wijayas
04-27-2008, 07:59 AM
While discussing their fate after Game 3, I stumbled upon this. Amazing. Not all Suns fans are stupid or whiners or anything. We should our eyes to their comments posted here. I think they appreciate greatness as much as we do.
A good start Suns fans.:toast
http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2008/4/26/460975/game-3-recap-eating-crow-a#comments
The Spurs are a powerhouse…anybody that say Tim Duncan is not a top 10 all-timer is crazy….the thing I like about Timmy’s all to boring-yet-highly-effective game is that he does whatever it takes to win…WHATEVER IT TAKES. I know Parker and Genobili are going supernova on us but Timmy is the man. Anybody that doesn’t respect this guys skills does really understand the game. Say what you will, but you would have to start your team with this guy. In his prime over Kobe or Lebron….he’s that good… now enough with this crap….Sun’s lets pull a Red Sox’s over Yankees in 04…they were down 3-0…wishful thinking huhh
by Ron_da1 on Apr 26, 2008 1:31 PM MDT reply 0 recs
Duncan
IMO, even among today’s crop of players, Duncan is underrated.
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 26, 2008 1:33 PM MDT reply 0 recs
I don't think hes underrated
Everyone knows hes one of the greatest 4 of all time (even if he plays the 5 just as much). Lucky for most of the league he is getting older and even the best eventually slow down (I think your cactus is good enough example)
Shaq:"The kobster, he's an assassin" Answer for who should be mvp.
by ldeep on Apr 26, 2008 2:02 PM MDT reply 0 recs
4/5 Controversey
Seriously, there is no way Duncan is a 4. At all.
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 26, 2008 3:09 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
Not a 4 at all?
Why not? Sure Oberto isn’t a known Centre, but I wonder if the Spurs had an established C, whether this arguement would have any substance to it? Amare is a 4, he’s played at both 4 and 5, PF/C, same thing with Duncan??
by dang on Apr 26, 2008 3:52 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
Amare
I’m glad you bring up Amare. Amare is a 4. In style of play and in body size and in ability to defend size. We’ve played him at the 5 for years. Thus, in effect, Phoenix has been playing 2 guards and 3 forwards instead of 2 G, 2F and 1C. The point there is that the players a team on the court, while they are labeled as 2G’s, 2F’s, and 1C, aren’t always those positions. So, even when the Admiral was playing for the Spurs, the Spurs were playing 2G, 1F and 2C. RIght now, when Oberto and Duncan are playing, Spurs are playing a PF at C and a C at PF. When Thomas and Duncan play, they are playing 2 C’s at PF and C. The confusion arises from the fact that boxscores require you to label at least one of the players on the court as a “C”. The Spurs have decided that as long as there is another C or PF on court, Duncan will not be labeled “C.”
Also, when you consider “era,” for the majority of Duncan’s career, he has played in an era when PF was not much of a power position and most teams stacked more versatile players at that position. Given this, I feel Duncan is a C.
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 26, 2008 3:59 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
My Reason for Wanting Duncan Recognized as a C
Look, Duncan is a great player and his name has been written in the history books time and again. He can hold his own on the historic list of all-time great centers.
When we compare him to the list of all-time great 4’s, though, we see that Duncan is very different in terms of body size and style of play than a large number of people on that list. However, when we consider Duncan with the all-time great 5’s, this difference is smaller. So why label him a 4 just so we can say he is the greatest ever at his position?
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 26, 2008 4:04 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
When Duncan started, the Spurs DID have an established C – name was David Robinson… an Amare-type player, but with a better jumper, better defense, and better decision making. You might not remember him…
chaos... panic... pandemonium... my work here is done.
by rick.2g on Apr 26, 2008 9:21 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
Underrated
I don’t think he’s underrated on the all-time list. In fact, I think the argument can be made that best 4 of all time for Duncan might be overrated. If we consider him with the fives, as I think we should, it would be tough making a top 5 argument for him. But in today’s game, he is hardly mentioned by analysts as one of the top 3 or even top 5 players in the league. I think he belongs in the top 3 if not top 1.
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 26, 2008 3:12 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
I keep replying
It’s also never mentioned how fast Duncan is aging. This is his 11th year in the league and he is showing signs of wear and tear. For comparison, Shaq’s eleventh year in the league was 02-03. Wow. Garnett’s 11th was 05-06, one year removed from his MVP campaign. Kobe’s 11th year was last year.
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 26, 2008 3:16 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
It's true
he is showing some signs of age but when comparing him to those players you have to remember he’s already played over 100 playoff games, that’s an entire season plus some. i know all of those other guys played a lot of playoff games too but that brings me to my next point, he stayed in college for 4 years and is 32. after kg’s 11th season he had only played in 47 playoff games and was still 29. so it’s not really a fair comparison
by Stymo on Apr 26, 2008 4:13 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
Good Point
I counted up KG’s minutes vs. Duncan’s minutes during their first 11 years in the league and Duncan came out about 5,000 ahead. It’s interesting to note that about 4,000 of these were from the playoffs and their regular season minutes played were almost equal. A fairer comparison by minutes of the two would be the Current Duncan vs. KG in the middle of the 06-07 season. Still, Duncan seems to be aging faster than KG was then (perhaps due to more banging in the post). Even Shaq had played fewer minutes (3000 fewer) through his first 11 seasons. Interesting. I didn’t expect that. So I guess what’s not mentioned is not the fact that Duncan is aging fast but instead that the Spurs have used him very heavily in his ten years.
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 26, 2008 4:51 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
He still
looks pretty darn effective…and he’s adding 3 point range to his game
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on Apr 26, 2008 5:07 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
True
That franchise has definitely leaned on him his entire career. This year you could see they started running the offense through him less, i’m sure that will continue in the coming years and prolong his already hall of fame career. I’ve always said i hate 11/12th’s of the Spurs team, but I just can’t hate Timmy D.
by Stymo on Apr 26, 2008 5:21 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
TD
I like his jokes. I was watching this behind-the-scenes all-star game clip on nba.com and he walked up to CP3 ( who had apparently taken TD’s locker ) and teased him by saying “It’s okay, sit wherever you want, let me just move my stuff.” His humble attitude is also refreshing.
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 26, 2008 5:48 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
Duncan is the reason lottery teams tank
Lebron (Oden potentially) also. Winning the lottery 11 years ago changed the entire course of the Spurs franchise, and they went from the “softest” team in the league to a near dynasty. Without Jordan, Chicago would still be a never was.
by SoCalSun on Apr 26, 2008 8:47 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
It's not clear to me
whether you’re saying specifically that the Spurs tanked in 1996-97, or just that lottery teams tank in order to get a prize like Duncan. During that season, the Spurs were absolutely injury-depleted, the biggest ones being the Admiral, who played in just six games, and Sean Elliott , who missed more than half the season.
by 4Him on Apr 27, 2008 12:18 AM MDT up reply 0 recs
He should mean both
If you remember that spurs season the admiral was healthy enough for the last bunch of games but they didn’t bring him back. So in effect that is still tanking.
Shaq:"The kobster, he's an assassin" Answer for who should be mvp.
by ldeep on Apr 27, 2008 1:39 AM MDT up reply 0 recs
Addition
Also read dang’s post below. If we keep college minutes in mind, Duncan has likely played way more minutes through his first 11 years (NBA + college minutes) than either Shaq or Garnett. Thus, current Duncan is closer in “age” to Shaq after being traded from the Lakers and Garnett in (gasp) the future. Keeping that in mind, I would actually say that Duncan has aged somewhat gracefully instead of fast. Haha. How funny. I ended up believing the exact opposite of what I started off believing.
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 27, 2008 3:54 AM MDT up reply 0 recs
A good start Suns fans.:toast
http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2008/4/26/460975/game-3-recap-eating-crow-a#comments
The Spurs are a powerhouse…anybody that say Tim Duncan is not a top 10 all-timer is crazy….the thing I like about Timmy’s all to boring-yet-highly-effective game is that he does whatever it takes to win…WHATEVER IT TAKES. I know Parker and Genobili are going supernova on us but Timmy is the man. Anybody that doesn’t respect this guys skills does really understand the game. Say what you will, but you would have to start your team with this guy. In his prime over Kobe or Lebron….he’s that good… now enough with this crap….Sun’s lets pull a Red Sox’s over Yankees in 04…they were down 3-0…wishful thinking huhh
by Ron_da1 on Apr 26, 2008 1:31 PM MDT reply 0 recs
Duncan
IMO, even among today’s crop of players, Duncan is underrated.
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 26, 2008 1:33 PM MDT reply 0 recs
I don't think hes underrated
Everyone knows hes one of the greatest 4 of all time (even if he plays the 5 just as much). Lucky for most of the league he is getting older and even the best eventually slow down (I think your cactus is good enough example)
Shaq:"The kobster, he's an assassin" Answer for who should be mvp.
by ldeep on Apr 26, 2008 2:02 PM MDT reply 0 recs
4/5 Controversey
Seriously, there is no way Duncan is a 4. At all.
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 26, 2008 3:09 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
Not a 4 at all?
Why not? Sure Oberto isn’t a known Centre, but I wonder if the Spurs had an established C, whether this arguement would have any substance to it? Amare is a 4, he’s played at both 4 and 5, PF/C, same thing with Duncan??
by dang on Apr 26, 2008 3:52 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
Amare
I’m glad you bring up Amare. Amare is a 4. In style of play and in body size and in ability to defend size. We’ve played him at the 5 for years. Thus, in effect, Phoenix has been playing 2 guards and 3 forwards instead of 2 G, 2F and 1C. The point there is that the players a team on the court, while they are labeled as 2G’s, 2F’s, and 1C, aren’t always those positions. So, even when the Admiral was playing for the Spurs, the Spurs were playing 2G, 1F and 2C. RIght now, when Oberto and Duncan are playing, Spurs are playing a PF at C and a C at PF. When Thomas and Duncan play, they are playing 2 C’s at PF and C. The confusion arises from the fact that boxscores require you to label at least one of the players on the court as a “C”. The Spurs have decided that as long as there is another C or PF on court, Duncan will not be labeled “C.”
Also, when you consider “era,” for the majority of Duncan’s career, he has played in an era when PF was not much of a power position and most teams stacked more versatile players at that position. Given this, I feel Duncan is a C.
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 26, 2008 3:59 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
My Reason for Wanting Duncan Recognized as a C
Look, Duncan is a great player and his name has been written in the history books time and again. He can hold his own on the historic list of all-time great centers.
When we compare him to the list of all-time great 4’s, though, we see that Duncan is very different in terms of body size and style of play than a large number of people on that list. However, when we consider Duncan with the all-time great 5’s, this difference is smaller. So why label him a 4 just so we can say he is the greatest ever at his position?
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 26, 2008 4:04 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
When Duncan started, the Spurs DID have an established C – name was David Robinson… an Amare-type player, but with a better jumper, better defense, and better decision making. You might not remember him…
chaos... panic... pandemonium... my work here is done.
by rick.2g on Apr 26, 2008 9:21 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
Underrated
I don’t think he’s underrated on the all-time list. In fact, I think the argument can be made that best 4 of all time for Duncan might be overrated. If we consider him with the fives, as I think we should, it would be tough making a top 5 argument for him. But in today’s game, he is hardly mentioned by analysts as one of the top 3 or even top 5 players in the league. I think he belongs in the top 3 if not top 1.
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 26, 2008 3:12 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
I keep replying
It’s also never mentioned how fast Duncan is aging. This is his 11th year in the league and he is showing signs of wear and tear. For comparison, Shaq’s eleventh year in the league was 02-03. Wow. Garnett’s 11th was 05-06, one year removed from his MVP campaign. Kobe’s 11th year was last year.
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 26, 2008 3:16 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
It's true
he is showing some signs of age but when comparing him to those players you have to remember he’s already played over 100 playoff games, that’s an entire season plus some. i know all of those other guys played a lot of playoff games too but that brings me to my next point, he stayed in college for 4 years and is 32. after kg’s 11th season he had only played in 47 playoff games and was still 29. so it’s not really a fair comparison
by Stymo on Apr 26, 2008 4:13 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
Good Point
I counted up KG’s minutes vs. Duncan’s minutes during their first 11 years in the league and Duncan came out about 5,000 ahead. It’s interesting to note that about 4,000 of these were from the playoffs and their regular season minutes played were almost equal. A fairer comparison by minutes of the two would be the Current Duncan vs. KG in the middle of the 06-07 season. Still, Duncan seems to be aging faster than KG was then (perhaps due to more banging in the post). Even Shaq had played fewer minutes (3000 fewer) through his first 11 seasons. Interesting. I didn’t expect that. So I guess what’s not mentioned is not the fact that Duncan is aging fast but instead that the Spurs have used him very heavily in his ten years.
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 26, 2008 4:51 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
He still
looks pretty darn effective…and he’s adding 3 point range to his game
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on Apr 26, 2008 5:07 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
True
That franchise has definitely leaned on him his entire career. This year you could see they started running the offense through him less, i’m sure that will continue in the coming years and prolong his already hall of fame career. I’ve always said i hate 11/12th’s of the Spurs team, but I just can’t hate Timmy D.
by Stymo on Apr 26, 2008 5:21 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
TD
I like his jokes. I was watching this behind-the-scenes all-star game clip on nba.com and he walked up to CP3 ( who had apparently taken TD’s locker ) and teased him by saying “It’s okay, sit wherever you want, let me just move my stuff.” His humble attitude is also refreshing.
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 26, 2008 5:48 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
Duncan is the reason lottery teams tank
Lebron (Oden potentially) also. Winning the lottery 11 years ago changed the entire course of the Spurs franchise, and they went from the “softest” team in the league to a near dynasty. Without Jordan, Chicago would still be a never was.
by SoCalSun on Apr 26, 2008 8:47 PM MDT up reply 0 recs
It's not clear to me
whether you’re saying specifically that the Spurs tanked in 1996-97, or just that lottery teams tank in order to get a prize like Duncan. During that season, the Spurs were absolutely injury-depleted, the biggest ones being the Admiral, who played in just six games, and Sean Elliott , who missed more than half the season.
by 4Him on Apr 27, 2008 12:18 AM MDT up reply 0 recs
He should mean both
If you remember that spurs season the admiral was healthy enough for the last bunch of games but they didn’t bring him back. So in effect that is still tanking.
Shaq:"The kobster, he's an assassin" Answer for who should be mvp.
by ldeep on Apr 27, 2008 1:39 AM MDT up reply 0 recs
Addition
Also read dang’s post below. If we keep college minutes in mind, Duncan has likely played way more minutes through his first 11 years (NBA + college minutes) than either Shaq or Garnett. Thus, current Duncan is closer in “age” to Shaq after being traded from the Lakers and Garnett in (gasp) the future. Keeping that in mind, I would actually say that Duncan has aged somewhat gracefully instead of fast. Haha. How funny. I ended up believing the exact opposite of what I started off believing.
by RealTangiblesGuy on Apr 27, 2008 3:54 AM MDT up reply 0 recs