Reply With Quote
We would not be discussing this had MJ played 94 and 95 seasons (complete seasons). We would talking about who is the best ring-less player (Malone Vs Hakeem).
when people bring up that bowen and drexler were the same defensively, i puke.
I didn't know a realgm, armchair message board held more weight than the experts.
We would not be discussing this had MJ played 94 and 95 seasons (complete seasons). We would talking about who is the best ring-less player (Malone Vs Hakeem).
Had Jordan not retired in 99, we'd be discussing the Bulls as NBA Champs in 99 right?
Had David Stern not been an idiot and rewarded the Spurs for a cheapshot in 2007, we'd be discussing the Suns as NBA Champs in 2007 right?
Had Timmy played in the Jordan era, maybe we'd be discussing who was the best ring-less player (Malone vs. TD vs. Hakeem)?
Tim never played Jordan once in the playoffs. He did face Malone and Shaq 7 times in the playoffs (neither player obviously as good as Jordan) and went
2-5 against them.
You expect us to believe that he'd have won multiple les in the Jordan era when he was 2-5 against Shaq/Malone, guys he'd have to go through in that era just to get to Jordan?
A Spurs fan can never use the "Jordan was gone" argument and be taken seriously because the Spurs won their first le the very year Jordan retired and the Bulls were broken up in the half-season of 1999.
And name one "expert" who has ranked Duncan over Hakeem. Not some random guy with a blog as per the previous threads, but an actual "expert".
You shrug off the opinions of Robert Horry, Mario Elie (who played with both guys and rank Hakeem the best) and shrug off the opinions of neutral fans who favor Hakeem simply because it doesnt suit your argument.
2-4
Lost: 98,01,02,04
Won: 99,03
bob costas, you'd know if you'd click on the link.
For a guy who claims to be neutral, and pimps the lakers as his favorite team, to ask a guestion like this one....
makes me question whether he's actually a lakerfan.
I'm obviously am a sonic and spursfan.
Duncan would have atleast led scottie pippen and barkley past the first round.
So who is better, John Salley or Tim Duncan?
posting numerous threads, and taking credit for the new reformation in the troll forum, and taco bell for mexican food.
Hmm they swept Portland ...The Sean Elliott Memorial Day Miracle from behind the 3 pt line had nothing to do with Duncan winning in 1999?!
I gues Sean had like 4 Miracles shots game after game, good he was on that team to win championship
NAILED !
Duncan would have won 1999 irrespective of Jordan played in 1999 or not.
On your Sun's argument, you must be an idiot to think that Suns would have won. First of all even if you discount 1 game that Spurs won without 2 players it is still 3-2 in Spurs favor. Second of all, Suns never won anything significant against Spurs for past 3 years (check regular season record and play off series record). All Suns did in past 2 years was to win series against LA teams (twice Lakers and once Clippers) and you are telling that we will be talking about Suns as Champion. Don't be fooled: Championships are not given once second round is over (NEED PROOF? Ask 2006 Dalls Mavs).
Thanks for the correction...
There's not one Laker fan alive who thinks Kobe-Shaq was a better team than Magic-Kareem. Not one.
That's complete disrespect and foolishness to say Kobe-Shaq was on par with one of the NBA's 2 or 3 best dynasties ever.
Do you know who Magic and Kareem were or do you need the noted NBA "expert" Bob Costas to explain it to you?
LOL. They were all only pushing 40 years old and washed up at the time.
I guess MJ sucks too since he couldnt lead the Wizards to a le at age 40.
I hope you use this same standard with Duncan 8 yrs from now when he's an NBA Greybeard...
Did Jordan play in 1999? Also would that be really called the Jordan era? It was more like the Kobe/Shaq era.
I think when people say Jordan era they refer to his time as a Bull. Nonetheless I don't know how Michael Jordan got pulled into this arguement. This is getting old, both sides have good arguments to be made for, but IMO when comparing two players you can't just say one won more rings than the other and call it an end, because that sole player didn't win that ring, it was the team who did, however when comparing two teams as a whole using the number of championships can be used. I think the only way to decide this is to get NBA Live 2003 or NBA 2K3 and have Duncan play Hakeem one-on-one best out of 7 up to 11, 2's and 1's only, call your own fouls to see who is the better player.
Costas only wrote the foreword for that book.
It was Elliott Kalb who wrote the book and rated the players.
I just don't get it. Duncan would have led pippen in his prime and barkley to a championship.
Hakeem didn't.
Exactly. When comparing 2 players it's disingenuous to just say one had more rings so he was better. And you're right, this argument has been dissected to an extreme degree.
Let me know who wins on NBA Live.
Pippen's prime and Barkley's prime were the early 1990's. They were all nearly 40 year old and on the injury list on and off in 1999 and 2000. Comprende?
You do understand that when a player is 37 yrs old like Hakeem was in 1999 and Barkley was that year they are not "in their primes" right?
Do you think David Robinson was in his prime in 2003?
Please explain to us, oh wise one, how Barkley, Olajuwon and Scottie Pippen were in their primes in 1999 when all 3 were pushing 40...
Maybe Bob Costas can explain it to you
Pippen was still athletic and at age 35. Barkley was still a beast.
Jason kidd and Nash are all pippens age when pips was in Houston right now, and one of them just finished winning an mvp trophy not to long ago.
Also, Robinson had a nasty injury that severely limited his movement.
Only somebody who choses to ignore the facts, and is a closet Rocketsfan would admit to that.
And Lakerfans today would agree that the LakerDynasty of the millenium would have beaten the Celtics and were of that caliber.
Last edited by Ignignokt; 09-23-2007 at 04:12 PM.
washed uo washed up
Atre we talking about the prime years?
Hakeem had about 2 years of prime. No one is talking about his previous and later years. Just those two dominant years.
Duncan is all the time on the highest NBA level.
We can say that he is in his prime all the time with his specific dominance.
Duncan wouldnt have gotten spanked by SHawn KEmp, that's for sho!
Duncan is going to be considered in the top 5-10 when this is all over, even over hakeems. And the people who will rank him over hakeem, will probably not care that Hakeem was a goalie.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
