Timmy = not even Top 15 Player All-Time

[whottt]

Facts like David Robinson guarding Shaq in 2003?

Series minute averages:

Shaq - 38.3

DRob - 21

Did Robinson guard Shaq when he was in? Yeah he did. But using the simple fact that he guarded him to say, "there's a reason David was the main guy that did it and Duncan wasn't" is ridiculous. Because Duncan did a great job on Shaq as well. What's interesting is that David had 30 minutes in game 1 and then 17-15-14 in the next three. If he was so crucial to stopping Shaq why didn't he play more in those games? He played 27 and 23 in games 5 and 6 so he couldn't have been in that much pain.

I don't supposed it's dawned on you that the games David played the fewest minutes were the two losses in the series has it?

And that 14 minute game David was fouled out in 14 minutes, by Bavetta or Crawford(I can't remember which one).

[Shastafarian]

I don't supposed it's dawned on you that the games David played the fewest minutes were the two losses in the series has it?

And that 14 minute game David was fouled out in 14 minutes, by Bavetta or Crawford(I can't remember which one).

Wrong assuming you're differentiating the 17/15 games and the 14 minutes game based on him fouling out. He played 17 minutes in game 2, a win, and did not foul out. He played 15 minutes in game 3. Game 3 in which Shaq was second fiddle (21 pts 16 reb) to Kobe (39/4/4). He did foul out in game 4, a loss, after totaling 0 pts and 3 reb. I'm as big a David Robinson fan as there is. But to say he was still the David Robinson of old in 2003 is ludicrous.

[TD 21]

4 Hall of Famers? Maybe, there's no guarantee. The reality is the '03 team had 1 player playing at a Hall of Fame level at the time (actually he was playing beyond a Hall of Fame level at the time).

Duncan went to another level that year, O'Neal wasn't quite as dominant as he was the previous few years (this coincided with Bryant beginning to become the go-to guy), Parker was a year older, Ginobili had joined the team and Jackson was a steal. But make no mistake, the first one was primary reasons the Spurs got by the Lakers.

It's easy to go back and look at the names now and say "what a loaded team", but at the time it was a team without a bona fide second scorer and no go-to guy on the perimeter, which is why they were prone to offensive droughts. Obviously other guys stepped up and played a part, but that team won primarily with a historical level of performance from Duncan and historical level defense. If it was an all-time loaded team like you say, then they would have waltzed through the playoffs in easier fashion than they did.

The '03 team was not the best team, '05-'07 was really the peak of the Spurs dominance because Ginobili and then Parker had reached certified star level, with Ginobili at times playing superstar caliber.

[Spurminator]

Well I can't argue with the sound analysis and back-up in that column.

[whottt]

Wrong assuming you're differentiating the 17/15 games and the 14 minutes game based on him fouling out. He played 17 minutes in game 2, a win, and did not foul out. He played 15 minutes in game 3. Game 3 in which Shaq was second fiddle (21 pts 16 reb) to Kobe (39/4/4). He did foul out in game 4, a loss, after totaling 0 pts and 3 reb. I'm as big a David Robinson fan as there is. But to say he was still the David Robinson of old in 2003 is ludicrous.

Um...I clearly said the games David played the fewest minutes were the 2 losses. Which they were.

You want the quote:

don't supposed it's dawned on you that the games David played the fewest minutes were the two losses in the series has it?

Do you not see how what you said has nothing to do with what I said?


2 losses. David played 15 minutes in 1 and 14 in the other. The 14 minute game he fouled out, and it was pretty obvious it was a deliberate attempt to foul him out to give the Lakers the advantage.

And furthermore, Kevin Willis and Malik Rose also guarded Shaq extensively in that series when David wasn't. Kevin Willis in particular was key.


And if Duncan is such a great Shaq defender, then what happened in 2004? We still had Kevin Willis and Malik Rose you know...

In addition to Rasho and Horry.

Pop tried to guard him with Horry.

Why don't you look and see what Shaq did to us in 2004 VS every other time we played him in the playoffs ever, with David.

Shaq was held to his playoff lows for that season every single time he was guarded by David Robinson...and he destroyed our frontline the year after David left.


And finally, I didn't say David was still the David of old in that series. And yes his medical problems were that bad...he often was left without any feelings in his legs.

Nontheless David on his last legs in the NBA against Shaq in his prime was a better Shaq defender than Duncan was on his best day in his prime.

And one other thing...Shaq didn't score a point from the field with David on him in game 1 of that series. I know because I was keeping track of it in a game log..either here or at SR.

[CubanSucks]

4 Hall of Famers? Maybe, there's no guarantee. The reality is the '03 team had 1 player playing at a Hall of Fame level at the time (actually he was playing beyond a Hall of Fame level at the time).

Duncan went to another level that year, O'Neal wasn't quite as dominant as he was the previous few years (this coincided with Bryant beginning to become the go-to guy), Parker was a year older, Ginobili had joined the team and Jackson was a steal. But make no mistake, the first one was primary reasons the Spurs got by the Lakers.

It's easy to go back and look at the names now and say "what a loaded team", but at the time it was a team without a bona fide second scorer and no go-to guy on the perimeter, which is why they were prone to offensive droughts. Obviously other guys stepped up and played a part, but that team won primarily with a historical level of performance from Duncan and historical level defense. If it was an all-time loaded team like you say, then they would have waltzed through the playoffs in easier fashion than they did.

The '03 team was not the best team, '05-'07 was really the peak of the Spurs dominance because Ginobili and then Parker had reached certified star level, with Ginobili at times playing superstar caliber.

Are you out of your mind? 03 Spurs would smash those teams for the simple reason of the Twin Towers on defense. Sure Robinson wasn't the crazy athletic scorer that he used to be but on D he was still insane. Not to mention Duncan being at his absolute prime. NO ONE could score within 10 feet of the basket when they were together

[whottt]

4 Hall of Famers? Maybe, there's no guarantee. The reality is the '03 team had 1 player playing at a Hall of Fame level at the time (actually he was playing beyond a Hall of Fame level at the time).

Duncan went to another level that year, O'Neal wasn't quite as dominant as he was the previous few years (this coincided with Bryant beginning to become the go-to guy), Parker was a year older, Ginobili had joined the team and Jackson was a steal. But make no mistake, the first one was primary reasons the Spurs got by the Lakers.

It's easy to go back and look at the names now and say "what a loaded team", but at the time it was a team without a bona fide second scorer and no go-to guy on the perimeter, which is why they were prone to offensive droughts. Obviously other guys stepped up and played a part, but that team won primarily with a historical level of performance from Duncan and historical level defense. If it was an all-time loaded team like you say, then they would have waltzed through the playoffs in easier fashion than they did.

The '03 team was not the best team, '05-'07 was really the peak of the Spurs dominance because Ginobili and then Parker had reached certified star level, with Ginobili at times playing superstar caliber.

Yeah...well, Duncan wasn't the guy kicking Kobe's ass. And he wasn't the guy holding Shaq to his playoff lows.


Were you guys even fans then?


We didn't even belong on the same court as the Lakers without Bowen to put on Kobe.


Don't give me this one man team .

All it proves is you either weren't actually watching those games or you can't breakdown a game worth a crap.

[cd98]

I don't supposed it's dawned on you that the games David played the fewest minutes were the two losses in the series has it?

And that 14 minute game David was fouled out in 14 minutes, by Bavetta or Crawford(I can't remember which one).

You're a bit overrated. I don't have time to refute all your statements, though I disagree with most of them. I will simply reserve my arguments for the premise that no other superstar can claim that they won a championship (I think Detroit Pistons of 2006 had no superstars- to their credit) without HOF quality players playing in their prime, except Duncan.

A few counter arguments:

1. Celtics had 4 future HOF players in 1981. Three of which were in their prime or nearly in their prime: Larry Bird, Nate Archibald, and Robert Parish. You go on about Kevin McHale, fine, let's exclude him until he is in his prime for the 1984 and 1986 championships. You also conviently forget to mention Robert Parish in your email rant. He was a HOF in his prime in 1981, ame with Nate Archibald. Tim Duncan had no Robert Parish or Tim Archibald in 2003.
2. McHale and Parish are in the hall of fame. Tony Parker has not had a HOF career. He's a good player, one of the best point guards of his era, but he is a Kevin Johnson or a Dennis Johnson. And he didn't really come into his own until around 2006, not 2003.
3. If S. Jax was so great in 2003, why no big F.A. contract?
4. So what to the fact that D. Rob guarded Shaq. So did every center in the NBA. Your point? D. Rob was not near the same player in 2003 and retired after the season exactly because of that. His minutes were down that year as were all of his stats. He was a nice role player and was able to keep Tim out of foul trouble by taking most of the minutes guarding Shaq, but he was not playing HOF basketball at that point in his career.
5. You overrate Horry. He wouldn't have had a chance to make any of those big shots if not for Kobe, Shaq, Tim, and Hakeem. End of discussion if you think they owe any of their les to Horry. They did 98% of the work. Not to say that Horry wasn't clutch and a great role player, but he was a role player. And role players don't go to the HOF. Tell me how many les Horry won with the Suns. Nada because he didn't have any HOF players to do the heavy lifting. And Tim Duncan won a le without him in 1999 and 2003 and really in 2007 as well (considering he had nothing in the tank).

[TD 21]

Are you out of your mind? 03 Spurs would smash those teams for the simple reason of the Twin Towers on defense. Sure Robinson wasn't the crazy athletic scorer that he used to be but on D he was still insane. Not to mention Duncan being at his absolute prime. NO ONE could score within 10 feet of the basket when they were together

The '04 team actually had the best defensive efficiency mark of any Spurs team. People have revisionist history with the '03 team, because the names makes it seem better than it actually was. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it wasn't a very good team, but the peak of the Spurs dominance was really 05-07.

[TD 21]

Yeah...well, Duncan wasn't the guy kicking Kobe's ass. And he wasn't the guy holding Shaq to his playoff lows.


Were you guys even fans then?


We didn't even belong on the same court as the Lakers without Bowen to put on Kobe.


Don't give me this one man team .

All it proves is you either weren't actually watching those games or you can't breakdown a game worth a crap.

Who said one man team? You're an idiot who's too caught up in being a Robinson fan to realize that that team won because they had the best player in the league playing at a historically great level and a historically great defense. Other than that, the rest of the team was made up of role players. Sure, they stepped up and contributed, but that happens on every championship team. The bottom line is, if Duncan wasn't playing at the level he was, that team wasn't a championship team, because there was no consistent second star to take the load off of him.

No, what it proves is that you're really more of a Robinson fan than a Spurs fan, which has been evident in every post I've seen of yours (admittedly, not an overwhelming amount, but enough to know what you're about).

[cd98]

The 2003 Team had some very good players that went on to have good careers. Steven Jackson is a good player, but never an all-star. Bruce Bowen was a fine defensive player, but he was no HOF player. Tony had good raw talent, but he took his step to greatness in 2006, but not HOF greatness. Manu became a star, but not for the first two seasons. David gave us good minutes at center, but he slowed down Shaq, he didn't stop him. And David was not in HOF mode in 2003. Steve Kerr was as important, and he also retired the next year.

Fact is that Whott has not named an NBA HOF player that has won a le with a less talented cast of players than 2003 Tim Duncan given their relative abilities at the time. Tim was a manchild in 2003 as the MVP of the league. He owned the league that year much like Lebron has owned the league this year (with equally lesser talent). In fact, I'd say if Lebron won the le this year, I'd probably say it was on par with Tim. But certainly as great as Larry Bird was, he never did a 2003 le a la Tim Duncan.

[FeZZy]

wow is someone jealous because they didn't get the lottery balls to go there way and had to pick paul pierce instead of timmy d even though the celtics had the most losses that year...or is it the fact that we just creamed your team by 21 yesterday

[CubanSucks]

You're a bit overrated. I don't have time to refute all your statements, though I disagree with most of them. I will simply reserve my arguments for the premise that no other superstar can claim that they won a championship (I think Detroit Pistons of 2006 had no superstars- to their credit) without HOF quality players playing in their prime, except Duncan.

A few counter arguments:

1. Celtics had 4 future HOF players in 1981. Three of which were in their prime or nearly in their prime: Larry Bird, Nate Archibald, and Robert Parish. You go on about Kevin McHale, fine, let's exclude him until he is in his prime for the 1984 and 1986 championships. You also conviently forget to mention Robert Parish in your email rant. He was a HOF in his prime in 1981, ame with Nate Archibald. Tim Duncan had no Robert Parish or Tim Archibald in 2003.
2. McHale and Parish are in the hall of fame. Tony Parker has not had a HOF career. He's a good player, one of the best point guards of his era, but he is a Kevin Johnson or a Dennis Johnson. And he didn't really come into his own until around 2006, not 2003.
3. If S. Jax was so great in 2003, why no big F.A. contract?
4. So what to the fact that D. Rob guarded Shaq. So did every center in the NBA. Your point? D. Rob was not near the same player in 2003 and retired after the season exactly because of that. His minutes were down that year as were all of his stats. He was a nice role player and was able to keep Tim out of foul trouble by taking most of the minutes guarding Shaq, but he was not playing HOF basketball at that point in his career.
5. You overrate Horry. He wouldn't have had a chance to make any of those big shots if not for Kobe, Shaq, Tim, and Hakeem. End of discussion if you think they owe any of their les to Horry. They did 98% of the work. Not to say that Horry wasn't clutch and a great role player, but he was a role player. And role players don't go to the HOF. Tell me how many les Horry won with the Suns. Nada because he didn't have any HOF players to do the heavy lifting. And Tim Duncan won a le without him in 1999 and 2003 and really in 2007 as well (considering he had nothing in the tank).

Hate to nitpick but he had said before that season even started that it was going to be his last no matter what. Which made it even sweeter that he went out on top

[Muser]

Wilt was way before my time, but wasn't he an atrocious FT shooter?

[cd98]

Hate to nitpick but he had said before that season even started that it was going to be his last no matter what. Which made it even sweeter that he went out on top

Agreed. He had had several back issues and missed games over the last few years and knew it was time to call it quits. Same with Kerr. Neither of them waivered, even after winning a le.

[cd98]

I would also add that Whott's Horry argument is meritless unless he advocates Steve Kerr for the HOF as well. Steve Kerr won four les and hit big shots for Jordan and Duncan, including his memorable streak of threes against Dallas in 2003. But no one with a straight face could argue he was a HOF player. And before you spout off Horry having more les, remember that in 2007 Horry did next to nothing and did not hit big shots in 1994 or 2000. Again, he might have been a good role player in 1994 or 2000, but he didn't do anything to elicit the nonsensical argument that he should be in the HOF based purely on the number of les he has won as part of a championship team.

[whottt]

You're a bit overrated. I don't have time to refute all your statements, though I disagree with most of them. I will simply reserve my arguments for the premise that no other superstar can claim that they won a championship (I think Detroit Pistons of 2006 had no superstars- to their credit) without HOF quality players playing in their prime, except Duncan.

A few counter arguments:

[LIST=1][*]Celtics had 4 future HOF players in 1981.

And a very strong case can be made that so did the 2003 Spurs. Since it's not possible for all of them to be in the HOF yet, there is no way you can refute that point. There is most certainly a reasonable argument that 2003 team had four future HOF'ers on it.

Three of which were in their prime or nearly in their prime: Larry Bird, Nate Archibald, and Robert Parish.

#1. Nate Archibald was in his prime? He was 3 years away from retirement...age 32. If you want to say near to prime then I can say Parker and Manu were near to their primes too. David wasn't that far removed from his. Near to prime.

#2. You were the one that mentioned McHale and Parish(and no one else) as being in their primes...and then you tried to claim Manu wasn't in his and it contradicted your claim McHale was.

Why did you do that?

I am not the one that said a younger rookie was in his prime and an older one with far more experience wasn't, to cast the player I am jocking as a 1 man team.

It's you that did that, it's you that is also backpedaling away from the statement, and I strongly susptect it will be either the last time you claim McHale was in his prime for the Bird championships(as in all of them) or it will be the last time you claim Manu wasn't in his prime for 3 with the Spurs.

You go on about Kevin McHale, fine, let's exclude him until he is in his prime for the 1984 and 1986 championships. You also conviently forget to mention Robert Parish in your email rant. He was a HOF in his prime in 1981, ame with Nate Archibald. Tim Duncan had no Robert Parish or Tim Archibald in 2003.[*]McHale and Parish are in the hall of fame.

Parish? Well Parish most certainly was not a HOF'er in the Celtics first championship. In fact he had never made an AS game prior to that season. In fact none of them were HOF'ers yet in their first championship, and if their careers had ended after that year, none of them would have made the HOF.

And since Parish was 29, if he was in his prime for that championship, then he certainly wasn't for the last one when he was 33 years old or roughly the same age Duncan is now.

So no....at best one of Bird's championships came with McHale and Parish both in their primes. And technically...McHale was not truly in his prime for the second Celts championship being 26. According to your criteria for Parker, he was sort of just coming into his own. Parker had a finals MVP by age 25. McHale wasn't even off the bench yet at age 26.

And if 26 is prime...then Manu qualifies as being near to prime in 2003, since he was 25.

And finally...how many Finals MVP's do Parish and McHale have?

How about how many championships do they have?

Exactly what is your claim they are HOF'ers and Parker isn't it?

Tony Parker has not had a HOF career. He's a good player, one of the best point guards of his era, but he is a Kevin Johnson or a Dennis Johnson. And he didn't really come into his own until around 2006, not 2003.

Well he started for an NBA champion at the age of 20 and had a finals MVP at the age of 25...and was already a multiple All Star by the time he entered his, prime.

So obviously, as evidenced by the fact he had a finals MVP by age 25, he probably wasn't just some scrub placeholder at 20.

Place holders don't start for NBA champions at age 20. Future finals MVP's do.

How does that compare to Kevin Johnson? And how many finals MVP's does he have? How many do he McHale and Parish combined have?

Were any of these guys even starting at age 20, much less starting for an NBA champion?

And yet they are the HOF'ers and he isn't?

Parker is going to be in the HOF. Guaranteed.

[*]If S. Jax was so great in 2003, why no big F.A. contract?

Ok SJax sucked in 2003. Total dead weight.

We could have just plugged Steve Smith in his spot...another placeholder.

[*]So what to the fact that D. Rob guarded Shaq. So did every center in the NBA. Your point?

Did every center in the NBA hold him to his playoff lows every time they met in the playoffs? Did every center in the NBA defend him in a series they won when he was a 3 time defending champ and considered the best player in the NBA?

D. Rob was not near the same player in 2003 and retired after the season exactly because of that. His minutes were down that year as were all of his stats. He was a nice role player and was able to keep Tim out of foul trouble by taking most of the minutes guarding Shaq, but he was not playing HOF basketball at that point in his career.

As far as defending Shaq goes he still was. Since he did it better than anyone else in the league. Even then.

And David could have continued playing had he truly wanted.

Since David retired we have not had a better c than he was in his final season.

Ask Pop and Duncan if you don't believe me.

[*]You overrate Horry. He wouldn't have had a chance to make any of those big shots if not for Kobe, Shaq, Tim, and Hakeem.

And they in turn would not have won any of those championships had he not done so.

He's the one that could replace superstars fairly easily and still win championships, they had a of a lot tougher time replacing him. That's why he's got more rings without them than they do with him. That's why he's got more rings than they do.

I mean based on the logic you are using...he is harder to replace than they are. He's the one that replaced Hakeem with Shaq and Shaq with Duncan.

Who did they replace him with, and did it produce a le?

End of discussion if you think they owe any of their les to Horry. They did 98% of the work. Not to say that Horry wasn't clutch and a great role player, but he was a role player. And role players don't go to the HOF. Tell me how many les Horry won with the Suns. Nada because he didn't have any HOF players to do the heavy lifting. And Tim Duncan won a le without him in 1999 and 2003 and really in 2007 as well (considering he had nothing in the tank).

Well, the Rockets replaced him with Charles Bakrley and...failed to win a le.
The Lakers replaced him Karl Malone and...failed to win a le.
And the Spurs replaced him with Matt Bonner and got a first round exit for the first time in Duncan's career.


According to you Duncan is a one man team capable of beating anyone and he is in his prime just like Parish was at age 33 when he won his last Celtics le...so how come Duncan got bounced in the first round last year?


Duncan is a one man team capable of beating a 3 time champion by himself...why hasn't he won a le every year of his career?

Since no one else matters but Duncan?

BTW, I am putting you on my role player watch cd98...first time I see you compalining about the supporting cast I am going to mention that they don't matter if you have Tim Duncan.

[cd98]

And a very strong case can be made that so did the 2003 Spurs. Since it's not possible for all of them to be in the HOF yet, there is no way you can refute that point. There is most certainly a reasonable argument that 2003 team had four future HOF'ers on it.





#1. Nate Archibald was in his prime? He was 3 years away from retirement...age 32. If you want to say near to prime then I can say Parker and Manu were near to their primes too. David wasn't that far removed from his. Near to prime.

#2. You were the one that mentioned McHale and Parish(and no one else) as being in their primes...and then you tried to claim Manu wasn't in his and it contradicted your claim McHale was.

Why did you do that?

I am not the one that said a younger rookie was in his prime and an older one with far more experience wasn't, to cast the player I am jocking as a 1 man team.

It's you that did that, it's you that is also backpedaling away from the statement, and I strongly susptect it will be either the last time you claim McHale was in his prime for the Bird championships(as in all of them) or it will be the last time you claim Manu wasn't in his prime for 3 with the Spurs.





Parish? Well Parish most certainly was not a HOF'er in the Celtics first championship. In fact he had never made an AS game prior to that season. In fact none of them were HOF'ers yet in their first championship, and if their careers had ended after that year, none of them would have made the HOF.

And since Parish was 29, if he was in his prime for that championship, then he certainly wasn't for the last one when he was 33 years old or roughly the same age Duncan is now.

So no....at best one of Bird's championships came with McHale and Parish both in their primes. And technically...McHale was not truly in his prime for the second Celts championship being 26. According to your criteria for Parker, he was sort of just coming into his own. Parker had a finals MVP by age 25. McHale wasn't even off the bench yet at age 26.

And if 26 is prime...then Manu qualifies as being near to prime in 2003, since he was 25.

And finally...how many Finals MVP's do Parish and McHale have?

How about how many championships do they have?

Exactly what is your claim they are HOF'ers and Parker isn't it?




Well he started for an NBA champion at the age of 20 and had a finals MVP at the age of 25...and was already a multiple All Star by the time he entered his, prime.

So obviously, as evidenced by the fact he had a finals MVP by age 25, he probably wasn't just some scrub placeholder at 20.

Place holders don't start for NBA champions at age 20. Future finals MVP's do.

How does that compare to Kevin Johnson? And how many finals MVP's does he have? How many do he McHale and Parish combined have?

Were any of these guys even starting at age 20, much less starting for an NBA champion?

And yet they are the HOF'ers and he isn't?

Parker is going to be in the HOF. Guaranteed.




Ok SJax sucked in 2003. Total dead weight.

We could have just plugged Steve Smith in his spot...another placeholder.





Did every center in the NBA hold him to his playoff lows every time they met in the playoffs? Did every center in the NBA defend him in a series they won when he was a 3 time defending champ and considered the best player in the NBA?





As far as defending Shaq goes he still was. Since he did it better than anyone else in the league. Even then.

And David could have continued playing had he truly wanted.

Since David retired we have not had a better c than he was in his final season.

Ask Pop and Duncan if you don't believe me.




And they in turn would not have won any of those championships had he not done so.

He's the one that could replace superstars fairly easily and still win championships, they had a of a lot tougher time replacing him. That's why he's got more rings without them than they do with him. That's why he's got more rings than they do.

I mean based on the logic you are using...he is harder to replace than they are. He's the one that replaced Hakeem with Shaq and Shaq with Duncan.

Who did they replace him with, and did it produce a le?





Well, the Rockets replaced him with Charles Bakrley and...failed to win a le.
The Lakers replaced him Karl Malone and...failed to win a le.
And the Spurs replaced him with Matt Bonner and got a first round exit for the first time in Duncan's career.


According to you Duncan is a one man team capable of beating anyone and he is in his prime just like Parish was at age 33 when he won his last Celtics le...so how come Duncan got bounced in the first round last year?


Duncan is a one man team capable of beating a 3 time champion by himself...why hasn't he won a le every year of his career?

Since no one else matters but Duncan?

BTW, I am putting you on my role player watch cd98...first time I see you compalining about the supporting cast I am going to mention that they don't matter if you have Tim Duncan.

Ginoboli at 32 is pretty special the last few weeks.

[whottt]

Tell me how many les Horry won with the Suns

0

He was only with the Suns for a half a season and he was traded to the Lakers before the seasons end. He could have been the greatest player of all time and it still would have been impossible for him to win a le with the Suns.

And shame on your for minimizing his le winning clutch performance in game 5 of the 2005 NBA finals.

Just aint right.

[whottt]

Who said one man team? You're an idiot who's too caught up in being a Robinson fan to realize that that team won because they had the best player in the league playing at a historically great level and a historically great defense. Other than that, the rest of the team was made up of role players. Sure, they stepped up and contributed, but that happens on every championship team. The bottom line is, if Duncan wasn't playing at the level he was, that team wasn't a championship team, because there was no consistent second star to take the load off of him.

No, what it proves is that you're really more of a Robinson fan than a Spurs fan, which has been evident in every post I've seen of yours (admittedly, not an overwhelming amount, but enough to know what you're about).

8 time all NBA D is a role player?


And if you were paying attention, I'm not just defending David Robinson, I'm defending Tony Parker and Manu and Stephen Jackson...I am defending the team over the individual.

You OTOH...I see significant evidence to indicate you are in a fact a Tim Duncan fan and not a SpursFan, in fact, Duncan is obviously the only player that matters to you TD 21.

And Duncan got his ass kicked into the dirt in 2001 and 2002. So obviously...it takes more than him playing great to win a le. Something I am sure he would be the first to admit.

[Thomas82]

I like this article much better than the one that's being talked about:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau....htm?eref=sisf

[raspsa]

I'd judge how great a player is/was bythe numer of championships and most importantly, the amount of talent he had surrounding him. Duncan truly is deserving.
I think the whippng the Spurs gave the Celtics must sting pretty bad.

[cd98]

Most of your responses are just to mischaracterize my arguments and make counter arguments. I could respond to them, but you would just mischaracterize my responses and we would go around in circles.

My point is that Tim Duncan is the only superstar to win a le without another teammate that is a hall of famer playing in his prime. If you think that is Larry Bird, well it doesn't hold up on the facts, but you can believe what you want. My point is that Tim Duncan, in his prime, was so good he could win les with role players and no superstars. You have failed to cite any other NBA superstar to do that, so my take is that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I respect some of your arguments, though I disagree with them. In my book Parker, though a great point guard, is not a HOF. And to play the championship card is pretty silly given that Parker was benched in the 2003 finals because of his poor production. But he certainly showed us something in 2007 and if you think 2006 forward is worthy of HOF status, then you are en led to your opinion.

But your Robert Horry argument is pure nonsense. To say Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, and Hakeem would not have won les without Horry destroys your credibility. They are only the best players in the league for the last 10 years. Kobe, Shaq, and Duncan have won les without him. Are you trying to tell me the Spurs would have won a le in 2008 if they kept Horry? If you are trying to sell me these bags of good, no thanks.

[whottt]

Ginoboli at 32 is pretty special the last few weeks.

You should have seen what Robert Horry and Bruce Bowen were doing at age 35...and David Robinson at age 37.

[cd98]

0

He was only with the Suns for a half a season and he was traded to the Lakers before the seasons end. He could have been the greatest player of all time and it still would have been impossible for him to win a le with the Suns.

And shame on your for minimizing his le winning clutch performance in game 5 of the 2005 NBA finals.

Just aint right.

Why did he get traded from the Suns eh? And how dare you minimize face of the franchise, Tim Duncan's masterful 2003 performance that puts him potentially in the top 5 of NBA greats and makes this franchise what it is today.