Spot Number 1 - Top 50 Spurs

Hey, the dude did what he had to survive under those conditions. In retrospect, the idea of the Spurs of the 70s competing on the same level as the big markets is kinda amazing.

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.

Anybody who votes for Manu or Tony is a clown.

---

My vote was for Duncan. And yes, he did save the franchise by leading the Spurs to the '99 Title. No '99 Title, no SBC Center, no Spurs in SA anymore.
Please do not discount this fact. It's easy to forget now, but it was almost a reality. Now, after all the success of the last 10 years, it's hard to envision this team ever leaving SA.

Because of that, he's at least in the same ballpark with Angelo D, Gervin, and D-Rob in the "Franchise Savior" department. Then, when you add in the element of turning a good franchise into one of the All-Time great franchises, it's really no contest in my opinion.

I have lived in Phoenix for pretty much Duncan's entire career, and most of my friends are Suns fans. Sometimes Spurs fans take for granted this current era of 4 Championships in 10 years. You have no idea what these poor, loyal, passionate Phoenix fans would give for even 1.

The only NBA teams that have won at least 4 titles in 10 years are the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, and our Spurs. Without Duncan, we'd be in the company of the likes of the Cavs, Pacers, Suns, Mavs, Nets, etc... - good teams that weren't quite good enough. And, without Duncan, we'd be residing in New Orleans or Oklahoma City to top it off.

Folks, he's the greatest Forward ever, and a top 10 player in League history. He's also not even finished yet. In my opinion, this is a no-brainer.

For me, I went with Five-Oh. In a school where Michael Jordan was King, i was looking for someone else to follow. Along came David, and I have never turned back. I remember reading about his rookie of the year, and seeing his 360 dunk (i was young, give me a break) and going - damn, i like that guy! He gave hope, that nice guys could do well ;)

But, from a more logical perspective (and not a 50 fanboy one) - out of the group of 4 that was mentioned before (Gervin, Drossos, D-Rob and TD) he has had probably the biggest impact in keeping key things in SA (the team, TD, himself) than the others, and more than anybody (to me at least) he IS the spurs.

I wouldn't be a fan without him. I most likely would have been a fan of AFL. Bleuch. If i ever like that sport, somebody, please kill me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

Hey, the dude did what he had to survive under those conditions. In retrospect, the idea of the Spurs of the 70s competing on the same level as the big markets is kinda amazing.

---

No doubt. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

And I'm going to have to disagree

---

Yeah, disagreements on this list are bound to happen. The difference between the top four in my eyes is razor thin. I mean, Gervin really does have a good case because without him, the Spurs dream would have likely died in the ABA. Now that I think about it, he might be the only one who we can definitely say kept the Spurs as a franchise alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

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.

---

True. Although I think 50 years from now, when the Spurs are mentioned the period of time that will be first mentioned is the Tim Duncan Era. Not exactly fair but will almost certainly be the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

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.

---

I think a better comparison would be to say who is more importnat, Naismith or Jordan. Naismith invented the game but it can be argued that Jordan is the reason the NBA went from tape delayed to a game played by practically the whole world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

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.

---

Agreed with all points. Those who look at the Spurs from the outside will never really understand the importance of David Robinson to San Antonio and the Spurs. Unless you were a fan through that era, it is almost impossible to understand the magnitude of his importance.

You ask the average NBA fan, or even someone who claims to be an NBA expert, and they'd say Duncan >>>>>>>>>> Robinson in this poll ... however at the most, Duncan = Robinson or Duncan > Robinson.

red mccombs

I don't think any knowledgeable fan would say that Duncan is that much better than Robinson..

I had to go with Duncan. It's not that he's a better player or anything, but he has allowed us to stay at a very high level of competition for a long time. It's cool to make the playoffs or fight for the last seeds or whatever, but we have had very very good odds to win it all with Duncan and co. While you can always say "well if Robinson had a better supporting cast..." but you know, hindsight is 20/20. Fact is, Duncan brought the titles. He has allowed this franchise to gain a significant amount of profit and fame. He has kept us at the highest tier of competition and even our losses have been spectacular.

The difference between Robinson and Duncan is minute, but I feel like I have to give Duncan the nod for delivering results.

I don't think it really matters how they are ordered. The first 3-5 are going to be very interchangable.

Tim Duncan not even close

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

I don't think any knowledgeable fan would say that Duncan is that much better than Robinson..

---

average NBA fan is saying that D-Rob is a pussy cause he never was able to lead his team - plus playoff was the ground where he failed to rise his game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lj

To pass the time until the start of preseason, let's see how SpursTalk.com ranks the Top 50 Spurs. Those eligible for the list include all players, coaches and owners. I don't want to define "top" too narrowly, but I think the best way to do it would be to think of the list as a list of the 50 most influential people who have helped make the Spurs one of the most successful franchises in the history of sport.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polandprzem

average NBA fan is saying that D-Rob is a pussy cause he never was able to lead his team - plus playoff was the ground where he failed to rise his game.

---

If that is the case, then average NBA fan is a dumbass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brutalis

It's a real disadvantage because half of all the fans (at least) came with TD and don't understand the value of DRob himself.

The arguments that come to mind are..

1) TD won titles without DRob.

However.. TD had a better team at all times when DRob did not. I highly doubt TD's win ratio would have been better or the same as DRob's with the teams David was on.

2) Stats. Robinson owns them over TD. And I ignore the last couple years of David's career, as he played with ailing back. Besides, I bet when TD's decline years hurt his average his stats wouldn't be on DRob's level either.

---

TD had a better team than D Rob I agree on that there, he wins one or two titles with Duncans cast IMO. In 95 the Spurs win the title with Manu and Parker out there, I agree that Tims cast has been better. Tim has an extra gear though in big games it seems that D Rob did not have or wasn't as good at, his fire for the game is just untouched at times and he just has that extra gear few ever have. I think D Rob was more athletic and a freak of nature, but overall post skills and moves I gotta go with Timmay there, he just has go to moves David did not have in the post.


BTW I was here for D Rob and loved him to death, not a new jack who just came when Tim came.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polandprzem

average NBA fan is saying that D-Rob is a pussy cause he never was able to lead his team - plus playoff was the ground where he failed to rise his game.

---

D Rob had some good playoff series, but he was not a monster in some series like Tim has been. Tim is just on that whole different level when it comes to the playoffs it seems, he has a gear D Rob did not have IMO.

I picked Gervin. But I can see why Duncan would be the top spur. Duncan is the reason why the spurs have been successful the last 10 years. No coincidence that championships did not happen until Duncan came so thats an argument against both Robinson and Gervin.

But Gervin was the first star for the spurs and without him the spurs would have folded with all the other ABA teams that did not get into the NBA. So Duncan is the best Spur player but Gervin is the most important.

Gervin was the big star of one of the most exciting teams in the aba at the time of the merger and this played a big role in attracting the NBA to admit a small market team like the Spurs. Had the spurs been a bad team they would have folded with the ABA.

Many on this forum don't remember gervin and I am sure this will cost him votes but he is clearly over Robinson as the most important Spur but I am not sure he is above Duncan. They are close. It could be Duncan or Gervin 1 and the other 2 then Robinson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Even if Duncan is likely a better player than Robinson, I'm not sure that he is the better Spur.
Duncan nearly left SA in 2000, that is to say only 3 years after coming in NBA.
He stayed because Spurs won in 99 and because DRob came back from Hawaii to talk with him.
I still will wait a little before voting to hear people arguments but I think I will vote for Robinson.

---

No he didn't leave.

Robinson is not even more important than Gervin. Robinson could not win without Duncan.

This is a good idea going from 1'st to last. Eliminate the players as they get picked then take the vote again for the next spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

Robinson is not even more important than Gervin. Robinson could not win without Duncan.

---

And Gervin could?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

And Gervin could?

---

No, thats not the point. Gervin is a big reason the spurs got into the nba.
If Robinson did not deliver titles then how can he be more valuable than Gervin?

I know Robinson was on 2 title teams but he could not win before Duncan came.
And Duncan has proved he could win without Robinson. The 2nd title Robinson was a shell of his former self so he rode Duncan to that title.

The titles put Duncan up above Robinson. The importance of getting into the nba puts Gervin ahead of Robinson.

Duncan or Gervin 1 any order
Duncan or Gervin 2
Robinson 3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

No, thats not the point. Gervin is a big reason the spurs got into the nba.
If Robinson did not deliver titles then how can he be more valuable than Gervin?

I know Robinson was on 2 title teams but he could not win before Duncan came.
And Duncan has proved he could win without Robinson. The 2nd title Robinson was a shell of his former self so he rode Duncan to that title.

The titles put Duncan up above Robinson. The importance of getting into the nba puts Gervin ahead of Robinson.

Duncan or Gervin 1 any order
Duncan or Gervin 2
Robinson 3

---

The way this poll is looking, that is an argument you should use in the next poll. I don't necessarily agree but like I said earlier, Gervin might be the most vital ingredient of them all in terms of allowing the Spurs franchise to make the transition from ABA to NBA and thus secure the franchise's existence.

The Gervin over Robinson arguement is very very flawed.

It's embarrassing that people voted for Manu or Tony.

Manu has more votes than Drossos.

Check yourself people. SERIOUSLY!!!

We remember what we want to. Everyone remembers the disappointing series against the Rockets in the 1995 Western Conference Finals, and unfortunately for David those 6 games earned him the "soft" label. For many people, including Spurs fans, it doesn't matter what he did before or since. It doesn't matter than he had some incredible playoff performances and some absolutely huge plays for us in the postseason. All they remember is that series and the fact that he won zero championships before Duncan arrived.

On the flip side, people remember Tim's near quadruple double in the Finals. They see the Finals MVPs and the championships and remember that. They don't remember some of the horrible performances he's had. They don't remember the frustrating plays he's made at times, or the wins we've had in the playoffs due to someone else on the team having a huge game.

I'm not taking anything away from Tim. He's an amazing player who is among the best power forwards ever. But you can't ignore the fact that his performances have been greatly aided by having an excellent supporting cast around him. If the defense has to pay attention to several other guys who are capable of scoring, they can't focus so much on one player. Do you really think the 1995 Houston Rockets would play the same defense on the current Spurs team that they played on the 1995 Spurs? Of course not. And that has a big role in how the superstar performs. Failing to recognize that is a crucial error in reasoning.

For that matter, do you think replacing David with Tim in 1995 would've made a difference? If so, I have some wonderful oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

DRob...regardless of what happened before or since he got here, the Spurs would not be in SA without him and neither would Tim Duncan. David Robinson turned down untold millions, greater fame, and more championships to play for the Spurs. He turned down the chance to play with Magic Johnson and replace Kareem Abdul Jabbar in LA, to play for a cash strapped lottery team that was on the verge of leaving it's town.

I do not think one other player in team history would have been willing to do that had they been in David Robinson's place. I can't think of many NBA players in history would have done that. It takes a special man to make that decision at the time Drob made it, a guy who truly pulls for the underdog.

IF DRob had been all about championships and nothing but...he wouldn't have signed with the Spurs when he did.

If Drob had been all about fame and nothing but...he wouldn't have signed with the Spurs when he did.

If Drob had been all about money and nothing but...he wouldn't have signed with the Spurs when he did.

Drob knew he was taking the hard path to fame, fortune and titles, when he signed with the Spurs, and he still did it.

Drob all the way...

---

Damn, that is a great argument that really makes me think about my already cast vote for Tim Duncan.

It makes me think to how shitty I felt when I heard Rick Barry saying David would go to the Lakers on the day we finally drafted our franchise bigman.

Ginobili has more votes than Ice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gooshie

My vote was for Duncan. And yes, he did save the franchise by leading the Spurs to the '99 Title. No '99 Title, no SBC Center, no Spurs in SA anymore.

---

No one should ever forget this. If you go back and watch the press conference after game 5 of the 99 Finals, he basically says he re-signs with the Spurs if the city builds them a new arena.