloyd Daniels was supposed to be the saviour? Jerry Tarkanian? Bob Hill? John Lucas? The only year Robinson had a decent coach was his first season in Larry Brown! It would be nice if Robinson had a coach like Pat Riley, now wouldn’t it? Hell, even Jeff Van Gundy would be great!

West not loaded? The SUns had Kevin Johnson, Charles Barkley, and Dan Marjele. Rockets had Hakeem and Otis Thorpe/Clyde Drexler, who also happen to win back to backs, Blazers had Clyde, Porter, Kersey and Duckworth (3 all-stars), Sonics had Kemp, Payton and Schempt, Jazz had Malone and Stockton, the two best players at their respective positions, and you argue that they are not loaded, guess what, let’s put in Jeff Hornacek as well!
Knicks pushed the Bulls and went to the finals when Jordan retired, so they are better than the Spurs? That’s about the most illogical argument I have ever heard. What backs you up in saying that the Spurs would not have went to the Finals in that Leastern conference, even with that weak supporting cast? The two years MJ retired, the West won BOTH championships, including a sweep of Orlando in 1995.
Again, using your logic:
4>3, 4>1
3>2
So 1>2, right?

[ambchang]

I can respect that. Good point! :fro
You can respect points that are wrong?

[dbreiden83080]

Knicks pushed the Bulls and went to the finals when Jordan retired, so they are better than the Spurs? That’s about the most illogical argument I have ever heard. What backs you up in saying that the Spurs would not have went to the Finals in that Leastern conference, even with that weak supporting cast? The two years MJ retired, the West won BOTH championships, including a sweep of Orlando in 1995.
?

Neither Ewing nor Robinson in their primes had that 2nd go to guy. Niether one of them had the best supporting cast to compliment their talents. I always laugh when people try and say that Jordan has 6 titles without Pippen, he might have 3 but no way 6. To me in the 2 years Jordan was gone the Knicks should have won 1 title. They were better than the Rockets, Hakeem was the better player but that year in 94 the Knicks had great chemistry and should have beat them. The following year the chemistry was not as good. Partly fueled by the fact that the players knew Riley was leaving and they faltered in the playoffs to the Pacers. I admit largely due to Ewings missed finger roll at the buzzer. Here is how i break it down in terms of paths to the finals. Knicks lost to the bulls in 2 of their 3 best years i feel to win it all. 92 they lost in 7 games, 93 they lost in 6 games and 94 when Jordan was gone they lost in 7 to the Rockets. Throw in the 96 team as well that lost in 5, to the unbeatable 72 win Bulls team. The Knicks had one of the single greatest dynasties in the history of Pro-sports standing in their way. I would seriously hope you do not doubt that Wilt would have more than 2 rings if not for Russels Celtics, because he was a better player than, Duncan, Ewing, Robinson or Hakeem. Spurs in Robinson's prime in their best seasons lost to the Jazz in 4 games of the first round coming off a 55 win season, a year in which the Jazz did not go on to finals. 94-95, 62 win season, lost to the Rockets in 6, Knicks pushed them to 7 games in the finals. 95-96, won 59 games and lost to the Jazz in 6 games a team that did not go the finals yet again. Spurs in those years were seen as favorites to go the finals. They were not seen as underdogs in any sense of the word, they were blasted for underachieving in those years. I get that it is a lot of speculation on both our parts but i believe that Ewing got more out of his team than did Robinson. Robinson had to get his Spurs to the finals in 1 of those seasons for me to say he is better than Ewing. As far as be being better or even as good as Duncan, i think that is downright laughable.

[TurkishTimDuncan]

David robinson says that "Duncan is ever greatest player." After this Why we discuss. You think that after tim duncan joined this organization. We have 3 champions and minumum west semi final every year.Okey I lihe to admral.He has really good player also good leader.But Duncan is the best ever players in the Nba. So this answer is Duncan

[Louae]

My point is that the Spurs should have beaten them in 1995. That 1995 Rockets team was a bad team, not bad as in meaning good, but bad as in meaning bad.

I believe the rockets made a mid-season trade to get clyde drexler and that's what turned their season around. thus, the team playing in the playoffs was not a true reflection of the team's record that year.

[dbreiden83080]

David robinson says that "Duncan is ever greatest player." After this Why we discuss. You think that after tim duncan joined this organization. We have 3 champions and minumum west semi final every year.Okey I lihe to admral.He has really good player also good leader.But Duncan is the best ever players in the Nba. So this answer is Duncan

To me this debate was put to bed when they won it in 05. Some people felt that Timmy had to get it done when it was seen solely as his team and he did.

[101A]

To me this debate was put to bed when they won it in 05. Some people felt that Timmy had to get it done when it was seen solely as his team and he did.

It was put to bed emphatically in the 4th quarter of game 6 of the WCSF '03.

[Duncanoypi]

^what happened on that game?

[Sec24Row7]

How could Timmy have had a better compliment of players than David?

Timmy is better and David had him as teammate...

Timmy only had David.

:drunk

[dbreiden83080]

It was put to bed emphatically in the 4th quarter of game 6 of the WCSF '03.

I personally think that the only way Duncan gets respect as an all time great by just about everyone is if he wins 2 or 3 more titles and walks away with like 5 or 6. I mean the man has 3 rings and 3 finals mvp's and he still gets disrespected by so many people that want to diminish his legacy. In a decade if Lebron has 3 rings, the media will act like MJ never existed.

[ambchang]

Neither Ewing nor Robinson in their primes had that 2nd go to guy. Niether one of them had the best supporting cast to compliment their talents. I always laugh when people try and say that Jordan has 6 titles without Pippen, he might have 3 but no way 6. To me in the 2 years Jordan was gone the Knicks should have won 1 title. They were better than the Rockets, Hakeem was the better player but that year in 94 the Knicks had great chemistry and should have beat them. The following year the chemistry was not as good. Partly fueled by the fact that the players knew Riley was leaving and they faltered in the playoffs to the Pacers. I admit largely due to Ewings missed finger roll at the buzzer. Here is how i break it down in terms of paths to the finals. Knicks lost to the bulls in 2 of their 3 best years i feel to win it all. 92 they lost in 7 games, 93 they lost in 6 games and 94 when Jordan was gone they lost in 7 to the Rockets. Throw in the 96 team as well that lost in 5, to the unbeatable 72 win Bulls team. The Knicks had one of the single greatest dynasties in the history of Pro-sports standing in their way. I would seriously hope you do not doubt that Wilt would have more than 2 rings if not for Russels Celtics, because he was a better player than, Duncan, Ewing, Robinson or Hakeem. Spurs in Robinson's prime in their best seasons lost to the Jazz in 4 games of the first round coming off a 55 win season, a year in which the Jazz did not go on to finals. 94-95, 62 win season, lost to the Rockets in 6, Knicks pushed them to 7 games in the finals. 95-96, won 59 games and lost to the Jazz in 6 games a team that did not go the finals yet again. Spurs in those years were seen as favorites to go the finals. They were not seen as underdogs in any sense of the word, they were blasted for underachieving in those years. I get that it is a lot of speculation on both our parts but i believe that Ewing got more out of his team than did Robinson. Robinson had to get his Spurs to the finals in 1 of those seasons for me to say he is better than Ewing. As far as be being better or even as good as Duncan, i think that is downright laughable.

No need going into the Bulls, because I don’t think Jordan would have won squat without Pippen, and I actually think that if you put Jordan in the Spurs team of the early 90’s, the only team that could have remotely won anything would be the 89-90 team, with Rod Strickland and Terry Cummings, but that is not the point.
If you allow me to summarize your argument, it’s the Ewing is better than Robinson because the Knicks were better than the Spurs, with absolutely NO regard of Ewing’s supporting cast nor coaching, which are both much better than Robinson. And the reason the Knicks are better than the Spurs is because they were more competitive against a bunch of teams that the Spurs have never played in the playoffs? Not saying the Eastern Conference were the Bulls and a bunch of high school teams, but the disparity in talent in the two conferences are laughable. In fact, many analyst argued back in the day that the Spurs, Blazers, Jazz, Sonics, Rockets and Suns were so beat up, that they were burned out by the time they reach the finals and face the Bulls, who only had to go through the Knicks and the Pacers (later on in the decade).
And you are actually penalizing Robinson’s greatest for taking a team that featured a bunch of nobodies and some coaches who never managed to get other head coaching jobs by making them over achieve in the regular season? Honestly, ask yourself, take the 62 win Spurs, how many games would you think a Bob Hill coached team, mind you, who is a coach who couldn’t land another head coaching gig for another decade or so after he got canned by the Spurs, with a lineup of Sean Elliott, Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, Dennis Rodman, Chuck Person and J.R. Reid could win in the regular season? 20? 25? Hell, I will put in 35 wins, which is an extremely inflated number, given it’s about the same as the Celtics, Warriors, and Rockets won last year with far more superior talent, that means Robinson, by himself, is worth about 27 wins. Could you say the same for Ewing?
Let’s put it another way, the worst Robinson ever did in his prime was led the Spurs to “only” 47 wins, the year where Robinson missed the final 14 games of the season with a broken wrist, also the year where the Spurs were swept out of the first round by the Suns.
Can the same be said of Ewing? Hell no, because we KNOW that the Knicks missed the playoffs in his rookie year. So he was injured and only played 50 games? What about his sophomore year? Missed the playoffs AGAIN despite playing 63 games? The year after that? Won 38 games and lost in the 1st round as a 7th seed. The least I can say about Robinson is that he never missed the playoffs when he played over SIX games a year, and helped the Spurs to Midwest Division titles 4 times and never lower than 2nd when his teammates are a bunch of weak players that shouldn’t even be in the league!
Look at the 62 win team again, Avery Johnson started in 82 games, Elliott 81 games, Vinny Del Negro 71 (are you kidding me? He was so bad, he couldn’t get consistent minutes with the suck-ass Sac teams in the early 90s, and the Milwaukee teams after he left the Spurs), JR Reid in 37 games, Dennis Rodman in another 20 or so games. That team was so devoid of talent, it shouldn’t even BE in the playoffs. But guess what? Robinson dragged them there. Now that they are in the playoffs, the other team goes “Guess what? I will let the other guys beat us, let’s double/triple Robinson every chance we got, because we KNOW that they can’t get any points even though they are wide opened.” They were right! It’s not that hard to beat one-man teams, see T-Mac and the Magic, see Bosh and the Raptors, see Shaq and the Magic in 92, see Hakeem and the late 80’s/early 90’s Rockets, see Barkley and the 76ers in the same time frame. The only difference? Robinson actually got those otherwise extremely weak teams into the playoffs, and you are penalizing him for it?
See your own point about Wilt, he lost to a better team, the Spurs lost to better teams, so why would Wilt not be penalized in your eyes? Why are you applying different rules to different players under the same circumstances? I can say the Spurs GM SUCKED in the 90’s, wasting the prime years of one of the best players to ever play the game of basketball, but that is not his fault.
I always thought Duncan > Robinson because of the rings, but I am not so sure about that anymore. I would say that Robinson probably wouldn’t have won the rings in Duncan’s role, but I doubt Duncan would have the level of success Robinson had with those 90’s Spurs.

[Sec24Row7]

He is getting talked down by people who are trying to make conversation or controversy during playoff matches.

When his career is over, he will have to be considered one of the all time greats... even if he never wins another championship.

If you didnt play on the Bulls, Lakers or Celtics there is no way you could get 3 titles in a career on one team unless you played with Tim Duncan.

I'm Pretty sure thats true.

That's actually pretty impressive.

[dbreiden83080]

No need going into the Bulls, because I don’t think Jordan would have won squat without Pippen, and I actually think that if you put Jordan in the Spurs team of the early 90’s, the only team that could have remotely won anything would be the 89-90 team, with Rod Strickland and Terry Cummings, but that is not the point.
If you allow me to summarize your argument, it’s the Ewing is better than Robinson because the Knicks were better than the Spurs, with absolutely NO regard of Ewing’s supporting cast nor coaching, which are both much better than Robinson.

I have no clue why you just said this when i in 2 posts now i have adressed the supporting cast that Ewing had. He had the better coach in Riley during their best years but not the better supporting cast. They were on par in that area, you are trying to act like Ewing had an excellent supporting cast and that was never the case. Had Ewing had that great 2nd player they would have beat the Bulls once or twice because they were close a few times when it was Ewing out there trying to do it all. Both these guys are great players and had great careers, but if Duncan does not come along and Robinson retired with no rings, he would not be viewed as better than Ewing. The perception is that he is better than Ewing because of those rings, in spite of the fact that Duncan was the dominant force that made that happen. We can agree to disagree on this one, i just feel that Ewing did more with about the same level of talent around him. I believe he wanted to win more than Robinson did and he got more out of his teamates as a result.

[Phenomanul]

I have no clue why you just said this when i in 2 posts now i have adressed the supporting cast that Ewing had. He had the better coach in Riley during their best years but not the better supporting cast. They were on par in that area, you are trying to act like Ewing had an excellent supporting cast and that was never the case. Had Ewing had that great 2nd player they would have beat the Bulls once or twice because they were close a few times when it was Ewing out there trying to do it all. Both these guys are great players and had great careers, but if Duncan does not come along and Robinson retired with no rings, he would not be viewed as better than Ewing. The perception is that he is better than Ewing because of those rings, in spite of the fact that Duncan was the dominant force that made that happen. We can agree to disagree on this one, i just feel that Ewing did more with about the same level of talent around him. I believe he wanted to win more than Robinson did and he got more out of his teamates as a result.


For Ewing to be considered a better basketball player than Robinson he would at least have had to beat him at something, no?

Frankly nothing comes to mind... except maybe at hitting fallaway 15 ft jumpers.

Robinson was a more talented,
more athletic player,
faster player,
a better defender (better shotblocker, steals man, and rebounder)
did more with less (check out who won the IBM award in back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back seasons - Robinson meant more to his team than any other player did to theirs).

I would therefore have to disagree with your assessment based on that alone. Again, I'm not even factoring in Robinson's titles... cause again, much more than talent alone factors into winning championships... TEAMS win championships.

[dbreiden83080]

Robinson was a more talented,
more athletic player,
faster player,
a better defender (better shotblocker, steals man, and rebounder)

.

People all say those same things about D-Rob compared to Duncan and yet the consensus is that Tim was the better player.

[Phenomanul]

People all say those same things about D-Rob compared to Duncan and yet the consensus is that Tim was the better player.


Because again the mass "consensus" is based on the perception that the number of titles determines your status as a player without regard to the other facets of the game.

I'll use your own example to present my point.
I believe Wilt to be the 2nd or 3rd greatest player of all-time and I'm not even sure he makes it that high on most people's lists. But how many titles did he manage to win? Does that make him any lesser of a player than Russell? The answer is NO.

Besides, the typical fan does not recall specific matchups, remember teammates, playoff series (mistakes, tactics, injuries), much less even take the time to watch games played by other teams not their own. The typical fan is pretty ignorant when it all comes down to it. The consensus of the masses therefore will always be skewed toward the larger fan-bases and is unfortunately regurgitated by the media types without regard for truth or objectivity... but what is truth? Isn't this debate entirely opinion-based to begin with?

[ambchang]

I have no clue why you just said this when i in 2 posts now i have adressed the supporting cast that Ewing had. He had the better coach in Riley during their best years but not the better supporting cast. They were on par in that area, you are trying to act like Ewing had an excellent supporting cast and that was never the case. Had Ewing had that great 2nd player they would have beat the Bulls once or twice because they were close a few times when it was Ewing out there trying to do it all. Both these guys are great players and had great careers, but if Duncan does not come along and Robinson retired with no rings, he would not be viewed as better than Ewing. The perception is that he is better than Ewing because of those rings, in spite of the fact that Duncan was the dominant force that made that happen. We can agree to disagree on this one, i just feel that Ewing did more with about the same level of talent around him. I believe he wanted to win more than Robinson did and he got more out of his teamates as a result.
Simply you stating it doesn't make it true. Convince me how Starks + Oakley + Anthony Mason = Sean Elliott + Rodman + whoever. because the all-star appearances and all-defensive team appearances certainly didn't agree with that. I never said Ewing had an excellent supporting cast, I said Robinson had a terrible supporting cast. Outside of Sean Elliott, who, as a slasher earlier on in his career is not a perfect compliment for Robinson's game, there is NOBODY who should be a starter in the league. And no, an insane Rodman shouldn't even have been in the league.
I don't know what would happen if Ewing had one more great 2nd player, because I am not sure what great means, but he had Starks, Oakley, Mark Jackson, Mason, Vanderwedge, Cartright, and later on, Larry Johnson, and he didn't capitalize. And I STILL couldn't understand how Ewing advancing to the finals in a far weaker conference (the year Jordan retired) would be any evidence that he is better than Robinson. What has Ewing done more than Robinson? (All numbers in his prime from 86 to 96) Missed two playoffs? Got kicked out in the 1st round twice? Got kicked out of the 2nd round 5 times?
Robinson, from 89 to 96, missed the playoffs zero times, got kicked out of the first round thrice (once with RObinson injured) and lost in the 2nd round thrice despite far weaker supporting cast and coaching. Robinson's supporting cast is so terrible, that he led the Spurs to the biggest turnaround in NBA history (at that point, along with Strickland and Cummings), and lost 29 more games the year he was injured.
Final question, and this is a legit question, were you watching basketball in the early 90's? because if you were, you would be the first to ever say that Ewing > Robinson strictly judging by their accomplishments up till 1998. During that period (mind you, that includes the year Robinson played only 6 games), Ewing was all-nba 1st team once (in Robinson's Rookie year), and 2nd team 4 times, all-defense once, with zero MVP awards, zero rebounding titles, zero scoring titles, zero blocks title, and never led his team in assists.
Robinson, on the other hand, was DPoY once, MVP once, led the league in scoring once, led the league in blocks once, led the league in rebounding once, All-nba 1st 4 times, all NBA 2nd once, all NBA 3rd twice, all defence 1st 4 times, all defense 2nd 4 times, led his team in assists once (that alone tells you how bad his point guards are.
Look at it, it's not even CLOSE. Back in those days, it was Robinson and Hakeem, Ewing was clearly 2nd tier, and Shaq didn't even break through until 97/98, when both Hakeem and Robinson were done.

[Sec24Row7]

Robinson would have dominated Russel.

Wilt would have given him fits.