Spot Number 1 - Top 50 Spurs

(obscure reference alert!)

C'mon people! Timmy didn't even know that the Gnome was out until Dave told him!
:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samikeyp

(obscure reference alert!)

C'mon people! Timmy didn't even know that the Gnome was out until Dave told him!
:lol

---

no one can deny tim duncan's accomplishments. robinson was a great player but duncan is one of the best ever. there are very little people on any team and during any era who can match duncan's accomplishments and leadership. some say that robinson created the current culture of the spurs but i think it was duncan who solidified it by bringing back the championship trophies. the defensive culture of the spurs wouldn't have lasted long if they could not win championships. duncan brought that and permanently cemented the spurs' legacy in the nba.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duncan228

---

That commercial always makes me smile. :downspin:

whatever happened to "its the name on the front of the jersey, not the name on the back" :stirpot:

i havent been a fan as long as some others, but if its about the SAN ANTONIO spurs, and not who the best player is, i would think the list should be something like:

1. Drossos (for bringing the team to SA)
2. Gervin (for allowing them to survive the merger)
3. Drob (for allowing a small market team to survive the 90's spendathon)
4. Duncan (for making them winners)

the rest i dont really know enough about... except that manu, parker and bowen have to be in the top 15 somewhere

Without Tim Duncan, Spurs would not be in San Antonio anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by century

Without Tim Duncan, Spurs would not be in San Antonio anymore.

---

Very true.

As it was true with David Robinson before him and George Gervin before DRob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Admiral

Is he? I think it's difficult to conclude that. A few key stats regarding DRob's place in NBA history:

-Won the scoring title, rebounding title, and blocked shots title during his career. The only other player in NBA history to do that is Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

-Only player in NBA history to be named to the All-NBA team and All-Defensive team each of his first seven seasons.

-One of the 50 Greatest Players of all-time.

We know about the many awards David won (MVP, Rookie of the Year, Defensive Player of the Year, etc.). We are aware that he is the US Olympic Team's all-time leader in scoring, rebounding, and blocked shots. Most of us know that he won the IBM Award five times. Those things are all outstanding and should not be ignored. But what sets him apart in my mind is that he often did more with less.

Many people will vote for Duncan because of the four championships, or perhaps because they are young and became Spurs fans only after Duncan became a Spur. But anyone who watched our team during the 1990's knows that we were among the NBA's best teams despite having less talent than most of the other contenders. Think about it:

-Michael Jordan had Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, and a nice cast of role players to help him look good.
-Hakeem Olajuwon had Clyde Drexler, Otis Thorpe, Sam Cassell, Robert Horry, etc.
-Karl Malone had John Stockton, Byron Russell, etc.
-Charles Barkley had Kevin Johnson, Cedric Ceballos, etc.
-David Robinson had Sean Elliott - as well as Vinny Del Negro, Negele Knight, Charles Smith, and a volatile Dennis Rodman.

See the disconnect there? Not only that, but DRob was the victim of some horrible coaches like Jerry Tarkanian and Bob Hill. John Lucas was okay but hardly considered a good coach. An argument could be made that all three of those coaches were unprepared to be NBA coaches.

Contrast this with Tim Duncan's situation. He had David Robinson, one of the best big men to ever play the game. Give David someone like that, and we would've won multiple titles in the 1990's. But Tim has also had Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, and some outstanding role players - not to mention Gregg Popovich as his coach. I'm not taking anything away from Tim because he is an outstanding player. But there is no arguing that Tim has had a much better situation than DRob ever had. It's not even close.

The real question is, would Tim have done what David did - which is amazing by any standard - if his supporting cast and coaching staff were as subpar as David's usually were? I don't think he would've. And that is the main reason why I voted for David.

Oh yeah, and as a bonus he also did a thing or two for the city of San Antonio and was a decent representative for our team. ;)

---

Preach on, my brother. I've long felt if Dave would've had the FO support afforded Tim, he wouldn't have had to wait as long to win a title. The Spurs teams of the late 80's and early '90's (pre-Pop) were a beacon of inconsistency - both on the court and in the front-office. Coaches changed, players changed.

Duncan possesses a single-minded greatness that few have ever matched. He will go down as the best PF in NBA history. However, it cannot be understated that by the time Duncan's career is over, he would've played with 2 sure-fire HOF teammates in Manu and Tony. David, on the other hand, was never part of any such Big Three. In his early years, he had Terry Cummings and Sean Elliott. Neither was or will ever be a HOF player.

Sigh.

I really miss David. I was just a little fart, hadn't even discovered my penis yet when I fell in love with him and the Spurs. Can't believe I am 23, and that he is long gone. And when they go much like Duncan will, you'll wonder where all those years went.

/emu

There are only three possible choices: Robinson, Gervin, and Drossos.

Basically without Drossos there would be no Gervin, and without Gervin there would be no NBA team and no Robinson. Robinson, however, is the major reason for the current glory days, both in terms of championship and character.

I'm going to go with DRob 1A, Gervin 1B, and Drossos 1C.

Tim Duncan is their best player ever, but he never saved the franchise.

Anybody who votes for Manu or Tony is a clown.

No votes for Gervin? That is unbelievably embarrassing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

No votes for Gervin? That is unbelievably embarrassing.

---

Not really. It comes down to Robinson or Drossos to me and DRob by a wide margin. imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggems

Is it choking when DRob was the option and all opponents had to do was double, triple, and even quatruple team him to slow him down and render the Spurs ineffective? Is it David's fault that he put up his, but his teammates disappeared in the postseason?

Put David on this current Spurs team, instead of Duncan, and I firmly believe the Spurs are still as dominant, if not more.

But if we go by sheer accolades and success, Duncan would have to be 1, David 2, and Gervin 3. And although, I would list David as my number 1......for the overall unbiased list....I think the Duncan, Robinson, Gervin listing fits perfectly. Quite frankly, I am just ecstatic that we, as Spurs fans, have gotten the honor to enjoy the careers of all 3 great players.

GO SPURS GO

---

there's no doubt that Duncan's supporting cast was definitely better from 2006(maybe 2005) until 2008..the rest is arguable(not counting the early years where Robinson was still near his prime)..but I don't buy that argument against Tim..in case everybody forgot, Duncan's supporting cast was FAR from great from 2001 until 2004..it was solid, but he didn't have anybody on the team that was even nearly an all-star..it was always Tim vs. the Lakers with little help..the 2003 team is regarded by many to be the worst supporting cast to WIN A TITLE in NBA history..full of solid role players, but not one complimentary player..

I think a lot of people forget how dominant Tim was in his MVP years..the rest of the team played horribly in the 2003 playoffs, he was the one dominating..of course we had people step up at times(like Jax and Kerr for instance) but Duncan was focused on for those entire playoffs, and put up amazing stats..he led our team in points, rebounds, blocks and ASSISTS during the playoffs..almost led in FG% as well..Tim just elevates his game to a new level in the playoffs, even with a weaker supporting cast compared to what he has right now..nobody can win a title without a good supporting cast, but Tim won a title with a relatively weak supporting cast compared to other championship teams..

I'm gonna have to go with Drossos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

There are only three possible choices: Robinson, Gervin, and Drossos.

Basically without Drossos there would be no Gervin, and without Gervin there would be no NBA team and no Robinson. Robinson, however, is the major reason for the current glory days, both in terms of championship and character.

I'm going to go with DRob 1A, Gervin 1B, and Drossos 1C.

Tim Duncan is their best player ever, but he never saved the franchise.

---

I'm going to have to disagree. I was going to vote for Robinson but I thought of it more and realized that all four of those people saved the franchise one way or another.

First Drossos was the driving force behind the very existence of the franchise. He helped secure the original ABA franchise, he went out and got Gervin, fought to keep that trade valid and then basically refused to be ignored and got the Spurs into the NBA. He definitely deserves a lot of credit and really shouldn't fall out of the top four in this list.

Then you have Gervin who brought the entertainment value to the Spurs and put them on the map. Without Gervin, the Spurs likely don't draw the crowds and then they don't have the financial stability to last. Without Gervin, the chances San Antonio is let into the NBA are probably close to zero. San Antonio needed a superstar to survive and he definitely was just that.

Robinson has been covered extensively in this thread and he is due of all the praise he has been given. He came to San Antonio, saw the rich tradition of the franchise and realized that if he didn't sign with the Spurs, the Spurs would have died. Out of pure and possibly unfounded loyalty he kept the Spurs afloat numerous times when he could have easily turned his back and gone on to greener surroundings. But he decided that keeping the Spurs alive was more important than money, fame and championship. And even today, he remains a big part of everything.

But to say Duncan didn't save the Spurs isn't accurate. If the Spurs don't win the 1999 championship, the SBC Center never gets built and the Spurs leave. The difference with Duncan and Robinson is that Robinson overtly saved the franchise ... while Duncan just so happened to save the franchise on his way to winning championships. Robinson was dedicated to San Antonio, the Spurs and keeping the legacy. Duncan is dedicated to winning championships. But even though Duncan has different motives, the result of saving the franchise was the same. If the Spurs didn't turn into a championship franchise when they did, they were on the chopping block to be sent packing. All the hard work from Drossos, Gervin and Robinson would have been lost.

Now if you consider all four of those individuals as franchise savers, I think Duncan barely takes the lead over Robinson. By a very, very narrow margin. And really, it's not a fair playing field because Robinson suffered perhaps the worst run organization and worst set of teammates around him during his prime of any superstar in NBA history. On the other hand, Duncan probably stepped into one of the three or four best situations of anyone in NBA history. But sports is results driven and Duncan has helped deliver all four championships and his passive aggressive demand of continued winning has kept the Spurs at a high level for a long amount of time. Duncan definitely has received a tremendous amount of help throughout the years and lucked into the situation he fell into but he has taken the Spurs from a storybook franchise to a championship franchise that will one day be remembered for this dominant stretch we are currently witnessing.

It is really damn close but I have to put Duncan as number one, with a sincere tip of the hat to the other three individuals who made it possible for the Spurs to become what they are today.

This is a little nit-picky but I wouldn't say Duncan saved the franchise because I believe without him it would still exist...but I don't think it would exist in SA. So it could be said he saved the San Antonio Spurs....they very well could be in St. Louis, New Orleans or Nashville right now.

All that being said...good cases are made for all of them and this was a great idea for a thread.

:toast to timvp.

:) timvp breaking it down in his usual voice of reason.

And I agree, a :toast is well deserved. This thread is great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

Tim Duncan is their best player ever, but he never saved the franchise.

---

I dare to disagree with you on that one.
Even during the 1999 Finals there were voices Baltimore will be the next home for the Spurs. It has changed since then.

Maybe it changed since there were plans for building SBC Center - but if not for Tim I do not know if there still would be an interest to do money on basketball building a new arena.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samikeyp

This is a little nit-picky but I wouldn't say Duncan saved the franchise because I believe without him it would still exist...but I don't think it would exist in SA. So it could be said he saved the San Antonio Spurs....they very well could be in St. Louis, New Orleans or Nashville right now.

---

Pretty true. However, then you'd have to use the same logic against Robinson and maybe Gervin. Drossos is on pretty solid ground using this logic, however if he would have left early on, McCombs might have stepped forward to pull the Spurs through the NBA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lj

But to say Duncan didn't save the Spurs isn't accurate. If the Spurs don't win the 1999 championship, the SBC Center never gets built and the Spurs leave. The difference with Duncan and Robinson is that Robinson overtly saved the franchise ... while Duncan just so happened to save the franchise on his way to winning championships. Robinson was dedicated to San Antonio, the Spurs and keeping the legacy. Duncan is dedicated to winning championships. But even though Duncan has different motives, the result of saving the franchise was the same. If the Spurs didn't turn into a championship franchise when they did, they were on the chopping block to be sent packing. All the hard work from Drossos, Gervin and Robinson would have been lost.

---

yup

when you write a post 10 minutes then you gonna get "beat to it"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Pretty true. However, then you'd have to use the same logic against Robinson and maybe Gervin. Drossos is on pretty solid ground using this logic, however if he would have left early on, McCombs might have stepped forward to pull the Spurs through the NBA.

---

True, like he helped out the team in the late 80's when he bought the majority stake in the team when they needed new ownership.


Of course he also hired Jerry Tarkanian! :lol or as he referred to him once "Coach Tarkington" :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polandprzem

I dare to disagree with you on that one.
Even during the 1999 Finals there were voices Baltimore will be the next home for the Spurs. It has changed since then.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

It is really damn close but I have to put Duncan as number one, with a sincere tip of the hat to the other three individuals who made it possible for the Spurs to become what they are today.

---

And I'm going to have to disagree because of this: if Tim Duncan had never come along, the Spurs still have a solid history from 1973-2000, even if there aren't any titles. For many, Duncan didn't make us any more of a Spurs fan than we already were.

Drossos and Gervin took the Spurs from zero and made them viable. Asking whether they were more important than Duncan is like asking whether James Naismith was more important than David Stern.

In the end, the reason I voted Robinson was that he had the hardest job of them all, taking what was no longer a novelty (a pro team in SA), maintaining its popularity despite circumstances that weren't optimal, and serving as the bridge and role model for a dominant franchise.

Oh, and BTW, Angelo Drossos made Peter Holt look like Dan Synder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

Oh, and BTW, Angelo Drossos made Peter Holt look like Dan Synder.

---

:lol

That rumble you heard was Angelo spinning in his grave. :)