Reply With Quote
Yes, he was really better.
Or did he benefit from the cir stances? Had Duncan been the one that had to battle it up on the 90's with subpar supporting casts and Robinson the young stud that joined an already very good team, would we see these two in a different way?
Yes, he was really better.
He was better.
Much better, yes.
David was a better pure scorer, Duncan has the edge basically everywhere else. Especially in leadership.
Timmy had more of a killer instinct in big playoff moments.
Robinson was athletically gifted to a level rarely seen before or during his playing days. Some of his plays were breathtaking. On one occasion against Dallas, David blocked a shot and then beat everyone down the floor for a dunk. It was extremely fast and athletic or someone 7'-1". The quadruple double was not a fluke, nor was his NBA scoring le in 1994.
With that said, David was more of a finesse player than was Timmy. He had a thin waist and a much narrower base than Duncan and could be dislodged from an established position in the post moreso than Timmy. Although Hall of Famer Robinson hit many clutch shots, including a huge three against Houston on a Sunday game; by and large, Duncan was a master at executing during the last two minutes of a game. Robinson competed but not with quite the steely-eyed intensity and focus of Timmy.
I wonder what position he would play in today's NBA and Spur's team on offense. PF? SF? Could he develop a reliable 3ptr? PG?
Robinson would play center like he did his whole career.
Good point tbh
What if TD came before Robinson an couldnt win with scrubs like AJ and VDN , then Robinson is drafted and the Spurms win ?
Does Robby takes all the credit?
Good point tbh
Do you see Duncan ringing in the mid '90s with David's supporting cast?
Yes, without even thinking twice about it. That's no slight on DRob who was a great player...but Timmy was the GOAT at his position and for the team. You never hear about DRob being in anyone's Top 5 of all time or being on the Mt. Rushmore of NBA players.
Probably not...The Bulls was stacked. Great role players, two top 10 players one of them was the best.
I suppose you look at 94 - 95.
I could see Duncan winning in 94.
Duncan was better, but Robinson was more genetically gifted(skills + athleticism), tbh..
However, Duncan would have never won with those 90s supporting casts..it isn't a knock on Tim to say that cir stance plays a major role in regards to legacy..whether it's Duncan, Kobe, Dad Killer, Tom Brady, Manning, etc, there's usually a ton of luck involved in being perceived as an all-time great on the highest tier..
The way sports fans and media rank players is extremely flawed
David was EASILY much more athletic, better jumper, better shooter, better shot blocker, but was hampered by a bad back and, for most of his prime career, no Popovich/RCB organization building around him.
He was the better winner and that's all that matters.
If Tim got compared to other centers he wouldn't be in many top 3s, maybe top 5
Prime DRob > Prime TD
To be fair, though, Robinson played in an era where nearly 30% of the players were white Americans
It would be like adding a bunch of D1 college players into today's league..
The one flaw Robinson had was his lack of post game, he was just too light and can easily be dislodged. That didn't work in 90s basketball. He was like a rich man's Garnett. If Robinson played in
Duncan's offensive game work much better in the era in which he played. He also had a much better supporting cast. Robinson never had a perimeter defender like Bowen or Kawhi, he never had creators like Ginobili or Parker. Speedy Claxton was probably better than Avery Johnson.
Robinson probably wouldn't have won 5 les in Duncan's situation, he just didn't have the longevity as his game was based much more on athleticism. Robinson couldn't carry a team offensively in a playoff run, but he can certainly do it on the defensive end.'
That said, Duncan probably wouldn't win a single ring in Robinson's shoes. Those 90s Spurs sucked, and they were only "contenders' because of Robinson.
Fundamentally better, and better post game. It's just my opinion, but Duncan wouldn't have allowed Hakeem to run wild like he did, not taking away anything from Hakeem.
No he wasn't. Duncan never played on anything less than a championship contender, Robinson played on tier teams with tier coaching prior to Duncan.
People who say Duncan was a better leader are also ridiculous, Duncan learned how to be a leader from Robinson.
The only thing that would have helped Duncan if you put him on Robinson's early 90s spurs is that he was a much better back to the basket player and a much better passer. Robinson was double and tripled so his numbers went down in the playoffs, so re s called him soft. If Robinson had Ginobili and Parker his postseason numbers would look a lot more like his absurd regular season numbers. Instead he had Avery Johnson and (criminally overrated by spurfan) Sean Elliott.
Robinson's entire legacy got on by 1 series where he was hung out to dry 1 on 1 vs Hakeem, but played 1 on 3 on the other end and still managed to put up decent numbers. Really sad that even Spurs fans buy into that . Guy has the 4th highest PER of all time with garbage teammates and garbage coaching, while being an incredible leader and role model.
Who can say? When Robinson played, the center position was stacked in the NBA. Most teams had a quality center. When Duncan played, it seemed for most of his career PF was the most stacked position in the NBA. Not until the latter part did it change to the PG position. David was a top 3-5 center during his prime. There was never a question who the best PF was during Duncan's prime.
One more thing about Duncan. He certainly made his teammates better. Not just Parker and Manu. Tim made role players better, he made Avery a quality PG in 1999. Perhaps guys like Willie Anderson, VDN, and Terry mings play better with Duncan. Sean might have had 5 all star seasons with Tim. There is no way to know how good Duncan would have made the Spurs. It is just nonsense to say that the teams from 1993 - 1996 sucked. They were some damn solid teams that just lacked leadership.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
