If prime Robinson and prime Duncan switched era's

[Extra Stout]

Let's take the year David Robinson won the scoring championship, scored 71 points in a game, and recorded a triple double. Here was his supporting cast:

Point Guards: Sleepy Floyd, Negele Knight, Chris Whitney
Shooting Guards: Vinny Del Negro, Willie Anderson, Lloyd Daniels
Small Forwards: Dale Ellis
Power Forwards: Dennis Rodman, Antoine Carr, J.R. Reid, Terry mings (post-ACL tear)
Centers: Jack Haley

Take David Robinson away and that is a 15-67 basketball team. Those Spurs with Robinson went 55-27.

[Cry Havoc]

I think perhaps some people are taking the topic a little too personally. I don't think it was the OP's intent (I could be wrong) to try to start a war between Duncan fans and Robinson fans. It was a simple question requiring a simple answer.

The problem is that the (mostly younger) Spurs fans feel the need to say how great Duncan is, to the extent that they completely disregard the contributions David made.

We have arguably two of the best post players in the history of the NBA in San Antonio. Why Spurs fans feel the need to establish a hierarchy between them and say that one was incapable of winning on his own instead of just appreciating both is beyond me.

Something about modern sports has made fans (again, especially younger fans) take up the "what have you done for me lately" idea to the extreme. It's kind of sad to see.

[Killakobe81]

I love watching Spurs fan argue David was the better athlete but duncan the better player and leader iMHO bot are great but Robinson was no Hakeem or Duncan ...no disgrace in that he and EWing are the two best big men since 1980 not named Kareem, Hakeem Duncan or Shaq (in that order) he is top 5 no doubt ...

[Killakobe81]

I could see Duncan being a difference on the 89 team...but David did get a post game eventually.


Flipping it around...Amare and Nash wouldn't be compared to a Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and David Robinson fast break. That would be insane.

And those great fast break teams that have big men that can defend...those are the great dynasties in NBA history. That's what the 60's Celtics were. That's the what the 80's Lakers were.

David Robinson wouldn't just be finishing the break either, he'd be leading it sometimes, just like he did then on teams with Avery Johnson and Rocket Rod Strickland.

And I've give my left nut to have Manu on any team David was on. Get ing serious.

Did you guys see what he did to a team of NBA All Stars with a group most of whom had never stepped foot on an NBA court at that time?

You guys just need to realize that Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker will both one day be in the HOF. David having either of them would have made a huge difference, because he never had a perimeter scoree that could take over a game. Ever. He only had an inside player that could do it(TC) for 2 years or so.

Understand where you are coing from but some problems with your logic.
1. TP is no HOF lock he has a chance no doubt but speed guys have steep declines ...and Parker will have more miles than most ...Manu is a lock because of his international greatness ...
2. I agree Drob did not have equal talent but he did have HCA and lost much like many on here criticize the Mavs cavs or Pistons of recent years and lost.
3. And Im not a fan of woulda coulda shoulda ...Robinson is much like Elway two great players HOF'ers but they could not lead their team without another player leading the way. Elway finally won when TDavis was the best back in football Robinson won when duncan was the best big man those are the facts ...everything else is hypothetical

Example: Many felt Kobe needed to win last year to validate his greatness. I didnt think so as you said Kobe killed the Spurs Bowen at least slowed him some ...but Kobe helped shaq win much like Robinson helped Duncan David was Duncan's Scotty. Difference is Kobe has now won as the man without Shaq (Wade was the man in Miami) and Duncan won without David that is why Duncan is better ...

[MI21]

In my humble opinion, for what it is worth, David Robinson was every bit the player the Tim Duncan is, and more.

The type of defense D-Rob played, Timmy can only dream of. Dave put up ridiculous scoring numbers with great efficiency without ever developing a consistent go to post move (his only weakness). He faced incredible compe ion at his position, always defended the oppositions best bigman and dealt with constant double teams.

If you give David Robinson an all-star PG, the best perimeter defender role player SF in the NBA, an all-star caliber 6MOY SG and an all time great defensive coach, I think you may have seen some better results in the 90's.

For example, give 1994/1995 D-Rob this lineup...

PG - Kevin Johnson
SG - Latrell Spreewell
SF - Derrick McKey
PF - insert average older veteran player
C - David Robinson

Coach - Pat Riley

...and see what happens.

I'm not that comfortable comparing Dave to Timmy because they are my two favourite players of all time, but the homer in me will always favour Dave.

I just think Daves place in history would look a lot different if he had a decent supporting cast all those years. Taking nothing away from Timmy, who is looking like being at worst, a top 12 player of all time, but I think at a minimum Dave would be looked at in a similar way if he had a bit of help in his prime.

[bigbendbruisebrother]

If you switched them, I doubt much would change. The problem with the pre-Duncan Spurs was that they never had consitent second or third options who could go ape when Dave got double teamed (ala Manu, Tony, Jax, etc). Terry mings was old. Sean Elliott didn't really come into his own until he beefed up (after Timmy arrived). Willie Anderson, David Wingate and Rod Strickland were about as clutch as the Dallas Mavericks. Vinnie couldn't guard his own nutsack. It's amazing to me now that the Spurs managed to be as good as they were in the 90's prior to Tim's arrival.

The question nagging in the back of my mind is, are we in for another decade like the 80's after Timmy retires? Will we have to be cellar dwellars again in order to rebuild?

[Shaolin-Style]

Interestingly I think if you gave them both different eras they'd outperform each other in each of them. I'd think Tim would have done just a little bit better but not much more. Still wouldn't have made the finals. And I think Dave would've had more success than Duncan in this era with the weakness at the C position.

[Phenomanul]

Interestingly I think if you gave them both different eras they'd outperform each other in each of them. I'd think Tim would have done just a little bit better but not much more. Still wouldn't have made the finals. And I think Dave would've had more success than Duncan in this era with the weakness at the C position.

Interesting take...

[whottt]

Understand where you are coing from but some problems with your logic.
1. TP is no HOF lock he has a chance no doubt but speed guys have steep declines ...and Parker will have more miles than most.

Well we can argue about whether not Tony is actually a HOF talent, and will remain one...but without a doubt he's going to be in the HOF.


Forget about talent and stats, it's that he's already started on 3 NBA championshop teams, made a few all star games, won a finals MVP. That stuff counts just as much as stats do.

Championships are huge plus to HOF eligibility.


There is a actually a debate on whether or not Robert Horry belongs in the HOF, and whether you think he does or does not, the fact remains it is actually being debated. And it's entirely on the basis of his 7 championship rings.

Check out the HOF monitor at basketball reference sometime, the formula they use is based on everyone admitted to the HOF and les weigh heavily, it's a no-brainer Parker is going to be a HOF'er according to their formula..

And that formula doesn't even take into accout the fact that he is an international player, the greatest player produced by France. The biggest basketball star in France, the most well known player from France.


He'll absolutely be in the HOF. So will Manu. They may not be first ballot HOF'ers but their international origins and accomplishments combined with their notoriety from winning multiple championships, added to the NBA's desire to be a global game...makes them shoo-ins. Unless some Argentine and French players come along to surpass them, and even if they do, Parker and Manu can still claim to be the originals, the barrier breakers.

They're both HOF'ers...if you look at them as a typical player they obviously don't have the NBA stats, but they aren't typical players, they are both the greatest players produced by their respective countries, and they are champions.

[Admiral]

David didn't have the greatest teammates, but they were good enough to get to the postseason with...Robinson advances in 95 if he can stop his man from dropping 40 a night.

Superstars like David can take teams with crappy supporting casts and get them to the playoffs, but those teams are never able to win a le. That is precisely the difference between the DRob era in the 1990s and the Duncan era in the 2000s. David put up some ridiculous numbers (easily more ridiculous than Duncan's), but because his supporting casts were far inferior it didn't matter. Tim has had some memorable playoff performances, which were made possible by having a great supporting cast that other teams had to worry about.

Since you seem to be having trouble understanding this concept, you can use the 1995 Western Conference Finals as an example. Hakeem Olajuwon played great, but his performance would not have been enough had the Rockets not had Clyde Drexler, Robert Horry, Sam Cassell, Kenny Smith, etc. Those guys opened up so much for Hakeem. They even gave Hakeem the luxury of never having to guard David one-on-one that series. As you know, David did not have that luxury when trying to guard Hakeem.

[TD 21]

Crock of ...the 2003 team was the best Spurs Team of them all, are you ing kidding me?


3 Hall of Famers
3 Olympic Championships
About 20 All NBA Teams
About 18 All NBA Defensive Teams
Best 3 point shooter in NBA history, single season, and a carreer.
About 6 NBA 3 point shooting les.
3 or 4 rebounding les.
Blocked Shots le.
Scoring le.
Olympic MVP
Finals MVP


And none of those are including Tim Duncan.

I can't believe you guys think Duncan didn't have help on that team. That was one of the best basketball teams ever assembled.

It is the only basketball team in history to defeat a 3 time defending champion with it's core intact(meaning it's superstars were healthy).


It is the only team in NBA history to do that...and that doesn't even include the 60 win team they beat(that they haven't beat since), or the returning conference finalist.


You guys are morons if you think that was a scrub team...David Robinson right now would be better than any guy to line up at C since...and don't say he wasn't servicable, non-servicable players aren't the guys being asked to defend Shaq and actually left in by Pop to do it, and holding him scoreless when they are guy defending him in at least one of those games.

You're calling others on being new fans? Did you just look at the impressive collection of names from the '03 team, and decide it was one of the greatest of all-time?

The truth of the matter is:

Robinson was on his last legs
Bowen was a sub-par offensive player still building his reputation as the best perimeter defensive player in the game
Parker, while talented, was a 20 year old 2nd year point guard who struggled mightily at times
Ginobili, again, while talented, and an established international star, was an NBA rookie still adapting to the NBA game, and being a role player
Jackson was a minimum free agent signing, and a mostly unproven player trying to establish himself in the league
Rose, as solid as he was a both ends of the court, was a mere role player
Claxton, was an injury prone runt, who was also an unestablished player at that point

In conclusion, that team lacked a certifiable 2nd All-Star, a true star-superstar caliber creator on the perimeter, and was mostly filled with past their prime vets (Robinson, Willis, Kerr, Smith, Ferry), or talented, yet erratic young players (Parker, Ginobili, Jackson).

Just look at their playoff record of 16-8. It took Duncan putting up historical numbers (24.7 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 5.3 apg, .529 fg pct, 42.5 mpg, also accounting for 5.98 win shares, the most in a single playoff since that stat has been recorded), and one of the all-time great defenses to overcome their shortcomings.

Anyone pulling the "look at Robinson's regular season stats" argument is a damn fool. Sure, Duncan's never blocked 4.49 shots per game in a season, but guess what? No one does nowadays. Howard led the league last year at 2.92 blocks per game. The game has evolved, and become more perimeter oriented. That being said, as we've seen before, when he had to carry the team and put up monster numbers, Duncan was more than capable of doing so. If he was selfish, he easily could have had another one or two MVP's (and probably should have anyway, in addition to the multiple DPoY awards he should have won).

[whottt]

Hakeem's performance would not have been as great if the Spurs coach had a clue how to defend in the post season. He should have his butt kicked for expecting the guy to carry the offensive load to also be the primary defender on Hakeem. Rodman, who would go on to defend Shaq at times for the Bulls, hardly got anywhere near Hakeem.

Take a look a Bob Hill's coaching record...dude never had anything close to a winning season other than the 2 years he coached Drob. John Lucas is similar. Bob Hill coached offense, not defense, and that series was lost because of the Spurs D and coach who did not have a clue about it's importance.

THe Rockets didn't ask Hakeem to stop David all by himself, much like the Spurs have never asked Duncan to stop anyone all by himself, the Spurs did basically ask that of David, and what double teams they utilized were ineffective, because it was Hakeem, and because their coach had no clue.

[whottt]

You're calling others on being new fans? Did you just look at the impressive collection of names from the '03 team, and decide it was one of the greatest of all-time?

The truth of the matter is:

Robinson was on his last legs
Bowen was a sub-par offensive player still building his reputation as the best perimeter defensive player in the game
Parker, while talented, was a 20 year old 2nd year point guard who struggled mightily at times
Ginobili, again, while talented, and an established international star, was an NBA rookie still adapting to the NBA game, and being a role player
Jackson was a minimum free agent signing, and a mostly unproven player trying to establish himself in the league
Rose, as solid as he was a both ends of the court, was a mere role player
Claxton, was an injury prone runt, who was also an unestablished player at that point

In conclusion, that team lacked a certifiable 2nd All-Star, a true star-superstar caliber creator on the perimeter, and was mostly filled with past their prime vets (Robinson, Willis, Kerr, Smith, Ferry), or talented, yet erratic young players (Parker, Ginobili, Jackson).

Just look at their playoff record of 16-8. It took Duncan putting up historical numbers (24.7 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 5.3 apg, .529 fg pct, 42.5 mpg, also accounting for 5.98 win shares, the most in a single playoff since that stat has been recorded), and one of the all-time great defenses to overcome their shortcomings.

Anyone pulling the "look at Robinson's regular season stats" argument is a damn fool. Sure, Duncan's never blocked 4.49 shots per game in a season, but guess what? No one does nowadays. Howard led the league last year at 2.92 blocks per game. The game has evolved, and become more perimeter oriented. That being said, as we've seen before, when he had to carry the team and put up monster numbers, Duncan was more than capable of doing so. If he was selfish, he easily could have had another one or two MVP's (and probably should have anyway, in addition to the multiple DPoY awards he should have won).

I'm not going to argue with you about it...I certainly knew that team was going to win a championship where others had failed, I called it on SpursReprt and here at this forum, I even sent Manu a PM contralating him on winning it, in December, and it had absolutely nothing to do with Duncan playing any better than he had the previous two years, which was already championship level,, at least according to the double teams he was pulling against LA, and that prediction was based entirely on the supporting cast, the majority of it being Manu's play making ability.

That team wasn't the worst Spur Team, it was the best. It's certainly the only one I had no doubts about.

[whottt]

Coaching RecordGlossary ▪ CSV ▪ PRE
Season Age Lg Tm G W L W-L% W > .500 Finish G Plyf W Plyf L Plyf W-L% Plyf Notes 
1986-87  NBA NYK 66 20 46 .303 -13.0 4      
1990-91  NBA IND 57 32 25 .561 3.5 5 5 2 3 .400  
1991-92  NBA IND 82 40 42 .488 -1.0 4 3 0 3 .000  
1992-93  NBA IND 82 41 41 .500 0.0 5 4 1 3 .250  
1994-95  NBA SAS 82 62 20 .756 21.0 1 15 9 6 .600  
1995-96  NBA SAS 82 59 23 .720 18.0 1 10 5 5 .500  
1996-97  NBA SAS 18 3 15 .167 -6.0 6      
2005-06  NBA SEA 52 22 30 .423 -4.0 3      
2006-07  NBA SEA 82 31 51 .378 -10.0 5      
Career  NBA  603 310 293 .514 8.5  37 17 20 .459

Bob Hill's coaching record...the only two winning seasons of his career were the two he coached David.

This ignorant stick had David guarding Hakeem by himself and carrying the scoring load. That is an idiot who is doing nothing more than riding a great player as easily proved by the fact that he hasn't done before or since.

[whottt]

John Lucas' coaching record, again, the only winning seasons he had, were the two he coached David:

Coaching RecordGlossary ▪ CSV ▪ PRE
Season Age Lg Tm G W L W-L% W > .500 Finish G Plyf W Plyf L Plyf W-L% Plyf Notes 
1992-93 39 NBA SAS 61 39 22 .639 8.5 2 10 5 5 .500  
1993-94 40 NBA SAS 82 55 27 .671 14.0 2 4 1 3 .250  
1994-95 41 NBA PHI 82 24 58 .293 -17.0 6      
1995-96 42 NBA PHI 82 18 64 .220 -23.0 7      
2001-02 48 NBA CLE 82 29 53 .354 -12.0 7      
2002-03 49 NBA CLE 42 8 34 .190 -13.0 8      
Career  NBA  431 173 258 .401 -42.5  14 6 8 .429

And he'd never been a coach before that first year he took over in mid-season.


On year, David had 3 coaches in one season, and his team still won 49 games.

HNe did this with crap coaches, and guards who would were cut and waived , and made 1 3 pointer in 19 year 90 playoff game careers, and would not have started for 99% of the teams in the NBA.

AJ was waived by the Rockets., they didn't even make the playoffs the year he played for them.


How good did he do this ?

He never missed the playoffs, never finished lower than second place in his division...Magic, Bird and Dr.J are the only other players to make that claim...now, I want you to go look at who their ing teamates and coaches were when they did it.

[whottt]

David meets Hakeem...Hakeem is the defending champ, he's got Clyde ing Drexler on his team, a 2 guard that considered the only close to a rival of Jordan, and who had taken Portland to 2 Finals.

David has Vinny Del Negro. A guy who came from Europe when he couldn't hack in the NBA, and who would never start on any team David Robinson wasn't on. At least David had him as a 2 guard this time around, instead of having to use him as PG as he had the year before, when he won 53 games and a scoring le.



Hakeem...he's got Robert Horry. Who would go on to win 5 other ing rings, playing 3 different positons, and who is actually considered by some to be HOF'er.

David did have Rodman, a DPOY, who also won 5 les, only Rodman didn't guard anyone in that series, nor he can knock down a clutch 3.

We'll go ahead and call that one a push...what the .


Hakeem has got Kenny Smith. The only player to ever be invited to be in a dunk contest and 3 point contest, in the same All Star Game. A guy who lead the Rockets on an 18 game winning steak with Hakeem out due to injury.


He's also got Mario Elie, a guy who would go on to forever alter the chemistry of the Spurs with his toughness, as he won a championship with them.


He's also got Sam Cassell, who actually scored 30 points off the bench in game 5 of this series, which actually beats the career playoff high of both of David's guards...who closed out just about every must win game during the Rockets 2 les, and would go on to win another le with the Boston Celtics.

Horry - 5 other rings
Cassell - 1 other ring
Elie - 1 other ring
Drexler - 2 other Finals appearances, as the best player on his team. He was also on the Dream Team, and is one of the NBA's 50 greatest players.


David had a starting PG that could not hold down the 3rd string PG spot on the Rockets and was waived by them.

David had Elliott...who made two AS games, but was the guy who was out of position in 89 against Portland costing us a game 7.

He had the Rifleman, who was the only guy that acutally played good enough to win that series.


But either way...Drexler, and his 2 finals appearances without Hakeem, Elie with his one other ring, Cassell with his...


anyone that says Hakeem beat David with the worse team. You are either an unconscionable liar, or a complete idiot. Either way...you are seriously ing up the clarity of reality. Stop being the dulling, dimming, gray fog.

[TD 21]

I'm not going to argue with you about it...I certainly knew that team was going to win a championship where others had failed, I called it on SpursReprt and here at this forum, I even sent Manu a PM contralating him on winning it, in December, and it had absolutely nothing to do with Duncan playing any better than he had the previous two years, which was already championship level,, at least according to the double teams he was pulling against LA, and that prediction was based entirely on the supporting cast, the majority of it being Manu's play making ability.

That team wasn't the worst Spur Team, it was the best. It's certainly the only one I had no doubts about.

Because you know you're wrong. You had no doubts about the Spurs going through the 3-time defending champions, who happened to have arguably 2 of the 3 best players in the game? They were one of the biggest obstacles in league history. Duncan's game went to another level that season. The Spurs even conceded that it had become his team that season, as far as the leadership was concerned. He was bar none the best player in the game, and if not for his historical performance, and a historical defense, that team wouldn't have won the championship. They had good depth, but as I just broke down in detail, it was basically a team without a reliable 2nd scoring option, and no All-Stars on the perimeter. How many teams win championships like that?

[whottt]

Because you know you're wrong. You had no doubts about the Spurs going through the 3-time defending champions, who happened to have arguably 2 of the 3 best players in the game? They were one of the biggest obstacles in league history. Duncan's game went to another level that season. The Spurs even conceded that it had become his team that season, as far as the leadership was concerned. He was bar none the best player in the game, and if not for his historical performance, and a historical defense, that team wouldn't have won the championship. They had good depth, but as I just broke down in detail, it was basically a team without a reliable 2nd scoring option, and no All-Stars on the perimeter. How many teams win championships like that?

No breath...it's that you're clearly an idiot who doesn't know . You think it was the worst team? By all means...go through life believing that. I hope you do. It's what you deserve.

You are a complete ing idiot if you think that was the worst Spurs team. You also weren't here that season to see my predictions...that is your ing problem, not mine.

Sounds to me like you were too stupid to see how good it was then, and you still are now. I can't help that you were too stupid to see it and remain so even after the fact.

You are stupid.
It's your problem.
Not mine.
I am not going to argue with you about it.

[TD 21]

No breath...it's that you're clearly an idiot who doesn't know . You think it was the worst team? By all means...go through life believing that. I hope you do. It's what you deserve.

You are a complete ing idiot if you think that was the worst Spurs team. You also weren't here that season to see my predictions...that is your ing problem, not mine.

Sounds to me like you were too stupid to see how good it was then, and you still are now. I can't help that you were too stupid to see it and remain so even after the fact.

You are stupid.
It's your problem.
Not mine.
I am not going to argue with you about it.

breathe? What are you, 12? You're all on Robinson's jock about his admiral career, and character (while desperately trying to pass him off as better than Duncan), yet your posts are filled with vulgar, violent, childish language. Good job, hypocrite.

I never called the '03 the "worst team" re , learn to read, don't just make things up to suit your side of the argument. What I said was they weren't one of the greatest teams of all-time like you're passing them off as. Had they mostly individually been in their prime at once, absolutely, but they weren't. Duncan, Rose, and Claxton, were the only three guys playing at or near their absolute peak.

I don't give a flying what your predictions were, that doesn't mean . They were in the mix to begin with, so congratulations genius on picking them. You really went outside the box with that one. The arrogance of you internet wannabe tough guys with 5 million posts is unbelievable.

That was a very good, not great, flawed team, that won by having one of the 8 best players of all-time playing at his peak, by having solid depth, and by playing defense like their lives were on the line.

You're not going to argue (even though you are) because you know full well you're wrong, just like you passing off Robinson as being the "centerpiece" in '99 is wrong. I don't know or care what it is you have against Duncan, but your hatred towards him clouds your judgment.

[whottt]

breathe? What are you, 12? You're all on Robinson's jock about his admiral career, and character (while desperately trying to pass him off as better than Duncan), yet your posts are filled with vulgar, violent, childish language. Good job, hypocrite.

I never called the '03 the "worst team" re , learn to read, don't just make things up to suit your side of the argument. What I said was they weren't one of the greatest teams of all-time like you're passing them off as. Had they mostly individually been in their prime at once, absolutely, but they weren't. Duncan, Rose, and Claxton, were the only three guys playing at or near their absolute peak.

I don't give a flying what your predictions were, that doesn't mean . They were in the mix to begin with, so congratulations genius on picking them. You really went outside the box with that one. The arrogance of you punks with 5 million posts is unbelievable.

That was a very good, not great, flawed team, that won by having one of the 8 best players of all-time playing at his peak, by having solid depth, and by playing defense like their lives were on the line.

You're not going to argue (even though you are) because you know full well you're wrong, just like you passing off Robinson as being the "centerpiece" in '99 is wrong. I don't know or care what it is you have against Duncan, but your hatred towards him clouds your judgment.

I thought I told you to shut up?

Not interested. Go post at some place without posters who have 5 million posts...what the are you doing here if it bothers you so much?

You are not needed. Especially based on your basketball takes. Disappear and see which one of us is right...


You are on ignore btw. Might as well just accept it. And it's not because you make great arguments, I love great arguments, ask anyone that has seen some of my 5 million posts, but rather it's because you are frustratingly and annoyingly ignorant with ignorant perceptions.


Goodbye.

[TD 21]

I thought I told you to shut up?

Not interested. Go post at some place without posters who have 5 million posts...what the are you doing here if it bothers you so much?

You are not needed. Especially based on your basketball takes. Disappear and see which one of us is right...


You are on ignore btw. Might as well just accept it. And it's not because you make great arguments, I love great arguments, ask anyone that has seen some of my 5 million posts, but rather it's because you are frustratingly and annoyingly ignorant with ignorant perceptions.


Goodbye.

You are the epitome of what I'm talking about.

I don't care what you're interested in. You don't want to argue (and concede in the process), then do what you say you will, and stop. It doesn't bother me, I don't care what number you have, it's just that you're typical of someone with a high post count on a message board.

Whatever you say. I can't expect you to see things clearly though with your head permanently lodged in Robinson's ass.

[whottt]

You are the epitome of what I'm talking about.

I don't care what you're interested in. You don't want to argue (and concede in the process), then do what you say you will, and stop. It doesn't bother me, I don't care what number you have, it's just that you're typical of someone with a high post count on a message board.

Whatever you say. I can't expect you to see things clearly though with your head permanently lodged in Robinson's ass.

Says the guy with the TD21 username. You are stupid if you don't realize how great that 2003 Spurs team was. It is the best Spurs championship team, the one that would beat all the others. It's also the only one you could claim had a legitimate chance of dethroning the other dynasties in NBA history(the Jordan Bulls and the Russell Celticts), because it actually did dethrone a dynasty, and it is the only team in history that can truly make that claim. And no matter what you ing think...Duncan was only guarding one guy, and he wasn't the one pulling double teams off of him by knocking down open threes.



You are actually insulting Duncan far more than I am...because when you give him the credit in the manner in which you do, you are implying that he wasn't as good or good enough in those other seasons.

Me? I think Tim Duncan has been good enough to be the best player on a championship team, every year of his career. I do not think he has ever been the reason we have failed to win.


And I think the exact same thing of David Robinson, except I know one thing, David did what he did, on worse teams, with worse coaches, against the greatest groups of bigmen in NBA history.

And you, and other idiots that in any way intimate that David Robinson was the reason those Spurs teams didn't.....you aren't even a Spur fan. You're a Duncan bandwagoner...that's exactly what you are.

GFY.

[wekko368]

Hakeem's performance would not have been as great if the Spurs coach had a clue how to defend in the post season. He should have his butt kicked for expecting the guy to carry the offensive load to also be the primary defender on Hakeem. Rodman, who would go on to defend Shaq at times for the Bulls, hardly got anywhere near Hakeem.

Olajuwon would've averaged 50 ppg that series if Rodman had to guard him. Rodman's physical defense would've hindered Shaq, but Olajuwon would've just shot over him every trip down the court with either his jump hook or his fadeaway. Robinson was the logical choice to guard Olajuwon due to his athleticism, height, and length.

THe Rockets didn't ask Hakeem to stop David all by himself

Had Rodman proven himself to be an offensive threat, Olajuwon would've guarded Robinson by himself. Don't forget, he did it the prior year against Ewing.

BTW, when people refute your contentions and you resort to name-calling, you look both ignorant and childish.

[whottt]

Olajuwon would've averaged 50 ppg that series if Rodman had to guard him.

Maybe...but since average over 30 anyway, perhaps the Spurs would have been served by having their DPOY defend someone who could be stopped, and let Rodman see if he can get into Hakeem's head.

Had you ever watched a basketball game, you would have seen Rodman was able to be effective far beyond his size due to his willingness to be underhanded and use dirty tactics...you would have seen him doing it against Shaq when the Bulls played.

Rodman's physical defense would've hindered Shaq, but Olajuwon would've just shot over him every trip down the court with either his jump hook or his fadeaway. Robinson was the logical choice to guard Olajuwon due to his athleticism, height, and length.

No he wasn't...because Hakeem was going off. That means it was completely stupid to waste him.

You are so ing stupid it isn't even funny...you would not last 2 second as NBA coach...and you probably wouldn't be as successful as Bob Hill was...who probably would never be that stupid again.

Had Rodman proven himself to be an offensive threat, Olajuwon would've guarded Robinson by himself. Don't forget, he did it the prior year against Ewing.

Patrick Ewing is not David Robinson...


Patrick Ewing is not the guy that as 600 more FTA than Hakeem, in 4 fewer seasons.

BTW, when people refute your contentions and you resort to name-calling, you look both ignorant and childish.

You guys don't refute ...you brandish stupidity like it is a congressional medal of honor, I call you stupid because you are so and you lack insight and understanding of the game. You are also hopelessly biased in your opinion and your bias influences your argument...my bias is because of the research I did in forming my opinion. I formed my opinion, then came my bias, you had your bias first. And I know for a fact many of the points I am presenting to you in this argument are the first time you have ever been presented with them...while there is not a thing you nor anyone else have said yet that I haven't researched and looked at before in prior arguments.

It's what a great deal of my 5 million posts have been dedicated too. Ask anyone.

IOW, don't let the fact that I find your arguments tedious confuse you and lead you to believe they are in any way challenging or mentally stimulating.

For they absolutely are not.



I am sorry, but saying, you can't count x...is ing stupid and doesn't refute .

[TD 21]

Says the guy with the TD21 username. You are stupid if you don't realize how great that 2003 Spurs team was. It is the best Spurs championship team, the one that would beat all the others. It's also the only one you could claim had a legitimate chance of dethroning the other dynasties in NBA history(the Jordan Bulls and the Russell Celticts), because it actually did dethrone a dynasty, and it is the only team in history that can truly make that claim. And no matter what you ing think...Duncan was only guarding one guy, and he wasn't the one pulling double teams off of him by knocking down open threes.



You are actually insulting Duncan far more than I am...because when you give him the credit in the manner in which you do, you are implying that he wasn't as good or good enough in those other seasons.

Me? I think Tim Duncan has been good enough to be the best player on a championship team, every year of his career. I do not think he has ever been the reason we have failed to win.


And I think the exact same thing of David Robinson, except I know one thing, David did what he did, on worse teams, with worse coaches, against the greatest groups of bigmen in NBA history.

And you, and other idiots that in any way intimate that David Robinson was the reason those Spurs teams didn't.....you aren't even a Spur fan. You're a Duncan bandwagoner...that's exactly what you are.

GFY.

Username is irrelevant. I'm only stating fact (except for calling him one of the 8 greatest players of all-time, that's obviously an opinion). You're saying completely irrational things, like Robinson was the "centerpiece" of the '99 team. That '03 team never had a chance to play against any other dynasty though, so what type of thinking is that? Nobody can say for sure what would have happened had they faced Russell's Celtics, Magic/Abdul-Jabbar's Lakers, or Bird's Celtics, because they never had the chance; just like the '99, '05, and '07 teams. This comment proves that you know very little about the game. Duncan wasn't the one draining the open three's, but he was the reason all those players received the open three's. You can always find players to make open three's, but finding big's like Duncan is a little more difficult.

No, I'm not. Obviously you lack basic reading comprehension. What I said was that it was his best season from start to finish, and that his game, overall, went to another level that season. Since then, because of the emergence of Ginobili, and Parker, he hasn't had to carry quite as big a load offensively.

I agree, but that's obvious, because Duncan has been that 4 times, and it conceivably could have been 6.

Find me a single statement where I "intimate" that Robinson was the reason that the Spurs didn't win a championship pre-Duncan. You're just flat out making things up because you're mad that I've proven how stupid you look throughout this entire thread.

By the way, I thought you weren't "arguing", and I'm on the "ignore list" (like I'd give a )? You're too pathetic, and immature for that though. Predictably, you'll carry on, desperately trying to get the last word.