Reply With Quote
And Barkley was washed up too
Hakeem was washed up when they got Barkley. He wasn't anything close to what he was in 95', even then he was in his 30s
And Barkley was washed up too
I do not think that is arguable. As previously stated, Hakeems prime (short lived) > Duncan's, but career not even close.
The fact that the voting is pretty much 50/50 on a "SPURS MESSAGE BOARD", speaks volumes and tells you all you need to know.
Yeah, with half the votes by Rocket fans.The fact that the voting is pretty much 50/50 on a "SPURS MESSAGE BOARD", speaks volumes and tells you all you need to know.
I still believe it's arguable. If you factor in team success, Duncan wins hands down. But, if you're talking about which had the better individual career, it's still very debatable.
Some of you act like outside of the 1993-94 and 1994-95 seasons, Hakeem was an average player. In his first 13 seasons, even if you take out those two championship years, Hakeem was right around 22 ppg, 11-12 rpg, 3 bpg, 51% FG shooting, and he was an all league defender. Again, factor in team success, and it's Duncan no doubt. Talk about individual player, it's very much open for debate.
I'd also like to point something else out. Someone suggested that Tim Duncan in his prime would never let his team not make the playoffs, criticizing Hakeem for the 1991-92 Rockets team failing to make it to the playoffs. Noteworthy is that Hakeem missed 12 games that season and the Rockets were 2-10 without him. They ended up with a 42-40 record and 9th place in the conference. The 8th seed in the Western Conference that year were the LA Lakers with a record of 43-39. The Rockets missing the playoffs that year is very much an indictment on Hakeem's supporting cast. In 2004-05, Tim Duncan missed 16 games and the Spurs went 9-7 in those games he missed. In 2003-04, Duncan missed 13 games and the Spurs went 6-7 in those games Duncan missed. The Spurs supporting cast could manage to be around .500 without Duncan. That 1991-92 Rockets team had a 16.7% winning percentage
Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night buddy.......this is Duncan's home turf, not Hakeem's.
Yes, but in those years the Spurs were 60 wins and 57 wins and were in no danger of not making the playoffs. Duncan put them in that spot. Hakeem, if he was as good outside of his "peak" should have had his team closer.
We get it; ' 95 is all you all have.
Fail.
I don't know any real Spurs fans that believe Robinson was better than Hakeem.
Hakeem would destroy anyone.For someone to come on here and say Hakeem's career is similiar to Dirk, or Amare's is insane... flat out insane. The argument Spurs fans have for Duncan being better than Hakeem is about as rediculous as the one Lakers fans have for Kobe being better than Jordan. Infact, its even worse. If Kobe and Jordan went head to head in their primes, I have no doubt Jordan would get the best of Kobe, but Kobe would still get his. He would have been Jordans toughest cover by far. If Duncan and Hakeem went head to head in their primes, Hakeem would destroy Duncan, just like he did Robinson.
in his prime yes, career wise no.Hakeem was better than Duncan at every aspect of the game with the exception of passing. It would have been a total mismatch. I have personally seen Hakeem dominate Moses, Kareem, Parish, Daugherty, Ewing, Mourning, Shaq, and Robinson. When its all said and done, Hakeem was more versatile and harder to defend than any player on that list. Yes, Duncan is one of the greats, but even he would tell you he was no match for Hakeem.
Duncan is getting severely underestimated in here on his outside shooting, passing and post moves.
Duncan is easily the smarter of the two players........arguably one of the top 5 smartest NBA players of all time.
Ummm, so you're saying Duncan is a one man team? Come on now.
Those Spurs teams weren't in danger of missing the playoffs because they were good teams even without Duncan. The Rockets missed the playoffs because they were not a good team without Hakeem and were dependent on Hakeem.
40-30 with Hakeem. 2-10 without Hakeem.
Blake, what would your list be for top ten players in NBA history?
To me team success doesn't hold as much merit when they're both proven winners. That just shows who had the ball bounce slightly more their way or who had the better role players. Let's not forget Parker is regarded as the best pg in the world by many of you spur fans and Ginobili is an international ball legend. As far as individual's go, Hakeem has more impact on the game at both ends. There's a reason Duncan never guarded Shaq, Dirk, Amare went off for 40ppg that one series, etc. Hakeem is better offensively and a landslide defensively, while Duncan makes up some ground in leadership qualities and team defense. But looking at the two as individuals with no bias, I've got to take Hakeem every time, although I despise the Rockets.
Come on Jam, how can you infer that I said the Spurs were a one man team from my comments? I simply said it is not fair to compare games missed, when the teams had their star players at full strength for similar amounts of time and one had so many more wins.
You cannot tell me that Duncan did not have more to do with that than his "team".
Exactly, Hakeem destroyed everyone in his path and although Duncan did it for more years and was more consistant, no one in this modern era was better than Hakeem during those few peak years outside of Jordan and Magic.
My top big men list looks something like:
1. Hakeem
2. Shaq
3. Wilt*
4. Russel*
5. Jabbar
6. Duncan
* meaning I don't think these 2 would have dominated this era quite like they did in their own, it's hard to gauge how good they would be today, but this is my guess.
what does it have to do with duncan>hakeem?
in no particular order:
Jordan
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Duncan
Wilt
Shaq
Moses
Russell
10 Oscar
10a Dr J
Great, we agree.
duncan's level of play over his career was greater than Hakeem's while Hakeem had one nice quick run.
Duncan>Hakeem.
Do you think Bill Russell was a better player than Tim Duncan is?
fail.
Duncan is a proven winner: 50 wins every year.
Hakeem.......not so much.
I guess you failed to read where we went over this.That just shows who had the ball bounce slightly more their way or who had the better role players. Let's not forget Parker is regarded as the best pg in the world by many of you spur fans and Ginobili is an international ball legend. As far as individual's go, Hakeem has more impact on the game at both ends. There's a reason Duncan never guarded Shaq, Dirk, Amare went off for 40ppg that one series, etc. Hakeem is better offensively and a landslide defensively, while Duncan makes up some ground in leadership qualities and team defense. But looking at the two as individuals with no bias, I've got to take Hakeem every time, although I despise the Rockets.
Duncan actually always did guard Shaq and Amare in the 4th quarter when it counted.
yup. get to the point.
You said:
As if it was all on Duncan getting them that record.
And, sure it was fair to compare the games missed. It showed how important Hakeem was to that 91-92 Rockets team that went 2-10 without him and missed the playoffs by 1 game. Me bringing up Tim Duncan and those two seasons where he missed several games was just to show how the Spurs had a pretty good team even without him.
I was refuting the contention that Tim Duncan would have never allowed his team to miss the playoffs in his prime. I think making or missing the playoffs and the regular season record of a team are products of the team. It doesn't go on the shoulders of one player.
nope. he was an all star and averaged 19 and 15.
Hakeem was still option #1 that Barkley deferred to and they made it to the WCF
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
