NBA: If LeBron doesn't win another championship....

[ambchang]

Never said I wanted David to "act" ...does Tim act all hard intense? Did Hakeem? did Kareem? Moses?

Difference is, those guys won because they had better teammates. Comparing Robinson to Garnett is a lot more appropriate because neither won during their absolute primes.

And in some sense it's a reflection on the perception of an average fan, people do not spend hours watching and rewatching games, and do the necessary analysis to breakdown a player's game. We generally rely on sportscasters for that. Sadly, most sportscasters are ex-players who, surprisingly, know very little about a game, and thus has to spew stereo types to keep their jobs. To make matters worse, since they are ex-players, people naturally assumes what they said to be true, and lap it up.

Add to that the journalist angle, which essentially is trying to sell stories, so they create these side story lines to sell paper and get viewership. Most of which is poorly researched because of these guys are writers who happen to like basketball. There are very few analysts like Zach Lowe who actually understands the game to such a degree AND can write well enough so that they can consistently write meaningful articles.

Which brings us to the point, ex-players are like everyone, they get drawn by the most visible thing, and when you are 6'11" and scream and howl at a 6'3" European point guard after a block, people notice. Now when you are a 7'1" guy out there guarding shaq one one one with a hip-pointer and a bad back, people don't notice. It's a general practice of jumping to conclusions without all the information because everybody is busy, and basketball arguments are unimportant.

Did Robinson get roasted by Hakeem in that series? Sure he did. But look at it this way, Hakeem was on fire that year, he put up 35ppg with Robinson single coverage, and then put in 33ppg with Shaq and Grant doubling him throughout the series due to a PG who couldn't shoot, a SG who wouldn't shoot, and a PF who doesn't do anything. On defense, Robinson was routinely double and tripled throughout the entire series, and Rodman was drifting under the basket looking for rebounds. Rodman didn't guard Horry, Rodman didn't double team Hakeem, he was just looking for rebounds, and Bob Hill didn't hold him accountable. Not to mention that Rudy T actually had a well-established system and pecking order for Hakeem, Hill doesn't have any system or strategy. His approach was throw the ball to Robinson and see what works.

That approach worked for them in the regular season because Robinson was just that good, didn't work in the playoffs because teams actually spend days preparing for you.

[313]

Timmy is a C, and anyone with half a brain knows it.

And at putting him over Moses. Moses is one of the most underappreciated stars of all time. I would build a team around Moses 10 times out of 10 before building a team around Robinson.

Tim has been a C since 07 something. The old legs ain't allowing him to play PF anymore so that's the reason why you don't see no more such traditional C's like Rasho playing alongside him. You have to be mobile as a SF to play with Duncan these days I think, no matter if you're fat or thin, tall or short.

Except Duncan, unless I smoked some weird weed, is playing PF since he has been paired with Splitter so your point is totally moot knowing that he had a monster year last year. It has been years that his bread and butter is more JS than scoring at the rim.

you should stick to your virgnity and fake whinny blond

[Killakobe81]

Difference is, those guys won because they had better teammates. Comparing Robinson to Garnett is a lot more appropriate because neither won during their absolute primes.

And in some sense it's a reflection on the perception of an average fan, people do not spend hours watching and rewatching games, and do the necessary analysis to breakdown a player's game. We generally rely on sportscasters for that. Sadly, most sportscasters are ex-players who, surprisingly, know very little about a game, and thus has to spew stereo types to keep their jobs. To make matters worse, since they are ex-players, people naturally assumes what they said to be true, and lap it up.

Add to that the journalist angle, which essentially is trying to sell stories, so they create these side story lines to sell paper and get viewership. Most of which is poorly researched because of these guys are writers who happen to like basketball. There are very few analysts like Zach Lowe who actually understands the game to such a degree AND can write well enough so that they can consistently write meaningful articles.

Which brings us to the point, ex-players are like everyone, they get drawn by the most visible thing, and when you are 6'11" and scream and howl at a 6'3" European point guard after a block, people notice. Now when you are a 7'1" guy out there guarding shaq one one one with a hip-pointer and a bad back, people don't notice. It's a general practice of jumping to conclusions without all the information because everybody is busy, and basketball arguments are unimportant.

Did Robinson get roasted by Hakeem in that series? Sure he did. But look at it this way, Hakeem was on fire that year, he put up 35ppg with Robinson single coverage, and then put in 33ppg with Shaq and Grant doubling him throughout the series due to a PG who couldn't shoot, a SG who wouldn't shoot, and a PF who doesn't do anything. On defense, Robinson was routinely double and tripled throughout the entire series, and Rodman was drifting under the basket looking for rebounds. Rodman didn't guard Horry, Rodman didn't double team Hakeem, he was just looking for rebounds, and Bob Hill didn't hold him accountable. Not to mention that Rudy T actually had a well-established system and pecking order for Hakeem, Hill doesn't have any system or strategy. His approach was throw the ball to Robinson and see what works.

That approach worked for them in the regular season because Robinson was just that good, didn't work in the playoffs because teams actually spend days preparing for you.

Good reply. But I do watch and re-watch games. Granted I see less of David compared to the guys i mentioned. My point was I never said DR had to act fact tough to please me like the average NBA fan. No where dis I say that David should of won a le with a good but flawed team. I am just saying I would of liked to see him go down with more "fight". I am not saying he did not have good playoff performances ... even in losses. I just never got the feeling that it was ever do or die with him. Duncan is a classy mostly quiet leader. But you could just see and feel the anguish of "6" like when he slapped the court after he missed that bunny late in the series. I know that stats are meant to eliminate bias ...but when you watch David play it just doesnt seem to matter to him the way it did to Tim or Manu. I know it's sounds cliche but if Tim had manu's heart and spirit no matter what his team's short-comings were, I think they do better. do they win a le? doubtful...but they go down with more of a "fight".
I know many of you hate those compe ive spirit narratives they attach to Kobe and others but if you look on your own team you can see it plain as day in the play of Duncan and Manu. You can hear it in Pop's voice. David lacked some of THAT. David deserves praise as a great player who is underrated largely for being dominated by the best all-around center since Hakeem, I get that. But you do him such a disservice but by attributing his flaws and failures more to a shaky backcourt or iffy head-coach ...then laying it on the league MVP. When the Lakers lost in 2008 did you blame Kobe or Pau? But what kills me the most AMB you go out of your way to make qualifiers and justifications for David (though you did point out some flaws) yet you murder Kobe for his own playoff failings and offer no such excuses. You cannot have it BOTH ways. Kobe is the star and gets the lion's share of the blame for Laker failures he was a part of ..just as he gets a bunch of credit for their success. Did he win alone? no. did he lose alone? no. But that is how this works. David gets the same. Same for Shaq same for Ewing.

the NBA is a results based business. any moron can see David did not have Kobe,MJ or Lebron level support. anyway never meant to attack the man's character. Good dude, does so much in the community, his school/academy is amazing.Served our country and did not try to big time his commitment. Though duncan is your greatest player Robinson to me is the iconic Spurs player. he embodies the city and the franchise. and like I said earlier one of the greatest athletes to ever play center and probably top 5 or 6 I have ever seen play in person.

[ambchang]

Good reply. But I do watch and re-watch games. Granted I see less of David compared to the guys i mentioned. My point was I never said DR had to act fact tough to please me like the average NBA fan. No where dis I say that David should of won a le with a good but flawed team. I am just saying I would of liked to see him go down with more "fight". I am not saying he did not have good playoff performances ... even in losses. I just never got the feeling that it was ever do or die with him. Duncan is a classy mostly quiet leader. But you could just see and feel the anguish of "6" like when he slapped the court after he missed that bunny late in the series. I know that stats are meant to eliminate bias ...but when you watch David play it just doesnt seem to matter to him the way it did to Tim or Manu. I know it's sounds cliche but if Tim had manu's heart and spirit no matter what his team's short-comings were, I think they do better. do they win a le? doubtful...but they go down with more of a "fight".
I know many of you hate those compe ive spirit narratives they attach to Kobe and others but if you look on your own team you can see it plain as day in the play of Duncan and Manu. You can hear it in Pop's voice. David lacked some of THAT. David deserves praise as a great player who is underrated largely for being dominated by the best all-around center since Hakeem, I get that. But you do him such a disservice but by attributing his flaws and failures more to a shaky backcourt or iffy head-coach ...then laying it on the league MVP. When the Lakers lost in 2008 did you blame Kobe or Pau? But what kills me the most AMB you go out of your way to make qualifiers and justifications for David (though you did point out some flaws) yet you murder Kobe for his own playoff failings and offer no such excuses. You cannot have it BOTH ways. Kobe is the star and gets the lion's share of the blame for Laker failures he was a part of ..just as he gets a bunch of credit for their success. Did he win alone? no. did he lose alone? no. But that is how this works. David gets the same. Same for Shaq same for Ewing.

the NBA is a results based business. any moron can see David did not have Kobe,MJ or Lebron level support. anyway never meant to attack the man's character. Good dude, does so much in the community, his school/academy is amazing.Served our country and did not try to big time his commitment. Though duncan is your greatest player Robinson to me is the iconic Spurs player. he embodies the city and the franchise. and like I said earlier one of the greatest athletes to ever play center and probably top 5 or 6 I have ever seen play in person.

Whether Robinson displayed that emotion on the court to me is unimportant, he seemed to me like the guy who treats the game in perspective, knowing that losing is not the end of the world, but that does not mean that he doesn't give it all on the court. When a person is willing to guard Shaq one on one with a bad back, you know he is putting it all out there. He plays hard, and I do not one single instance where I felt "I wish David would have played harder". Just looking at his reaction in 99 and 03, you know the guy was compe ive, seeing a 37 year old jumping up and down cheering for his teammates like a little kid tells you he has a passion for the game, he just doesn't display it the way people expect him to display it.

With regards to your Kobe comment, I actually think I am being consistent. People underrate Robinson, I put it in perspective by pointing out all the things that people held him accountable for but shouldn't. People overrate Kobe, and I put it in perspective by pointing out all the things that people didn't held him accountable for but should.

As for 2008, they lost as a team, but if Kobe is as great as everybody said he is, why would he get beaten by Paul Pierce throughout the entire series when PP is barely a top 30 player of all time who is on the downside of his career?

Finally, I agree Robinson is the face of the franchise, and more for what he did off the court for the community rather than what he did on the court.

[Killakobe81]

Whether Robinson displayed that emotion on the court to me is unimportant, he seemed to me like the guy who treats the game in perspective, knowing that losing is not the end of the world, but that does not mean that he doesn't give it all on the court. When a person is willing to guard Shaq one on one with a bad back, you know he is putting it all out there. He plays hard, and I do not one single instance where I felt "I wish David would have played harder". Just looking at his reaction in 99 and 03, you know the guy was compe ive, seeing a 37 year old jumping up and down cheering for his teammates like a little kid tells you he has a passion for the game, he just doesn't display it the way people expect him to display it.

With regards to your Kobe comment, I actually think I am being consistent. People underrate Robinson, I put it in perspective by pointing out all the things that people held him accountable for but shouldn't. People overrate Kobe, and I put it in perspective by pointing out all the things that people didn't held him accountable for but should.

As for 2008, they lost as a team, but if Kobe is as great as everybody said he is, why would he get beaten by Paul Pierce throughout the entire series when PP is barely a top 30 player of all time who is on the downside of his career?

Finally, I agree Robinson is the face of the franchise, and more for what he did off the court for the community rather than what he did on the court.

again not saying it has to be emotion ...duncan is not overly emotional. And although I did mention Kobe won't do that dance with you until we have our final debates on Kobe/duncan. But he did get outplayed by Pierce. but I wont use the tony Allen, Posey and ray Allen also defended him excuse either. he lost, period.

[ambchang]

again not saying it has to be emotion ...duncan is not overly emotional. And although I did mention Kobe won't do that dance with you until we have our final debates on Kobe/duncan. But he did get outplayed by Pierce. but I wont use the tony Allen, Posey and ray Allen also defended him excuse either. he lost, period.

But you mentioned an example of Duncan displaying emotion earlier on. Seriously, if Robinson displayed more of a bravado, he'd be viewed in a better light. There are some who considers Robinson and Ewing equals, because Ewing plays in a bigger market and he put on that warrior look. I am convinced of that.

As for Kobe, that's my point, he got shut down by role players, he was stopped by team defense. The difference is he had players to pass to by failed to utilize it. It's also one reason I won't rank Lebron higher than Sha or Duncan at the moment. He can take over games better than either could, but he doesn't seem to know exactly when to do it. For example, he could have taken over the games vs the spurs a lot earlier in the series, and the spurs would be done in 5, 6 games max. But he failed to do so until the end of the series. It's almost like he had the opposite problem of Kobe, only not to as much of a degree.

[Phillip]

The issue with Robinson's cast is that there was very little outside threat.

From 93-96 (3 seasons), they were 7th, 7th, and 4th in the league in 3pt shooting %. It wasn't as bad as you suggest.

To spell it out even more, he has a backcourt that couldn't shoot.

Avery couldn't shoot, but Del Negro could. And he had other players over the years that could shoot the 3 quite well in Elliott, Ellis, and Person.

When a team defends the Spurs in the 90s, they just leave Avery Johnson wide open to double Robinson. Not only does this hurt Robinson's production, it allows you to negate AJ's quickness by cutting off his drives.

Now then, the other guy is Vinny Del Negro, who just isn't all that great of a three point shooter.

Really? He shot 35%, 40%, and 38% from 3 for three of the Spurs most successful seasons during Robinson's time as the leader. Also shot 45% and 59% from 3 for two playoff runs. I'd say he was pretty effective.

You stick your guy on a way over the hill Dale Ellis or Chuck Person, and you basically can shut down the Spurs, because on offense, you are essentially playing 5 on 4 defense in halfcourt. Add in Rodman, who you just don't have to defend, the opposition can triple Robinson every possession with no consequences, or they can double Robinson and have a roamer take out the passing lanes.

So no championship team has basically had to play "5 on 4" halfcourt, due to lack of offensive skills of a player? Miami did it last year with Chris Anderson. Dallas did it with both Shawn Marion and Tyson Chandler not being particularly effective halfcourt scorers. Chicago won 3 straight with Rodman as their third best player. San Antonio won one with Oberto at center. It's been done plenty of times.

On the other hand, people can post up Avery Johnson every possession, or do whatever they want on Del Negro because they guy just couldn't defend.

Again, teams have't won with lackluster defenders in their main rotation?

The year Robinson had mings and Strickland, the Spurs went pretty far in the playoffs, and guess what, Robinson matched his regular season game production.

And you are making it sound like Robinson played with those three guys at the same time. mings had one good year with the Spurs (89-90), Elliott peaked around 94 to 96, Dale Ellis had two years with the Spurs (92 and 93).

Never once did I say that, nor say anything that could make it sound like that. Someone suggested that Robinson had little to no talent surrounding him. I suggested otherwise, by simply stating 3 random players who were all solid talents that he had alongside him. I think you are a bit too sensitive when it comes to Robinson.

The best, and by far the best player Robinson played with during his prime was a 95/96 Elliott. And that is not even close to a past his prime Drexler, past his prime Robinson, Pippen, Kobe, over the hill Big O, Penny Hardaway, James Worthy, Magic Johnson, Kevin Mchale level.

I won't disagree with this, but again, superstar talent isn't everything. Joe Dumars was no superstar, yet Zeke won back to back with him as his #2 guy. Detroit won in 04 with no superstar talent. Dallas won a couple years ago with Dirk and a bunch of role players.

You make all these excuses for Robinson, but there have been plenty of other teams over the years that have been able to accomplish what he wasn't able to, despite having comparable situations.

As for the #1 scoring option, if you surround Robinson with Jason Kidd and Tyson Chandler (prime versions) with some decent shooters, the Spurs will likely be a championship team with Robinson as a #1 scoring option.

Maybe, but we will never know. Either way, he had some solid teams that won well over 50 games multiple times, and he was not able to get the job done. Could his team have been better? Sure. Could have have been better himself though? Absolutely. And that's the problem with him. You never really got a run out of him where you could say he truly did everything in his power, and simply was not able to get enough out of his team. His level of play would frequently drop, despite having generally well rounded talent surrounding him. Most players efficiency numbers will drop a bit in the post season, since they are playing better compe ion on a nightly basis. But his dropped to unacceptable levels in nearly every playoff run. Why? Because Robinson had some noticeable offensive weaknesses, and didn't frequently show the ability to impose his will on a game and take over, the way other superstars show an ability to do so.

That is my only real issue with Robinson, as he was great in all other areas. But just didn't seem to have a killer instinct to his game. If he did, then we may be talking about him being the greatest center ever, as there is no questioning he had a great level of ability and natural talents.

Also I notice you have many times compared him to Dirk, in how Dirk needed a "perfect supporting cast", and that if Robinson had the same, he would ring. Maybe true, but lets not act like the 11 Mavs had no weaknesses. 1) they weren't incredibly talented altogether. Outside of Dirk, no one on that team was really standout talent or athlete. 2) they didn't have a dominant penetrator nor a dominant post player. basically, they didn't have any consistent means of efficient scoring. most teams have at least one or the other (usually both), but they were strong in neither area. 3) Marion and Chandler were not strong half court threats. Marion was able to make some occasional plays with his turnaround baby hook, but his lack of shooting was frequently a problem on the team.

Despite these weaknesses, Dirk found ways to consistently put the team on his back offensively and make the game easier for everyone, even when waves of double and triple teams were being sent at him. That was something we didn't frequently see out of David.

[ambchang]

From 93-96 (3 seasons), they were 7th, 7th, and 4th in the league in 3pt shooting %. It wasn't as bad as you suggest.

Then you'd also know that the Spurs was #16 in 3PM in 93-94, #15 in 94-95, and #12 in 95-96. First, doesn't do much good if you don't shoot a whole lot of them. Second, it speaks to the Spurs being an opportunistic 3pt shooting team, shooting and making them while wide opened. In the playoffs, once teams learned of their gimmick, they rotate and leave the non-shooters opened (like Avery Johnson and Dennis Rodman), and the Spurs are toast.

This is further reinforced by the shooting percentages in the playoffs. In 93-94, instead of shooting their 7th in the league 34.9% from 3, the Spurs shot 30.8%. In the series against Houston in 95, 32% instead of 37.5%. The only exception is the Jazz series in 96, where the Jazz doubled Robinson off of Avery Johnson throughout, with AJ shooting 38% for the series on 65 shots (that's 4th highest for the Spurs, one less than the 2nd best Spurs player Elliott). You can also see how the Jazz left Del Negro and Chuck Person wide opened throughout, leaving Del Negro opened to shoot 71 shots in the series.

Avery couldn't shoot, but Del Negro could. And he had other players over the years that could shoot the 3 quite well in Elliott, Ellis, and Person.

He's a point guard, if you sag off a point guard, you cut off the passing lanes AND you can double off of him. Not to mention Bob Hill never had any sort of a counter to this simple approach. The man simply cannot coach and had no system for the Spurs. Oh no, the opposition is sagging off AJ and Rodman to double/triple Robinson, let's keep feeding Robinson the ball anyways.

Really? He shot 35%, 40%, and 38% from 3 for three of the Spurs most successful seasons during Robinson's time as the leader. Also shot 45% and 59% from 3 for two playoff runs. I'd say he was pretty effective.

Does do any good if he does shoot too many of them in the series the Spurs lost. He shot a great % in the Jazz series (9-14) because, well, the Jazz kept sagging off of him. In fact, only 14 of his 71 shots were three pointers. Doesn't help if he doesn't shoot. Compare that to the Jazz backcourt. 16, 15, 20 and 12. That's 28%, 29%, 43% and 26% of their FGA. As a group, the Jazz shot 52% from three. The Spurs? 40%.

Same in 95 vs. Houston. Wow, he shot 40%, but that's 4-10, or about 1/6 of his attempts were threes. Compare this to the Houston counterparts, the Houston three point shooters shot 28, 40, 18, 18 and 16 three pointers in the series. That's 29%, 62%, 33%, 46%, 55% of their respective FGA. As a group, the Spurs shot 32% vs. 35% of the Rockets, but the thing that really stood out was that 26% of the FGA for the Rockets were three points vs. 15% for the Spurs. The Rockets had a system to open up the lane, the Spurs don't.

So no championship team has basically had to play "5 on 4" halfcourt, due to lack of offensive skills of a player? Miami did it last year with Chris Anderson. Dallas did it with both Shawn Marion and Tyson Chandler not being particularly effective halfcourt scorers. Chicago won 3 straight with Rodman as their third best player. San Antonio won one with Oberto at center. It's been done plenty of times.

Miami had Bosh and Wade. Spurs had Elliott and ?. Dallas had one of the best PG of all time, Spurs had Avery Johnson. Chicago had Scottie and Kukoc, with the best 3 pt shooter in NBA history on the wings, Spurs had Parker and Ginobili. You double Robinson off of AJ, and leave your man with any of the other Spurs, the Spurs are stopped. You double off of Birdman to double Lebron and single Wade or Bosh, Wade or Bosh will score. You double Dirk off Chandler, Kidd will create. You double Jordan off Rodman, Pippen will find someone. You double Duncan off Oberto, Parker or Ginobili will destroy you.

Again, teams have't won with lackluster defenders in their main rotation?

Of course they have, just that I can't think of an entire lackluster backcourt.

Never once did I say that, nor say anything that could make it sound like that. Someone suggested that Robinson had little to no talent surrounding him. I suggested otherwise, by simply stating 3 random players who were all solid talents that he had alongside him. I think you are a bit too sensitive when it comes to Robinson.



I won't disagree with this, but again, superstar talent isn't everything. Joe Dumars was no superstar, yet Zeke won back to back with him as his #2 guy. Detroit won in 04 with no superstar talent. Dallas won a couple years ago with Dirk and a bunch of role players.

Jordan, the GOAT, said Dumars was his toughest cover. Then of course, there's a sane Rodman, Bill Laimbeer, and a host of defensive monsters on the Pistons. the 04 Pistons had 4 all star level players, including DPoY. Dirk had one of the greatest point guard next to him, and like I said earlier, Dirk and Robinson are similar in the sense that they are very unique talents, you have to build a unique team around them, and they can ring.

You make all these excuses for Robinson, but there have been plenty of other teams over the years that have been able to accomplish what he wasn't able to, despite having comparable situations.

I can't find one single championship team who's 2nd best player is of the caliber of Sean Elliott, and the 3rd best player is of the caliber of Avery Johnson, and their head coach is of the caliber of Bob Hill. Elliott, as much as I love the player (my 2nd favourite Spur of all time, ahead of Duncan), can be a fantastic perimeter defender and 3rd option scorer. Johnson was cut twice by the Rockets right before joining the Spurs, yet he became the best PG Robinson ever played with in his prime. Bob Hill couldn't find a head coaching gig for a decade and a half after being fired by the Spurs.

Maybe, but we will never know. Either way, he had some solid teams that won well over 50 games multiple times, and he was not able to get the job done. Could his team have been better? Sure. Could have have been better himself though? Absolutely. And that's the problem with him. You never really got a run out of him where you could say he truly did everything in his power, and simply was not able to get enough out of his team. His level of play would frequently drop, despite having generally well rounded talent surrounding him. Most players efficiency numbers will drop a bit in the post season, since they are playing better compe ion on a nightly basis. But his dropped to unacceptable levels in nearly every playoff run. Why? Because Robinson had some noticeable offensive weaknesses, and didn't frequently show the ability to impose his will on a game and take over, the way other superstars show an ability to do so.

That defeats the entire point of the argument, because the Spurs never winning a championship with Robinson as their #1 is a fact. Robinson's production didn't drop in his first two seasons, you know why? Because his backcourt could shoot and his coach was Larry Brown. He sure had some noticeable offensive weaknesses, but so did Dirk, Shaq, or any player not named Jordan. The playoffs is a game of matchups, the Spurs were fine in the series they won. Robinson scored averaged 30/16 in the series over the Lakers in 95, 30/12 vs. Suns in 96, because those teams do not have the coaching to exploit the Spurs obvious weakness.

That is my only real issue with Robinson, as he was great in all other areas. But just didn't seem to have a killer instinct to his game. If he did, then we may be talking about him being the greatest center ever, as there is no questioning he had a great level of ability and natural talents.

He had obvious weaknesses in his game, I don't think he will ever be considered the greatest ever. He is really a SF/PF hybrid, and has never been a natural center. It's not about not having a killer instinct, it's not having the right personnel around him. He averaged 27.7 ppg on 60% shooting vs. the Nuggets in 90, then 23 ppg on 50% shooting vs. Portland in the same playoffs. The next year, he had 26ppg on 69% shooting in a loss vs. the GSW (ironically, that's the series GSW let RObinson have it and stuck to the shooters). Because the Spurs had a real backcourt back then.

Also I notice you have many times compared him to Dirk, in how Dirk needed a "perfect supporting cast", and that if Robinson had the same, he would ring. Maybe true, but lets not act like the 11 Mavs had no weaknesses. 1) they weren't incredibly talented altogether. Outside of Dirk, no one on that team was really standout talent or athlete. 2) they didn't have a dominant penetrator nor a dominant post player. basically, they didn't have any consistent means of efficient scoring. most teams have at least one or the other (usually both), but they were strong in neither area. 3) Marion and Chandler were not strong half court threats. Marion was able to make some occasional plays with his turnaround baby hook, but his lack of shooting was frequently a problem on the team.

The 11 Mavs weren't perfect, they were the perfect cast for Dirk to maximize his strength. Did I mention Carlisle >>>>> Bob Hill? A good coach find ways to overcome a team's weakness, a bad coach can't find a job 15 years after he was fired.

Despite these weaknesses, Dirk found ways to consistently put the team on his back offensively and make the game easier for everyone, even when waves of double and triple teams were being sent at him. That was something we didn't frequently see out of David.

Players had career years playing with Robinson. Avery Johnson, Sucked with a capital S and got cut by multiple teams, bounced around the league before he became Robinson's best PG. Del Negro was struggling with juggernaut franchises like the Kings and Bucks without Robinson taking the defensive pressure to leave him wide opened, Elliott got froze out in Detroit.

[Thread]

^Pau & Robinson, six of one, half dozen of the other.

[TDMVPDPOY]

ambchang u mention how drob lacked killer instinct

whats the point even if he went 40ppg in a series when his playing with horse ?

[Thread]

ambchang u mention how drob lacked killer instinct

whats the point even if he went 40ppg in a series when his playing with horse ?

He loitered "horse " himself. But, he was juiced in by Media because of the Navy angle and they fought amongst themselves as to whether they would make him a deity, or, crucify him. Media had decided on the rope when Duncan showed up.

[ambchang]

ambchang u mention how drob lacked killer instinct

whats the point even if he went 40ppg in a series when his playing with horse ?

I didn't, Phillip did.