Reply With Quote
Speedy was a backup PG.
Avery was the starting PG.
I too am a team guy but saying Tim had Manu and Tony so he had help, that's revisionist. I'll give Manu a pass since he had game before coming to the NBA, but Tony was raw as . A 28th and 57th overall pick going into the HOF, from the same team! The odds of that are pretty low, but when you put a top 5 all time player like Tim on that team as a 1st overall pick, and you have the culture of unselfishness instilled by David (part of his softness, tbh) and wiling to let others shine, willing to be coached, etc... then you have shot. That's what the Spurs had. It's starting to decay with all these new faces and no real on court leadership that possesses that Robinson/Duncan persona.
Speedy was a backup PG.
Avery was the starting PG.
Exactly.
Teammates matter. Why is that concept so freaking difficult to understand? If you triple teamed Jordan, or Olojuwon, or Barkley, or Malone their snipers would make you pay dearly for that defensive scheme. It’s also not difficult to understand that no one’s numbers improve when they are consistently triple teamed in the post-season AND (the part you all keep glossing over) when your teammates miss the wide open looks that this game plan generates. So that brings me to your first point. Why do I bring up Jordan? Because early in his career (he was already a star) he was the focus of opposing defenses, and it wasn’t until Pippen/Grant/Phil Jackson showed up that said scheme could no longer work.
But yes, let’s continue to ignore this dynamic, to tear into David’s legacy, and so the “being soft” label can be used as the cause for those less-than-adequate results.
Manu and Parker were studs beyond anything the Admiral had at his disposal. The real “revisionism” is trying to suggest that their games were a complete product of Duncan’s gravitas. The synergy is part of any inside-out scheme. The difference? Manu or Parker could actually make you pay for choosing to focus on stopping Duncan. No one playing alongside Robinson managed to do the same.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 02-09-2018 at 10:07 AM.
According to the people I was around discussing all things Spurs:
NOT A SINGLE LIVING SOUL
The choke job against Washington in late 70s, early 80's ? had all convinced we were soft chokers.
Duncan and Popovich changed that apparently.
And that's one of the biggest criticisms that people had about Jordan : he wasn't a team player and only started winning after his team was stacked. Not every all time great had that opportunity but many of them still managed to win( also PFs/Cs used to have a much bigger impact on the game under the old rules).
I think you may be downplaying how TD passing skills/defense and overall leadership affected the rest of the team.
Sean/Avery were solid players and certainly better support than Tony/Manu were before 2005. Tony/Manu made so many costly mistakes on their first few seasons until they actually started to have a positive impact on the team, so I don't think blaming everything on the supporting cast is really fair.
Last edited by Brunodf; 02-09-2018 at 11:27 AM.
Nobody is taking anything away from Tim, he was great, but this is a game where you surround him with Joff, Kyle Anderson, Gary Neal, Money Mason and Bonner, and he can't win it all. He should absolutely get credit for being a star, and allowing the team to become more than the sum of its parts. As gracious as DRob was, I don't think he was able to instill that when he was the man on the Spurs. Tony wasn't really a factor (ie: was a replaceable piece) until ~2007 or so, IMO, when Tim and Manu got older. Not hating, just the reality of it. But both Manu and TP should also get credit for buying in and sticking with it. Obviously, it's much easier when you're winning a lot, but there were down seasons too, and they stuck with it.
The bad pass was from David. Anderson was wide open under the rim.
I remember the no call when Anderson was on the break with seconds left in the 4th.
Robinson wasn't getting double and triple teamed by Houston. Robinson also had enough talent to beat Houston, and advance further in the playoffs in other years. What Robinson didn't have was a legit post-game (Hakeem did), which is why his numbers dipped in the playoffs, when you typically see better teams than you do in the regular season.
Robinson is a career shooter 52% in the regular season and a career 48% shooter in the playoffs, and only broke 50% three times in twelve postseasons. If he performed like he did in the regular season in the playoffs then SA would have had better success, but he typically played worse. I don't know if "soft" is the word for that, but let's not blame the supporting cast when the superstar is routinely playing worse.
Are you freaking serious? You expect David to have eyes behind his head? When he received the pass from Willie Anderson, Willie quickly rolled right behind Kevin Duckworth and Jerome Kersey who rapidly closed off that passing lane - if David even attempts that pass, it would have been as imprudent as Hot Rod's over-the-head pass. David did the correct thing to quickly pass the ball off to his point guard just as the third defender (Buck Williams) took a swipe at him.
Is the need to solidify your take so important that now you are employing more revisionism on a play that was analyzed ad-infinitum during the summer of 1990 (and a big reason why Red McCombs took the cheap route instead of re-signing Rod Strickland for another contract). You're grasping at straws.
Rodman wanted rebounds and had no concern for Horry at 3pt line.
Lets see...
The Rockets took Game 1 on a very close finish (94 - 93). Rodman elected to double off of Mario Elie who hit the game winning dagger.
Rodman was publically lambasted by coach Bob Hill for that play, despite an otherwise good performance from Rodman in Game 1 which resulted in Rodman throwing a tantrum the very next game. In doing so, Rodman gift-wrapped Game 2 to the Rockets (chucking three 3-pt attempts in the first half before getting yanked for the remainder of the game).
The Spurs were down 2-0 in the series losing the first two games at home because of Rodman's antics. This is absolutely criminal.
But yeah, it's fair to blame Robinson for Rodman's most inopportune craziness.
Despite these adverse cir stances Robinson led the most unlikely of comebacks and fought hard to secure victories during the next two games in Houston (hardly soft).
It all hinged on Game 5 where inexplicably (despite the two road victories) Bob Hill decided to demote Rodman from the starting lineup. Rodman played half-heartedly again disrupting team chemistry. I was in attendance at the Alamodome for this game (this game was my 4th Spurs game and my first ever playoff game). Sam Cassell played the game of his life and was the difference. This is the Game where Tomjanovich decided to triple-team Robinson almost every trip down the floor. Game 6 in Houston would've required Herculean resolve, which the now-disjointed Spurs could not muster. The rest is history.
The point is without Rodman's subterfuge and Bob Hill's atrocious adjustments this series could've been taken by the Spurs. These two factors largely produced the outcome, Hakeem's gaudy numbers notwithstanding (Note 1). Even so, it is unfair to use the unprecedented cir stances surrounding this loss as the basis to continually bash David's legacy. Kenny Smith (who's opinion has amassed more air-time than anyone of his caliber deserves), is largely to blame for how that series is perceived today. He constantly goes on about how Hakeem created a personal vendetta against Robinson because Hakeem felt like the MVP award that season was his. In doing so, Kenny completely ignored the egregious cir stances that led to the Spurs' demise and instead pinned the fault solely on Robinson's shoulders.
Note 1: No one would've remembered Hakeem's numbers (35.3 PPG, 12.5 RPG, on 56% FG%) against the Spurs if the Rockets don't take that series, just like no one remembers that Amar'e Stoudemire averaged 37 PPG, 9.8 RPG, on 55% shooting against Duncan's Spurs during their respective 2005 series.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 02-12-2018 at 12:21 PM.
Broken play, defender rotated out on David after Chill passed the ball, then Chill flashed to the basket and David just threw the ball to a position that didn't improve anything. Rod made a bad pass, but David missed a wide open Anderson. David also was a few feet from the rim, tallest on the court, could have simply shot over his defender.
David covered Dream one on one the whole series. David was double and triple teamed all series. Rudy T knew David was our only real threat. Hill the bed as a coach that series. David's teammates did little to nothing to help him. I am shocked it went 6.
Not true . He was double or triple teamed while spurs gave hakeem single coverage. Also dennis was a masive disruption & on offense shot trashy threes. Itwas a zoo
David actually won MVP that year.
Yeah I don't think anyone could forget that.
2nd best player in the playoffs*? Is that better?
IT was a broken play, the spacing was horrible. Anderson really wasn't in a position to receive a pass because he placed two defenders between himself and the ball. Therefore Robinson played it safe. Hot Rod did not. It's simple. But you keep wanting to diss Robinson for no reason at all other than your own stubbornness.
Would've been a horrible shot to shoot against three defenders. You don't seem to understand basketball.
So you think Anderson placed a defender on Robinson, ergo you don't understand the concept of the pick and roll or the double team. You also don't understand how height advantage works. David simply wasn't looking to score, he was looking to get rid of the ball and never looked at Willie again after Willie dumped off to him.
Rod thought Willie was cutting to the basket because he faked a cut along the baseline then stopped short. Rod never saw Sean move back out, didn't see Willie stop short so the blame was first and foremost on the PG for not assessing the situation before giving up the ball. Also long standing rule: Don't improvise fake basket cuts, you'll fool your PG as well. Risky play, cost them big time, but we've seen Manu do far worse and still get a highlight reel out of the cherry picked successful ones.
Bottom line is they were playing improvisational basketball. When the play was broken, a timeout could have been called. Also, David was close enough to the basket to simply shoot over a defender. Willie could have taken the 3. David could have passed to Willie on the give and go. Rod could have popped from the circle instead of that no look attempt and Sean could have simply camped out at the 3pt line preventing the 3 on 1 in the paint on David.
David could also have passed to Sean who was looking right at him and making his way to the 3, no one covering him. Rod was covered.
Sounds like everyone was at fault, but in your zest to pretend David was the only NBA level player on the floor, you ignore the fact that he simply deferred. When LMA does that, he's considered soft, so David was soft.
It wasn't a true pick and roll play. Willie simply dumped the ball off because he had already left his feet. SMDH. Robinson did not want to shoot over three defenders because it's a low percentage play (height advantage notwithstanding). So he gave it to Strickland where only he could get it (him being defended by Drexler is immaterial).
I can agree with most of this...
But this...? There is so much "what if," arm-chair quarter-backing here if you ask me. The definition of a broken play involves unscripted basketball, and inherently there are so many moving pieces... STILL Strickland's pass is the only thing that stands out as egregious. But yeah let's not fault him for the turnover...
LMA is considered soft because he doesn't take it inside (something which he seems to be doing more of this season) and has had a tendency to over-rely on fade away jumpers. Robinson, on the other hand, LED the NBA in points within 3 feet of the basket, and dunks during 5 of his first 6 years in the league (seasons which included front-court compe ion from the likes of Olajuwon, Ewing, Malone, Barkley and Shaquille O'Neal). Defensively David Robinson was a monster inside. Oddly enough because he could make the 16-18 ft jumper consistently, people branded him as a jump-shooting big. And since most jump-shooting bigs have a reputation for not wanting to "mix it up inside" people have become revisionist and distorted David's pre-injury game. Then there are folks like you who want to be a jerk about it and conflate sportsmanship with "softness". "Oh he didn't retaliate..." "He didn't have heart..."
Last edited by Phenomanul; 02-13-2018 at 09:52 AM.
I'm still ROFL at this "Robinson was double and triple teamed all series" revisionist history.
Robinson had enough supporting talent to beat the Rockets and other playoff squads he lost to. But he routinely played worse in the playoffs than he did in the regular season. Why is that being ignored? Give the type of production you gave in the regular season and those L's likely become W's. You can't blame the support when the star is consistently playing worse when it matters most.
The real revisionism is Houston fan pretending like Olajuwon won those back-to-back les on his talent alone.
Mario Elie hit daggers for Olajuwon
Robert Horry hit daggers for Olajuwon
Sam Cassell hit daggers for Olajuwon
Kenny Smith hit daggers for Olajuwon
Clyde Drexler hit daggers for Olajuwon
Game winning jumpers hit by members of the supporting cast either go in - or they don't. Olajuwon relied on their timely shooting which enabled the Rockets to win big post-season games. Big Shot Rob built his reputation of post-season clutchness while with the Rockets.
It wasn't until 1999 that the Spurs supporting cast finally hit "big" shots of their own (specifically Elliott and Avery).
For the record, that's also why I brought up Jordan earlier.
John Paxson hit big shots
B.J. Armstrong hit big shots
Craig Hodges hit big shots
Steve Kerr hit big shots
We're talking playoff game-winners and daggers here - nothing to scoff at.
Karl Malone had
John Stockton, and Jeff Hornacek routinely dropping daggers on playoff opponents during his deep playoff runs.
Charles Barkley had
Dan Majerle, and Danny Ainge doing the same.
Robinson didn't have that type of help from 1989 - 1996 (for all of the alleged talent of his supporting cast - clutchness is a different quality altogether - and they simply didn't have it).
Who said that? No one wins alone. However, Hakeem's playoff numbers GO UP. Even when he had worse help than Robinson. When it mattered most he played better. Same goes for Jordan and some of the other guys you mentioned. Robinson routinely played worse in the postseason. Before you blame his supporting cast focus on that.
Why are you blaming the help when the star consistently played worse? Look at his playoff numbers then compare it to his regular season numbers. How does a dominant C like him fail to make half of his shots in the playoffs?
Last edited by kingmalaki; 02-12-2018 at 09:32 PM.
It’s easy to double off of people you know aren’t going to make you pay for sagging off of them to defensively crowd the one player that can. You haven’t legitimized the efficacy of that defensive scheme, but that is precisely why it was easy to nullify the Spurs in the post-season during Robinson’s pre-Duncan, pre-Pop years.
If the Spurs’ shooters would consistently fail to make the other team regret that defensive game plan THEN why would you go away from it? 4th quarter stats for Spurs’ shooters were even worse. Olajuwon’s deepest runs required critical shots from clutch players that made their inside-outside game dangerous. Robinson did not have that luxury which is why you desparately want to assert that he wasn’t double or triple teamed in the playoffs. He was definitely double-teamed and triple-teamed on almost every possession in Game 5 - I know because I was in attendance. But go ahead and keep lying to yourself, keep trying to deceive everyone else. It still doesn’t make it true.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
