Reply With Quote
Robinson was the superior athlete, Duncan was the much better basketball player. Overall Duncan was much better.
Better athlete? Robinson. Better basketball player? Duncan.
Put Duncan's skill in Robinson's body and you basically get Wilt 2.0. He would have been dropping 50 a night.
Robinson was the superior athlete, Duncan was the much better basketball player. Overall Duncan was much better.
Yep.
And Duncan mastered the post game, Robinson did not. They were very different types of players with a very different skill set.
Yes, any, at least three, championship team has more than one great player. They usually have another great player and great coach. I think thats why someone like Manning didnt fair better, never a great coach, or defense tbh (excuse me, except last year, which may be the best all-time)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
I actually think David was a better defender than Tim, but Duncan had a full package of offensive moves, including his ability to score with his back to the basket, where Robinson was stuck with mostly face up drives and elbow jumpers. Duncan was a superior passer, but both were probably more or less equal rebounders. No question Robinson had the more ESPN highlight game. Robinson was a superb finisher and could block a shot to the 8th row.
Meh, Duncan was always one of the best players but never got close to scoring les, unlike Robinson who had better stats. I would say Robinson was Wilt and Duncan, Russell, and not because Duncan had better players, because he didnt, early on, but because Duncan was better leader, better IQ, better clutch and nobody says this but if the scoring gets spread around instead of one dominant player, then its harder to defend.
OH MY GOD PREACH IT MY BROTHA!!!!!!!!!!!! PREACH!!!!!!!!!!! TESTIFY!!!!!!!!!!!! ... HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!!!! ... AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!! AMEN!!!!!!! ...*GOSPEL MUSIC PLAYS*
I think Robinson is severely underrated by Spurs fans in general... but especially by millennial Spurs fans who only remember the post-back problems, past-his prime player that David ended up becoming when handing the reigns to Duncan...
Teammates matter. Jordan averaged 37 ppg in 1987 but that Bulls team wasn't even a pretender. It wasn't til' they drafted Pippen and later BJ Armstrong, and obtained Horace Grant that they became a balanced team - one that could actually contend.
Not that there was a massive gap, butat this fan base constantly trying to downplay their all-time greatest player.
Robinson scored more, but that was primarily because he had a higher usage rate in their respective prime and was a better free throw shooter. Other than that, the only thing he did better was block shots, but he also played in an era where there was significantly more of them and Duncan was the rare shot blocker who didn't seek them out.
Robinson also didn't come to the league until he was 24 and left it at 37, avoiding what's typically the worst years of a players career, which obviously would have affected all of his averages, both counting and advanced. Also, like Nowitzki, while never playing with a fellow star through his first 8 seasons hurt him as far as team success in the playoffs, it helped in those areas too.
Duncan "benefitted from cir stances" relative to a typical 1st overall or high pick, but the cir stances were overrated. That was an aging team, devoid of anything resembling a go to perimeter creator and from '01-'04, they had no 2nd star period, yet remained perennially elite and won a le in '03 almost entirely because of Duncan.
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..
Seriously why the are you so racist?
I tend to agree with what you have stated here.Not that there was a massive gap, but
Robinson scored more, but that was primarily because he had a higher usage rate in their respective prime and was a better free throw shooter. Other than that, the only thing he did better was block shots, but he also played in an era where there was significantly more of them and Duncan was the rare shot blocker who didn't seek them out.
Robinson also didn't come to the league until he was 24 and left it at 37, avoiding what's typically the worst years of a players career, which obviously would have affected all of his averages, both counting and advanced. Also, like Nowitzki, while never playing with a fellow star through his first 8 seasons hurt him as far as team success in the playoffs, it helped in those areas too.
Duncan "benefitted from cir stances" relative to a typical 1st overall or high pick, but the cir stances were overrated. That was an aging team, devoid of anything resembling a go to perimeter creator and from '01-'04, they had no 2nd star period, yet remained perennially elite and won a le in '03 almost entirely because of Duncan.
That said, there is no way Duncan wins with any of Robinson's teams given that the shooters around him still had to knock down their shots... Prior to the MDM by Elliott, all such clutch shots had been clanked by Spurs' shooters.
Maybe so, but that doesn't obscure the fact that Robinson's play generally worsened in the playoffs and there's no way he wins playing Duncan's role in '03.
Robinson was a monster and it was a pleasure getting to watch him in his prime, but with that said Timmy D was a far superior compe or. There is no way Timmy would have been okay being the Kevin Garnett of that generation and spending his career with a subpar roster. The Spurs would have had to upgrade the roster or he would have bounced.
The real Finals in 2003 were the series against the Lakers and against the Mavericks...
Duncan needed every bit of help (not undermining his greatness) to get by the Mavs (with that three point barrage by Kerr and Stephen Jackson in Game 6). Robinson NEVER had any such help prior to Duncan's arrival.
Prime Robinson routinely dominated Shaquille. And Parker's performance against the Lakers that post-season is still better than any provided by any of Robinson's teammates (again, prior to Duncan's arrival).
His playoff numbers worsened because other teams would strategize to triple team him and force the rest of the cast to beat them... something which unfortunately for Spurs' fans never transpired.
TBH I'm glad we had both...
It's just silly to undermine the greatness of Robinson simply because he didn't have any help - all while failing to acknowledge that Robinson, Parker, Ginobili, Kawhi, Bowen were far better teammates than any Robinson ever played with in the post-season. Not to mention the Pop factor.
Other than Bowen, all of those other players outrank Elliott - the second best Spur to play alongside Robinson pre-1997.
Even if Kerr didn't catch fire, they still would have had game 7, at home, to potentially advance to the Finals.
Robinson's and O'Neal's respective prime didn't really parallel. Unlike Robinson and Olajuwon, Duncan had to deal with O'Neal in his prime, with another borderline top 5 player on his team and from '01-'04, he had no second star to combat them, yet they were the 2nd best team in the league during that time.
Robinson is underrated, but I actually think there's a bigger gap between Duncan and him than there appears to be on the surface.
Robinson was the more dominant athlete, better scorer, fairly equal defender and better shot blocker. I always thought David was basically what you'd get if you combined the physical gifts of a Anthony Davis and Dwight Howard into one package.
He was a bit easier to gameplan for than Tim though. His face-up game could be disrupted more easily over a series by double and triple teams and good game planning. It's very hard to do that with a guy like Tim though who is that skilled out of the low block. Tims superior post game and passing out of the double team led to better open shots than David, whose lighter base and preference for facing up created less advantageous angles.
All that said Admiral would destroy today's NBA. Just savage it. So would prime Duncan. But David's combo of speed and athleticism would make him completely unguardable under today's rules. There is no current center even close to either of our great big men. Boogie or DeAndre Jordan are considered top centers now when they likely wouldn't be top five in the era of Robinson, Shaq, Zo, Ewing, and Hakeem.
He also played in the great centers eraTo 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..
Dream, Ewing, Shaq, Zo , Dikembe, etc etc
it's sad that most NBA fans will only remember Big Dave as the guy who get on by Hakeem, he was such an athletic beast and a monster on both ends of the court in his time
I think the Hakeem thing was just icing on the cake. David had subpar playoff performances against the Jazz that earned him a reputation for being soft. Sure some of that was not having other stars, but too often he disappeared against Malone. Robinson was a great talent, but he didn't bleed playoff basketball. I don't think he would've sweated never winning a le. That may be the difference between him and Duncan. David was a renaissance man and Duncan was singularly passionate about basketball.
IMO...Center
With all the respect to the admiral.
The moment of truth, The Finals, game 7.
You need to choose 1 player between Duncan and Robinson, who do you choose?. I have no doubts, i choose Duncan.
When it really really matters, you want a Duncan in your team.
I have often thought that if you change Vinny del Negro for 2005 era Ginobili the 1995 Spurs would have been champions. Robinson would have really benefitted from Manu's passing, slashing to the rim, and overall compe iveness. Robinson had a bunch of chokers around him in the mid 90's. I love Sean Eliott but for most of his career he was a soft when it mattered. (Until 1999).
Tough to judge. I think the best chances would have been in 1989-90 (Finals won by Detroit) and in 1994-95 (Finals won by Houston).
In the playoffs, the game got way more physical, especially in the late 80s and 90s. Unfortunately, as great as David was, he had a waist an thin as a high school freshman. He beefed up his arms, but without a solid base, he couldn't bang down low for 40+ min series after series and would end up getting pushed around. Couple that with his b team teammates allowing him to get double and triple teamed, and you end up with David's playoff failures before Duncan.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
