Not to restart an unnecessary debate, but I do want to clarify that my quarrel in this post is with the idea that David Robinson was somehow just an unfortunate victim in the Spurs' playoff woes between 1990 and 1998. Don't get me wrong, David Robinson is a man that most of us should aspire to be like -- he's got those renaissance qualities that are rarely found in the world and that are virtually unheard of in the world of professional sports. But I also think that some are willing to look at David Robinson "the whole man" and use that to excuse David Robinson from bearing any responsibility for the Spurs' failures. If David was responsible for their successes, his do ented drop-offs in production come playoff time have to make him accountable for their failures, too. That's all I'm saying.
As whottt correctly noted, there is a strong argument to say that David Robinson was, at worst, in the top 3 most-dominant NBA players between, say 1992-1995. During that time when Michael and Hakeem were elevating their games at playoff time and leading their teams in gringing out wins and series, and ultimately, winning les, David Robinson's Spurs were doing neither, and seemingly, that failure did not affect David Robinson. That, to me at least, is where the questions arose about David's desire to truly compete. As the frustrations mounted, David carried a certain nonchalance with him -- that nonchalance was certainly driven, at least in part, by his renaissance qualities, but as a fan who spends a significant amount of time and money watching that team and as a former athlete, I found the nonchalance a bit off-putting. Here's one of the most dominant players in the history of the NBA, and he's publicly unconcerned (or at least unmoved) by the repeated failures of his team? The most colorful David ever got upon elimination was in Salt Lake City in 1996, when he called Steve Javie "bull ," after Javie dinged him with some cheapies in Game 6. But even that missed the mark, from my perspective, because regardless of the accuracy of his assessment, it still didn't address the ultimate issue, which was that a 59-win Spurs team was utterly uncompe ive against an inferior Jazz team in Games 1, 3 and 4 of that series (when they lost by 20, 30, and 15).
I watched the Spurs for the duration of David's career -- in fact, I've been watching the Spurs since Larry Kenon was silky smooth on the break and back when the Whopper was patrolling the middle during those Eastern Conference days (to say nothing of Ice and Silas, Mike Gale and Mark Olberding, to name a few). David is a transcendant figure in Spurs history for a number of reasons, not the least of which is his critical role in keeping the SPurs in San Antonio. I appreciate David Robinson for all of those things -- I truly do, regardless of what whottt and others might intimate. I understand that David was a late bloomer and a developing project for most of the early years of his career. I also appreciate that David worked very hard to become a great basketball player -- a goal that he eventually accomplished. But as great a man as David Robinson is, the truth of the matter is that the teams he lead were on the losing end of far too many playoff fiascos for me to join the chorus arguing that David should get a free pass in evaluating his compe iveness against that exhibited by his peers.
But (to bring this thread back to its initial point) I do think it says something about Pop that he managed to find or fuel that fire in David, making him the compe or that we finally saw at the end of David's career.
You can be a successful individual without loving your profession. That was the central problem with DRob on the court. He had the talent, the discipline, and the work ethic to be a superstar, yet he lacked that desire to tear the heart out of his opponents and show it to them as they lay dying on the court. In compe ive sports that is important.
Perhaps sooner or later we can get beyond the 'David is a great man' responses. I haven't seen anyone in this thread dispute that.
It is important but in Robinson's case it was not a hindrance. He could not accomplish all he did on the court if it was. My point is this, he did love the game, just not as much as his family or faith. You cannot accomplish what he did on the court with a total lack of desire and love for the game.
I don't think anyone is saying that David was without any love or passion for basketball; but compared to his contemporaries, that love/passion was quite limited. And it's very hard, I think, to argue that his limited love wasn't a hinderance, mikey -- it was a hinderance because, of the dominant players of that 1990-1998 era, Robinson was the only truly "dominant" talent who didn't get his team to at least one Finals. That was true despite the fact that the Spurs rolled up high seeds and very good records during that time -- those teams had a dominating big man and talented role players, but they never got it done, and David's numbers fell off in most of those playoff runs.
As I said before, my quarrel is with those who take David's off-the-court goodness (which I agree nobody disputes) and use that as a basis to excuse him from any role in his team's on-court failures.
Tommy said here..
and here...he lacked that desire to tear the heart out of his opponents and show it to them as they lay dying on the court
I disagree about it being a hindrance. David could not have accomplished what he did if it was.That's besides the point. David Robinson played basketball because he was good at it and it paid extremely well, not because he loved it.
Excellent thoughts and debate on David Robinson. He never had the lower body structure (heavy trunk/rear-end) of some of the other post players which helps them leverage-wise, but David did the best with what he had. Nobody had a better upper body.
This thread is en led "Adaptable Popovich is among the NBA's best" but I really think David was adaptability personified. Not just physical and experiencial adjusments, but several at udinal adjustments on the court over the years. Toward the end of his career, he was trying to show his toughness more. He never completely rid himself of that occasional "aloof" look he would get sometimes, but he definitely had more compe ive drive in his later years.
Good to see you come in Admiral. May God bless you and give you strength going through Med School. I know it's tough sometimes.
Fine, but is David at all responsible, in your mind, for the Spurs' repeated failures in the 1990's, and does his limited love of basketball explain the fact that he rarely was able to elevate his play come playoff time?
Jordan and Hakeem put up great numbers in the regular season but until they got a decent supporting cast, they did nothing in the playoffs. Same with David. Why then is he viewed differently? Bias. Some fans think that if a player does not eat, sleep and breath their sport, they are in some way deficient. Those fans do it, so they think the players on their teams should too. David proved that you could be a top player in your sport and still keep family and faith as top priority.
David was not solely at fault for the Spurs playoff failures prior to 1999. The playoffs are more intense. David did what he could but other teams focused entirely on David and forced the other Spurs to beat him. They knew David was going to get his. It was up to others to step up and that did not happen.
Again, David Robinson did not have the compe ive desire that MJ, Hakeem, Barkley, etc exhibited. He did not live and breathe basketball. I don't think anyone believes that if DRob did not have the athletic ability to play in the NBA that he would have been down at the local gym playing pickup games every weekend.
This is not a knock on him as a man, but rather as a NBA superstar. He was that good without the passion for the game and compe ion that his superstar peers exhibited. Just imagine if he was. Imagine if he devoted the time to developing an unstoppable go-to move or working on his post game throughout his career.
Sure, DRob is popular because of the man he is off the court. But that does not make him immune from criticism. And I think he would be the first to admit that he did not have the same level of desire that MJ or Hakeem had.
Even AJ had more desire and compe ive fire than DRob ever had. It's not always an optimal situation when your best player is not your most compe ive player. Could you say that about MJ's Bulls? Hakeem's Rockets? Bird's Celtics? Barkley's Suns?
Almost off topic question:
Do you think Tim exhibits the kind of passion, love, desire for the game that you are talking about?
Or does he lack it too?
But it's not the same with David -- when Jordan and Hakeem had inferior casts, they were eeking into the playoffs and being overmatched by better basketball teams. With David, by contrast, the Spurs were never worse than 2nd in their division, and never lower than a 5 seed:Jordan and Hakeem put up great numbers in the regular season but until they got a decent supporting cast, they did nothing in the playoffs. Same with David.
1990: 1st in Midwest, #2 seed (eliminated Round 2)
1991: 1st in Midwest, #2 seed (eliminated Round 1)
1992: [Robinson injured, didn't participate in playoffs]
1993: 2nd in Midwest, #5 seed (eliminated Round 2)
1994: 2nd in Midwest, #4 seed (eliminated Round 1)
1995: 1st in Midwest, #1 seed (eliminated WCF)
1996: 1st in Midwest, #2 seed (eliminated Round 2)
David's supporting cast during most of those seasons was good enough to obtain home court advantage and to garner a high seed in the playoffs -- it's much different than the situations that faced Jordan or Hakeem.
or, perhaps, because the facts show his situation to have been significantly different.Why then is he viewed differently? Bias.
Again, I don't dispute that its admirable that David is a wonderful man. But, while David was proving that he could be a top player while keeping his family and faith a priority, his teams, talented enough to get high playoff seeds, were regularly falling short of expectations at playoff time. I guess the question is one of the measure of greatness, but the knock on David for so much of his career was that his gaudy regular season numbers didn't bear out when the pressure of playoff basketball arrived -- which I think is the point that is at issue in this thread.Some fans think that if a player does not eat, sleep and breath their sport, they are in some way deficient. Those fans do it, so they think the players on their teams should too. David proved that you could be a top player in your sport and still keep family and faith as top priority.
I never suggested that David was solely at fault. Pages ago, I noted the problems with Dennis Rodman in 1994 and 1995, the disappearances of Vinny Del Negro and Chuck Person in the 1995 WCF, the misread between Rod Strickland and Sean Elliott in 1990. But for all of that, it's hard for me to fathom the argument that some seem to make, that David should bear none of the blame because he's such a great guy. The truth is, that the 1990's were an era of repeated playoff failure for the Spurs, and the one constant during that time was David Robinson. Other than the understandable respect for the man as a human being, I'm really struggling to understand how it's so difficult to acknowledge that David bore some (not total, but some) responsibility for the Spurs' repeated failures.David was not solely at fault for the Spurs playoff failures prior to 1999.
But that's true of so many other superstars, including Tim Duncan. Yet, those other superstars found ways to either elevate their own play despite the intensity of the playoffs and the added attention paid to them, or found ways to help their teammates step up. Certainly the intensity amps up at playoff time, but that's precisely why this argument is going on: when the intensity went up, David's passion and desire stayed on the regular season plane, and as a result, his game never elevated beyond its regular season level. Great compe ors elevate their games by adjusting to the intensity and playing with greater focus and passion. David, from my perspective, always struggled to do that, which is why we're having this discussion.The playoffs are more intense. David did what he could but other teams focused entirely on David and forced the other Spurs to beat him. They knew David was going to get his. It was up to others to step up and that did not happen.
Personally, I think Tim has it. Passion, love, and desire need not be exemplified in words, or by jumping around like a jackass swatting shots after whistles and whatnot. Passion, love, and desire can also be shown by elevating your game when it matters most. It's been really interesting to see Tim Duncan's focus and desire go up when the playoffs roll around and that, in my estimation, is borne out by the almost-annual improvement in his numbers during the post-season. It's particularly evident in his career numbers in the WCF and the NBA Finals. When it matters most, Tim is at his best and that, to me, shows that compe ive fire.Do you think Tim exhibits the kind of passion, love, desire for the game that you are talking about?
Or does he lack it too?
I agree that he did not have as much desire as those players you mentioned, TD and I know you were not criticizing his off the court behavior. I just do not believe that he could have achieved his on the court success and have a total lack of desire or love for the game.
so then, FWD, do you believe that the playoff failures were solely David's fault?
I get the sense that TD is much more the compe or than DRob. That's part of the reason TD's offensive game is much more polished than DRob's ever was. TD will work on new moves, he will work on sharpening the old ones. TD is much more likely to become unhinged or argue a call on the court than DRob.
DRob had the stoic, upright personality on the court and TD had the laid back smooth one but you know TD is much more likely to stare down a ref or go right at someone than DRob.
Jordan and Hakeem made it to the conference finals as well as sneaking into the playoffs. I know Jordan did...and I am pretty sure Hakeem did.
Remember the good old days when this was a thread about Popovich?
although the rare times DRob went off, like that time in Houston...were funny.
I'll answer by quoting my earlier answer:so then, FWD, do you believe that the playoff failures were solely David's fault?
I never suggested that David was solely at fault . . . . Other than the understandable respect for the man as a human being, I'm really struggling to understand how it's so difficult to acknowledge that David bore some (not total, but some) responsibility for the Spurs' repeated failures.
Yeah, now if he can just stop that going underneath with his arms and then flailing around looking for a foul move that he goes to every time he gets frustrated.TD will work on new moves, he will work on sharpening the old ones.
FWDt, no I don't think David holds any responsibility for the Spurs playoff failures...
I hold him responsible for getting them to the playoffs in the first place.
The only blame you can put on David Robinson is being good enough to get his team in over it's head.
Drob is like John Elway...Versatile and great enough to get his team to a game where it will be embarrassed.
And this is factually provable...
Micheal Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon and Tim Duncan's teams all have winning records without them, in the prime of their careers...
David Robinson's do not!!!!!!! They aren't even close.
And I'll be back with the numbers to back that claim up in just a bit(on the phone listening to girlfriend vent at the moment)
(on the phone listening to girlfriend vent at the moment)
I'm glad she has your undivided attention.
LMAO, the first call of the day with her is always the vent call...usually when I am embroiled in the middle of a life or death argument.
And the last call invariably comes in the final, absolutely most crucial minutes of any close basketball, football or baseball game(dare I say, she even seems to know when there is an exciting conclusion to a wrestling match on my TV screen).
I learned a hard lesson about blowing her off at these moments in 02-03 though...Every time I blew her off in 02-03 the Spurs lost the game...every time I gritted my teeth,
turned down the volume and hit the record button while she talked...the Spurs won.
So now I'm supers ious about it and I always take the call no matter how crucial...I just have to learn to live with a little bit higher blood pressure.
It's probably in your best interest to convert her into a sports fan.
Kori, I agree with you about Duncan. That is a bull move and Tim is better than that.
It's an interesting way to look at it, and I'll admit that I know you're right on that point, primarily because the Spurs were abysmal during the two long stretches that David missed (the end of 1991-92, (5-9 without David) and most of 1996-97, (17-59)). But I think the number is skewed a bit, only because of that awful 1996-97 season.Micheal Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon and Tim Duncan's teams all have winning records without them, in the prime of their careers...
Surely, though, you aren't arguing that the Spurs weren't a pretty-much-annual disappointment between 1990 and 1998.
While I don't dispute that David is largely responsible for getting the Spurs into the playoffs during those years -- I just think that his lack of fire caused his game to plateau at playoff time, which hurt the Spurs chances to achieve the expectations that were justifiably placed upon them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote