PDA

View Full Version : Robinson in today's game



ambchang
11-16-2006, 04:58 PM
With all the talk about the new rules favouring the quicker players, I can’t help but think about how David Robinson would have done with these rules in his prime. People rave about Amare Stoudemire and his atheleticism, but the ones who saw David Robinson in his prime know that he is just as atheletic as Amare, but bigger, stronger, and much better defensively. So he was basically a bigger Amare on offense, and Ben Wallace on defense. I would think that he would have dominated more than he did back in the mid 90s. If only the Admiral was 15 years younger.

dbreiden83080
11-16-2006, 05:05 PM
With all the talk about the new rules favouring the quicker players, I can’t help but think about how David Robinson would have done with these rules in his prime. People rave about Amare Stoudemire and his atheleticism, but the ones who saw David Robinson in his prime know that he is just as atheletic as Amare, but bigger, stronger, and much better defensively. So he was basically a bigger Amare on offense, and Ben Wallace on defense. I would think that he would have dominated more than he did back in the mid 90s. If only the Admiral was 15 years younger.

The dream would have been Timmy and David in their primes together, now that would have brought in maybe 7 or 8 titles in a 10 or 11 year span.

lrrr
11-16-2006, 07:26 PM
One can only dream... But if David was still in his prime without injuries, TD wouldn't have gone to the Spurs...

The days of having two megastars (both in their prime) on one team are pretty much over. The last was Kobe and Shaq, and that lakers team was constructed PRE salary cap. Everyone one makes a big deal about the Spurs not being able to repeat, but since the introduction of the cap, no one has done it, and with the resulting parity in the league, I think it will be a long time before anyone will.

TDMVPDPOY
11-16-2006, 08:09 PM
think dwight howard with a jumpshot.....

SenorSpur
11-16-2006, 09:16 PM
I would have liked to have seen Dave and Amare go head-to-head.

samikeyp
11-16-2006, 09:22 PM
He would be lauded for his talent and at the same time ridculed for not being "me" enough. Some dumbass at Slam mag or somewhere would diss him for not having street cred and imply that he is somehow a weak person because he doesn't have a ho in every city, 100 tattoos or use a lot of bad words.

Phenomanul
11-17-2006, 09:31 AM
He would be lauded for his talent and at the same time ridculed for not being "me" enough. Some dumbass at Slam mag or somewhere would diss him for not having street cred and imply that he is somehow a weak person because he doesn't have a ho in every city, 100 tattoos or use a lot of bad words.


One of the main reasons why he doesn't get enough credit to this day...

Nikos
11-17-2006, 10:02 AM
He would likely be the best player in the league, but who knows by how much? He pretty much was as good or better than Shaq and Hakeem in his prime years -- until Hakeem outplayed him 1995. But in the regular season he was the superior player to Hakeem, and about as good as Shaq in his prime.

Duncanoypi
11-17-2006, 11:29 AM
for a while im thinking Robinson will be in tonights game against the Bulls....lol

so whats the big deal?...lol

Jimcs50
11-17-2006, 11:31 AM
Yeah, but he was "boring" too...so nobody would have noticed his talent like they do with Amare.

:rolleyes

Jimcs50
11-17-2006, 11:32 AM
From what I hear, Dwight Howard is almost a carbon copy of DRob as far as being a great upstanding person and character guy. I wish him all the best. The sports world needs more like him.

ambchang
11-17-2006, 12:25 PM
He would be lauded for his talent and at the same time ridculed for not being "me" enough. Some dumbass at Slam mag or somewhere would diss him for not having street cred and imply that he is somehow a weak person because he doesn't have a ho in every city, 100 tattoos or use a lot of bad words.

I thought that was what happened to him back in the 90's anyways. :lol
I am still struggling to understand how a guy who led the league in dunks, rebounds and blocks could be considered a soft guy, and it's just ridiculous to put that soft label on him after he guarded an in-the-prime Shaq in the playoffs, one-on-one, with a floating particle in his back.

samikeyp
11-17-2006, 01:34 PM
I am still struggling to understand how a guy who led the league in dunks, rebounds and blocks could be considered a soft guy, and it's just ridiculous to put that soft label on him after he guarded an in-the-prime Shaq in the playoffs, one-on-one, with a floating particle in his back.

agreed...sadly in the 90's the culture where apperances on Sportcenter became more important than team success began and we are fully entrenched within it now. These days things like sportsmanship and respect are replaced by selfishness and contempt by a lot of players and fans. On one hand the media blasts these players for their behavior but its those players who get all the attention. You have players all over the league who do great things for their cities and are good sports and they get pushed back. I never got the soft thing either....to me, if you have the ability to do the hard work it takes to make the NBA, you cannot be soft.

STEVEYCU
11-17-2006, 07:13 PM
yeah the whole soft thing never made since ... If the only way you wernt soft is by how many rings you got then the only players who were "hard" were Jordan, Pippen and Hakeem in the 90's.
Dave went out with 2 rings so im thinkin Barkley, Stockton , and Malone were way "soft"

dbreiden83080
11-17-2006, 11:39 PM
yeah the whole soft thing never made since ... If the only way you wernt soft is by how many rings you got then the only players who were "hard" were Jordan, Pippen and Hakeem in the 90's.
Dave went out with 2 rings so im thinkin Barkley, Stockton , and Malone were way "soft"

It still amazes me that a top 5 all time PG in Stockton and a top i say 3 ever PF in Malone played together for so many years in their primes and won zero titles and only made it to 2 finals.

SequSpur
11-18-2006, 01:34 PM
David Robinson is the reason the Spurs are still here.

dbreiden83080
11-18-2006, 04:05 PM
David Robinson is the reason the Spurs are still here.

But Duncan is the main reason they got to the top of the mountain 3 times over.

boutons_
11-18-2006, 04:08 PM
"Duncan is the main reason they got to the top of the mountain 3 times over."

That's true, but not complete. Pop and his origanization are a key reason that both Tim and David got rings, instead retiring ring-less like a Malone or a Garnett or Barkley.

Do you think the Celtics coaches since Tim has come into NBA would have won titles with Tim?

Zunni
11-18-2006, 04:15 PM
I would have liked to have seen Dave and Amare go head-to-head.
David wins, and it's not close. He played both offense and defense, and is the athletic match for Amare.

dbreiden83080
11-18-2006, 05:22 PM
"Duncan is the main reason they got to the top of the mountain 3 times over."

That's true, but not complete. Pop and his origanization are a key reason that both Tim and David got rings, instead retiring ring-less like a Malone or a Garnett or Barkley.

Do you think the Celtics coaches since Tim has come into NBA would have won titles with Tim?

Well i doubt all these coaches would have come through Boston over the years if Tim had indeed gone there. Patino would not have got it done though, he was never a great NBA coach.

reydawg
11-18-2006, 06:51 PM
The dream would have been Timmy and David in their primes together, now that would have brought in maybe 7 or 8 titles in a 10 or 11 year span.

Really? 8 titles in 11 years?

I think no less than 11.

Bob Lanier
11-18-2006, 07:37 PM
David wins, and it's not close. He played both offense and defense, and is the athletic match for Amare.
Exactly, which is why the comparisons from some quarters between Robinson and Dwight Howard are so puzzling to me. Howard alone of the three of them has a go-to postup move, but he doesn't have the versatility of Robinson, isn't quite the rebounder that Robinson was, and plays no more defense than does Amare.