Reply With Quote
No. David was too soft. Sans Tim, Dave never rings.
I do think Horry’s shot in game 5 was biggeranother overrated shot, tbh... we ended up sweeping Portland in that series, they sucked.
No. David was too soft. Sans Tim, Dave never rings.
That's such a non-quantifiable statement. People that keep repeating this lie want to take an easy out in talking David down.
David NEVER once had the supporting cast that Duncan had during his championship runs. David was all-everything which meant that the rest of his team simply wasn't good enough. Even Jordan couldn't get over the hump until he had Pippen. Kobe couldn't do anything without an All-Star big by his side, etc...
But yeah, let's tear down our local icon with a baseless, unquantifiable argument simply because the cheap cir stances, of poorly constructed squads, produced a ringless outcome.
Both great shots but yeah...Horry's was in the Finals against a much tougher opponent.
Elliott misses and Spurs probably still win.
Horry misses and there's a good chance we might not have #3.
Not to mention it capped off an incredible performance by Rob.
Quantification: 0 rings before Tim
Quantification part 2: 2 rings after Tim
Verification: Tim received the Finals MVP both times
David was great, but he played in an era where people like Karl Malone and Hakeem would destroy him on the regular, and he wouldn't do anything about it. Let's not revise history. Terry mings wasn't a slouch, and David had prime Sean and let's not forget he had Willie Anderson.
The "too soft" part is what is unquantifiable. Barkley wasn't a "soft" player by any standard, reputation or otherwise. Yet he went ringless his entire career.
The "soft" and "rings" cross-hatched argument is a non-correlational one - it's a weak argument.
As for your other gimmicky (cir stantial) evidence, I can play your game too with Michael Jordan.
Quantification: 0 rings before Pippen and Phil Jackson
Quantification part 2: 6 rings after Pippen and Phil Jackson
I'm not revising history. Terry mings was good for only two years. David never had an above average point guard other than his rookie year. These are legitimate shortcomings for any squad with Championship aspirations. Go ahead and rag on him if you want, just don't obfuscate the facts with subjectivity.
You chose Barkley for a reason: He wasn't soft. David was. Barkley wasn't smart, David was.
You used Pippen earlier, but Pippen didn't go to Chicago and win finals MVPs. David was Pippen to Tim, for a time.
Most opinions make weak arguments, that's why they are called opinions.The "soft" and "rings" cross-hatched argument is a non-correlational one - it's a weak argument.
See above... Pippen didn't show up and win 6 Finals MVPs. In fact, he didn't even win one, but he did get the Bulls to the ECSF. That's almost as far as David got in the West.As for your other gimmicky (cir stantial) evidence, I can play your game too with Michael Jordan.
Quantification: 0 rings before Pippen and Phil Jackson
Quantification part 2: 6 rings after Pippen and Phil Jackson
Because Speedy Claxton was a world beater yet Avery hangs from the rafters at the AT&T center.I'm not revising history. Terry mings was good for only two years. David never had an above average point guard other than his rookie year. These are legitimate shortcomings for any squad with Championship aspirations. Go ahead and rag on him if you want, just don't obfuscate the facts with subjectivity.
Last edited by DMC; 02-08-2018 at 02:45 PM.
check Dave’s record against Hakeem before you run your mouth. Not to mention Malone being allowed to do literally any dirty he wanted to.
Thus the "soft".
David lost to Hakeem when it mattered. Again, soft. David even said so.
I was 1 year old so don't remember but Bob Hill was a twit, so no way that was ever going to happen
And what if I did..? The point was that "being soft" or "not being soft" has nothing to do with winning rings. Using it as an argument against David's accomplishments is weak.
Charles Oakley is universally regarded as one of the strongest (i.e. "not soft") players to ever play on the hardwood and YET he never rang either.
The simple point was Jordan needed All-NBA talent help, a better supporting cast of shooters and snipers (John Paxson, Craig Hodges, B.J. Armstrong, Steve Kerr), and better coaching before he won any of his ships. David didn't have that combination of luxuries prior to Duncan's arrival - but sure let's use that against him and suggest it's all on him alone. Now you're just being dense and obtuse.
If anything you're using Duncan's greatness as a slight against Robinson, which isn't fair to David. Tim was able to overcome the odds in 2003, but then again that was a year he needed deadly, clutch shooting from his supporting cast. David never got that level of clutchness from any of his pre-Duncan squads.
1999 - All-NBA/All-Stars (Duncan >>>> Robinson)
Coach: Gregg Popovich
Shooters - Mario Elie, Jaren Jackson, Steve Kerr, Sean Elliott
2003 - All-NBA/All-Stars (Duncan >>>>>>>> Ginobili / Parker > Robinson)
Coach: Gregg Popovich
Shooters - Stephen Jackson, Steve Kerr, Manu Ginobili
2005 - All-NBA/All-Stars (Duncan > Ginobili >>>> Parker)
Coach: Gregg Popovich
Shooters - Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Robert Horry, Manu Ginobili
2007 - All-NBA/All-Stars (Duncan > Parker > Ginobili)
Coach: Gregg Popovich
Shooters - Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Robert Horry, Michael Finley, Manu Ginobili
2014 - All-NBA/All-Stars (Duncan >> Leonard >>>>> Parker)
Coach: Gregg Popovich
Shooters - Danny Green, Patty Mills, Manu Ginobili, Kawhi Leonard
Parker was on the squad the year that Claxton was here - and both were way better than Avery.
Avery only hangs in the rafters because of his GW shot in Game 5 of the 1999 Finals, and because of his leadership qualities - not because he was actually a "great" point guard.
Charles Oakley isn't considered in the same realm as David Robinson. David had everything, but he was soft. Charles could barely put two words together.
You chose Barkley because it's the extreme end of "ringless great". David wasn't ringless. He needed Tim but Tim didn't need him. If you had a point you would have said Karl Malone or Pat Ewing. Neither were soft, neither won a ring, both considered great players. I didn't say not winning a ring proved David was soft. I said David wouldn't have won without Tim because he was too soft. David with Manu and Tony still don't ring. Players got to David mentally, including his own teammates. Not so much with Tim.
David was all NBA talent. Tim was top 5 to ever play the game. There's a difference. Tim returned to the summit time and again and left David with a reprieve from the "no ring club" by letting him retire a champion. I love David, great player, but it was known then in SA that David was too soft for the high level of aggression on the NBA floor in big games. He was too nice.The simple point was Jordan needed All-NBA talent help, a better supporting cast of shooters and snipers (John Paxson, Craig Hodges, B.J. Armstrong, Steve Kerr), and better coaching before he won any of his ships. David didn't have that combination of luxuries prior to Duncan's arrival - but sure let's use that against him and suggest it's all on him alone. Now you're just being dense and obtuse.
No, you're saying David was MJ to Tim's Pippen yet the rest of the NBA world sees Tim in the top 10 ever to play while David, though a HOFer and top 50 all time, isn't that close to the top 10.If anything you're using Duncan's greatness as a slight against Robinson, which isn't fair to David. Tim was able to overcome the odds in 2003, but then again that was a year he needed deadly, clutch shooting from his supporting cast. David never got that level of clutchness from any of his pre-Duncan squads.
Parker was on the squad, but he was a pup. He's on the squad now, is he a beast?1999 - All-NBA/All-Stars (Duncan >>>> Robinson)
Coach: Gregg Popovich
Shooters - Mario Elie, Jaren Jackson, Steve Kerr, Sean Elliott
2003 - All-NBA/All-Stars (Duncan >>>>>>>> Ginobili / Parker > Robinson)
Coach: Gregg Popovich
Shooters - Stephen Jackson, Steve Kerr, Manu Ginobili
2005 - All-NBA/All-Stars (Duncan > Ginobili >>>> Parker)
Coach: Gregg Popovich
Shooters - Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Robert Horry, Manu Ginobili
2007 - All-NBA/All-Stars (Duncan > Parker > Ginobili)
Coach: Gregg Popovich
Shooters - Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Robert Horry, Michael Finley, Manu Ginobili
2014 - All-NBA/All-Stars (Duncan >> Leonard >>>>> Parker)
Coach: Gregg Popovich
Shooters - Danny Green, Patty Mills, Manu Ginobili, Kawhi Leonard
Parker was on the squad the year that Claxton was here - and both were way better than Avery.
Avery only hangs in the rafters because of his GW shot in Game 5 of the 1999 Finals, and because of his leadership qualities - not because he was actually a "great" point guard.
Why isn't Horry's jersey retired in SA? He hit a game winning shot.
I don't get the point of the rest of those lineups. All they tell me is that Tim rung thrice without David and David zero without Tim.
This is where you lose the argument. Had David been paired with Manu and Parker (and coached by Pop) they certainly would have had a better chance of beating, Barkley's Suns, Olojuwon's Rockets, or Malone's Jazz. As it was (without Gino or Parker) they took the ROX to 6 games DESPITE Rodman gifting them one game in that ill-fated 1995 Series.
You clearly don't understand how great both Ginobili and Parker were in their primes relative to anything Robinson had as help. Heck, Ginobili is still a force today, and has the capacity to make series defining plays.
The ridiculousness of your argument lies here.
David couldn't win because he was too nice.
NO.
David couldn't win because his pre-Duncan teams were poorly constructed and sans Larry Brown, poorly coached.
Your reading comprehension is atrocious. Where did I state that Duncan was an inferior player to Robinson...?
In fact if you were to swap their careers I'm convinced Duncan was great enough to topple the Rockets in 1995, because his defensive instincts were more fundamental and did not rely on Robinson's freakish athleticism.
In that context, had Robinson joined the Spurs in 1997 as a 21 year old - and was paired with Duncan at that point - I'm also convinced the Spurs would not have lost any series to Shaq's Lakers.
Assuming Duncan's career length would've taken him to 41 years (and considering how good he was at that age) their combined defensive prowess paired with Ginobili and Parker's unique abilities would have given them a chance to win more than 6 les during the 2,000's.
That isn't a knock on Duncan. But that's how good Robinson's game was.
In that context, their legacies would both be magnified.
Stupid red-herring.
Another stupid red-herring. If you don't get the fact that every champion since forever, has required clutch shooting from someone other than the star player then you don't understand basketball.
That's because you keep simplifying your argument for convenience' sake.
THE POINT WAS THAT DUNCAN required a combination of All-NBA talent, good coaching and clutch shooting on years the Spurs took home the Larry O'Brien.
Do the Spurs ring if Kerr/Jackson/Manu didn't go off in the second half against the Mavs in 2003? Do they ring if Horry doesn't go bananas in the 4th and OT periods of Game 5 against Detroit? Likely a "no" in both cases. David never had anyone else that could consistently be counted on to step up, especially any clutch shooters he could rely on to spread the floor for him. , I don't even think as great a series as Hakeem had in 1995 that they would've won their series against the Spurs if Elie, Cassell and Horry hadn't hit their big shots. MJ required big shots from Paxson, and Kerr to win his 'ships too. All the great teams had this combination. But no, you keep wanting to judge pre-Duncan Robinson for his playoff shortcomings, despite the fact that he NEVER had that combination. That's what you keep wanting to downplay because it delegitimizes your argument altogether.
They had a chance, but Rodman had other plans. Then Pop pulled his first white privilege roster move and traded him to the Bulls for Will Purdue.
Also, I love Sean but he was not that good. He was decent.
He played him straight up while Houston triple-teamed
Y'all are debating Robinson should remember that in 1995 the STARTING backcourt was Vinny del Negro and Avery Johnson( who wasn't as good as he was in 1999). Do you really think that DRob was supposed to win a championship with those two? Let's see, Duncan had Ginobili and Parker. Does that seem like a fair fight?
1995 is a classic example of not making shots. The Spurs didn't make shots. Whether or not they were chokers, or they just missed, is a matter of opinion.
Yes Robinson was soft but this has gotten blown out of proportion. I was a season ticket holding fan 1991-1996 so I lived through that era. IMO Robinson is WAY underrated by the younger generation that didn't see him play. He was equal to Shaq and Olajowon and played against those guys. Some younger fans should go to basketballreference.com and spend some time looking at his page.
Finally, as I've said many times if you give Robinson a backcourt of Parker/Ginobili I think he wins a championship in 1994-95.
Exactly. Most of the people talking about this have only seen a few seconds of YouTube clips of Olajuwon scoring on Robinson. But the fact us that Robinson was being double teamed and the Spurs weren't hitting open 3 balls. On the other hand the Rockets were high 3's and Robinson was trying to cover Olajuwon man to man.
People really need to get over this narrative. Go back and look at the MVP voting in the 90's and you'll see Robinson was considered equal to Hakeem and Shaq. Plus Robinson has great statistics. So the whole argument against him is that he never won a ring without Duncan. But is it his fault that all the Spurs 3-Pt shooters sucked in the playoffs? After all, Vinny del Negro was the starting SG on that team.
Tim made Manu and Tony. They didn't come to Tim as 1st overall draft picks. Revisionism rears its ugly head again.
Yeah Robinson also had to take the dream one on one because the rockets had other players. The spots didn't have other players so they triple teamed Robinson
Manu actually did beat Tim in his prime (with rules that favored Manu more, I would agree). They're not HoF talent because of Tim. In part because of Tim? I would agree with that.
You put Tony Parker on a 15 win team that hits the lottery every year, even as a rookie, he doesn't develop, doesn't get a chance to shine or get time in the post season. Manu probably doesn't come to the US to play if Tim Duncan isn't with the Spurs. Even then, without Tim's effect on the game, Manu's contributions would be just Sportscenter moments, not Finals moments. Manu was defined in the NBA by his contributions off the bench and in the playoffs. Without Tim, Manu probably is a starter on another team, maybe he does well, but he doesn't do 5 rings well. Would he be HOF? Maybe. Even when Manu beat Tim, he was already a Spur.
Tim made everyone including Pop. He gained from the relationship as well, so there was synergy there. None of them would be as good without that combination, but remove Tim and they are only popular in their home countries and the respective NBA teams they play on.
The Rockets in 95 were a team of destiny who imposed their will our feckless Silver & Black regular-season wonders.
This hurt more.
With the game tied 103 in overtime of Game 7 of the 1990 Western Conference Semifinals, Spurs guard Rod Strickland makes a bad pass that ultimately costs his team the game and the series against the Portland Trail Blazers.
"A bad pass." Bit of an understatement, that.
Last edited by Capt Bringdown; 02-08-2018 at 11:46 PM.
Vinny was always a fan favorite.
It's a respectable take, but on the other hand, I'm more of a team game guy. I think while Tim was a sure-fire HoF, and Manu was probably headed there after winning gold (and it's true he was a Spur already, but he was in his 2nd season IIRC, and he had yet to earn the confidence of Pop and Tim up to an extent). On the other hand, I think if you surround Tim with relatively mediocre talent, they don't win it all 5 times. As great as Tim has always been, and has carried the team for many stretches, he's also been nullified plenty of times and he has had the smarts and the talent around him to trust guys that delivered. Do we win in '03 without Kerr or SJax? debatable. Do we win in '05 without Manu, and heck, even Horry's heroics? debatable. And that was Tim in his prime.
Now, addressing what brought this, Tim obviously was a different kind of dominant player than DRob was. DRob was athletically gifted, but that's rarely been enough. It's not like bringing in Duncan unleashed a dominant DRob, that was held back because of mediocre talent around him. So I'm not a fan of that line of thought. That doesn't mean DRob sucked or anything, it's hard enough to win a championship in the NBA. You can ask anybody that played in the Jordan era.
Why are u even comparing DRob to Jordan? He never made it out of the West.
The real question is : how much better those shooters would've been next to Duncan? What decent shooter didn't improve their FG% 3PT% next to Duncan?( which Pop also deserve credit for ) TD was a MUCH better passer than D.Rob .
And the truth is : David Robinson is one of the greatest regular season players of all time but in the playoffs he was significantly worse, that's why people called him soft.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions