shaq undermines,duncan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Yeah, Duncan will probably retire before Amare. If that's the point upon which you decide to choose Amare over Duncan, so be it.

But comparing Duncan after 8 years to Amare after what 3 years isn't the same as comparing Kareem after 15-16 years to Hakeem after 3-4 or comparing Hakeem after 10-12 years with Shaq after 3-4.

---

Are you playing coy on purpose, or are you really this dense?

Duncan played four years off college ball and is entering his ninth year in the League. That's 12 seasons.

Amare's entering his fourth overall season. That's a 12-3 advantage for Duncan. Amare is supposed to be entering his senior year of college, afterall.

You can have Duncan for as long as he last, or Amare for as long as he lasts from this point forward.

Starting the year, Duncan 29, Amare 23...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMarkJohns

And so help me... I believe I said Duncan up to the next four seasons, Amare after that.

For me, however, I see Amare surpassing Duncan within three years tops.

---

Maybe so, because Amare is a damn good player. Plus, I don't think Amare is part of the Snaq SAS crowd.

Amare's improvement last season was primarily due to Nash. When Nash goes[before Duncan] can he dominate like TD does regardless of who he is playing with[ Olympic team excluded]. I doubt it! Tim has won 3 with totally different teammates----he is a rare player.

Shaq still has to prove to me he can win without Kobe. The East will be tougher this year for the Heat and the Spurs still won more games in the West with TM missing 16 games. Tim is king and Shaq knows it!

This is absolutely rediculous. Did you know that in his 50 game, second season Amare jumped 7 ppg without Nash?

It wasn't all Nash. In fact, Nash looked better because of Amare. They both needed each other, but to credit Nash alone for Amare's improvement is laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lotr1trekkie

I doubt it! Tim has won 3 with totally different teammates----he is a rare player.

---

No he hasn't. Not true at all... Maybe a few different role players, but the stars around him were pretty consistant fromm 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMarkJohns

Are you playing coy on purpose, or are you really this dense?

Duncan played four years off college ball and is entering his ninth year in the League. That's 12 seasons.

Amare's entering his fourth overall season. That's a 12-3 advantage for Duncan. Amare is supposed to be entering his senior year of college, afterall.

You can have Duncan for as long as he last, or Amare for as long as he lasts from this point forward.

Starting the year, Duncan 29, Amare 23...

---

I'm neither being coy nor dense. I'm saying that comparing Duncan/Amare to either Kareem/Hakeem in the late 80's or to Hakeem/Shaq in the late 90's are both inapt comparisons. The age difference is the telling factor for me. If the question is which player you want going forward, I'm saying that the continued excellence from Duncan has much more time left to run at this moment than Kareem did in the late 80's or Hakeem did in the late 90's.

It's much more like asking (in, say, 1992) if you'd rather have Hakeem after 8 years or David Robinson after 3.

Fine... so you got the point. One older great player for a few years or one younger great player for prolly double the years.

Thanks for putting the proper detail on my analogy.

You people are hinging on every word that comes out of SHAQUILLE O'NEAL'S mouth, for God's sake.

This is coming from the idiot who thinks he's "like the Pythagorean Theorem, I can't be solved." :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMarkJohns

No he hasn't. Not true at all... Maybe a few different role players, but the stars around him were pretty consistant fromm 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3.

---

That is not true, The teams from Championship 1 to championship 2 were totally different. I think that from 2-3 they were very similiar but 1-2 were nothing alike, except for D-rob and he was no longer a Star.

But in your analogy, going back in time, I'd take Hakeem over David, and I suspect most rational, objective basketball fans would too. I'm a homer, but I'm not stupid and Hakeem single-handedly carried teams to titles after 1992.

I actually think that the Hakeem: David::Tim:Amare analogy works on so many levels to make it particularly apt to this comparison. Tim is the same steady force that Hakeem was, capable of leading teams to greatness, but not a statistical demon. David and Amare are both physical freaks who put up great numbers, but haven't been able to carry teams over the top despite the great numbers.

Losing Robert Horry to the Spurs wasn't Shaq's loss either. :hat

Rob 1-1
Shaq 0-2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

But in your analogy, going back in time, I'd take Hakeem over David, and I suspect most rational, objective basketball fans would too. I'm a homer, but I'm not stupid and Hakeem single-handedly carried teams to titles after 1992.

I actually think that the Hakeem: David::Tim:Amare analogy works on so many levels to make it particularly apt to this comparison. Tim is the same steady force that Hakeem was, capable of leading teams to greatness, but not a statistical demon. David and Amare are both physical freaks who put up great numbers, but haven't been able to carry teams over the top despite the great numbers.

---

Whatever. I still think the Hakeem/Shaq works best, not because of years of play, but because Hakeem was in his peek at the time Shaq was just getting to his.

Same thing here. For the next few years, it was Hakeem. For the next decade, it was Shaq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kskonn

That is not true, The teams from Championship 1 to championship 2 were totally different. I think that from 2-3 they were very similiar but 1-2 were nothing alike, except for D-rob and he was no longer a Star.

---

You had David Robsinson and Time Duncan for each. Plus Malik Rose and Steve Kerr. Granted it's not identical, but Duncan and Robinson was the main force that propelled the Spurs and they were on it for both 1 and 2.

Your 2 and 3 teams were very, very similer.

Robinson 1999 and Robinson 2003 were the same player in name only.

It's not such a bad thing for Shaq to say that he'd take Amare to start a franchise with. As some already mentioned here, age is a huge factor if you are talking about starting a team now. I would likely take either Amare or LeBron over Duncan. So does that make me a Duncan hater too?

Quote:

---

You had David Robsinson and Time Duncan for each. Plus Malik Rose and Steve Kerr. Granted it's not identical, but Duncan and Robinson was the main force that propelled the Spurs and they were on it for both 1 and 2.

Your 2 and 3 teams were very, very similer.

---

The Spurs of 05 had alot more versatility and scoring punch.

in 03 you brought Manu, Rose, and Claxton/Kerr

Outside of that, that was it.

This year, Barry, Devin Brown, Glenn Robinson, Rasho Nesterovic, Beno Udrih


just alot more depth.

The 03 and 05 teams are way way way different.


If Amare doesnt blow up like Shawn Kemp, or become brittle like Daugherty, or a drug head like Tarpley, he'll top 5 of all time.

Man I had Tpark off my shit list... But picking Amare over Duncan..

I kinda wanted to not call him a bandwagoneer again... .. sigh..

(humor post **)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

It's not such a bad thing for Shaq to say that he'd take Amare to start a franchise with. As some already mentioned here, age is a huge factor if you are talking about starting a team now. I would likely take either Amare or LeBron over Duncan. So does that make me a Duncan hater too?

---

I would take the '05 playoff additon of amare over the '05 pa of tim. However, the '03 version of tim I would take over everyone.

But the 05 Playoff Edition of Amare Stoudemire would have given up 50 ppg to Amare Stoudemire.

Although I guess he would have matched that...

My head hurts now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by navarat

Hey guys this my first post on forum

---

Welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

It's not that Shaq is not giving respect, he's just very good at giving soundbytes. He has a WWE personality.

The problem is when his lapdogs like SAS echo those sentiments as though they are fact.

---

Bull's eye.

I like half of Amare. The offensive half. He does rise up occasionally on D, evidenced by his amazing block on Tim at the Rim. In the normal rigors of the game, though, Amare is a Flagman out on the interstate.

Quote:

---

But picking Amare over Duncan..

---

I'd love for you to show me Vashner where I said that.....

Amare plays worse defense than Steve Nash, once again, thats what makes him a top 7 center instead of a current top 5.

All i have to say is Shaq cant win games on his own he needs another superstar lined up with him. He is very stupid for ever doubting the play of TD, TD is the best PF in the league, at least in my opinion, KG is close behind but never on top. I laughed the year they gave him the MVP it was so ridiculous. Either way if i were to start a Franchise myself today my first player would be TD, secondly i would pick up Tmac....than Iverson......thats all i would want those three players and im good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psyco

[email protected] taking amare's 1 dimensional ass over duncan. i'll go out on a limb and say a 40 year old duncan will still be owning his down syndrome lookin black ass

---

Trolling isn't the way to win arguments, effin loser...

You don't deserve to call yourself a Spurs fan.