David.
Well I know that maybe is not a good idea to talk about that in here.
But I want to know yours opinion.
Thy are different players but wchich one was more valuable to this team?
Offhand, I'd have to go with Tim.
David did tons of great things and carried the organization on his back through the 90s, but we still didn't pick up a single ring until we got Timmy on board.
Whether Tim can repeat that success without an aging Robinson at his side remains to be seen, but we seem to like his chances this year.
LOL Someone asks this question every year....Allow me to try and summarize the usual arguments(not a strength of mine)
Duncan supporters: Tim brought the rings, better scorer(this in spite of Robinson scoring more PPG on a better PCT and being a better FT shooter), Duncan's numbers went up in the playoffs...Drob's went down.
Robinson supporters: Statistically superior player in his prime, didn't have the supporting cast that Duncan had...for instance...Tim Duncan had David Robinson...while David had no one of that caliber...Plus David had tougher compe ion at his position...Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing. Drob had like 7 coaches in 7 years..most were rookies... and the Spurs were a financially strapped organization who were nearly on th verge of moving...While Duncan has only had 1 coach in his entire career, and the Spurs situation in SA has been largely more stable.
Basically Drob usually wins the statistical argument while Duncan wins the ring argument....
I think you'll find that most of the longtime guys have a soft spot for Robinson...while most of the new guys prefer Duncan and the les that were brought with him...The exception to this rule is that nearly all of the old fans who prefer Duncan, are also bigtime Avery Johnson fans....Figure it out
Last edited by whottt; 12-05-2004 at 01:19 PM.
Thought of this as well...the truth is somewhere in between as to who was better...they are both fantastic players and the Spurs wouldn't be in the situation they are now in without having been incredibly lucky to get both of them.
But there is one aspect that doesn't get discussed much...
When both were at the height of their power and able to influence the organization...they used it in different ways...Drob did not use his influence to try and build a le contender like Duncan did...Drob used his influence to make the team one defined by high character....That is the truth...
IE:
If you gave Drob a choice between a low chracter guy who could help him win a le, or a high character guy who might not help that much...
Drob would choose the high character guy 10 out of 10 times...and he'd just adjust his game to fill in the team weaknesses to try and still win a le...if it took leading the team in assists, he'd just do it...if he needed to lead the NBA in scoring, he'd do that too.
Duncan likes the character but Duncan wants to win, and frankly Duncan doesn't have to worry about setting that kind of character standard because Drob already had it done by the time he got here......
Duncan has used his influence to surround himself with players who can help him win a le. Duncan deserves tremendous credit for the current dynasty potential of this team...
Duncan has used his FA leverage in his contract years to really bust the Spurs balls and make them put a championship contender together...and this includes the way he influenced getting the SBC Center built...the talent he is now surrpounded with...the Spurs had to get good at getting talent and build an NBA stadium, in short become a legitimate NBA franchise...or Duncan would not be here now.
Bottom line...the Spurs are just flat out lucky...had we got Duncan first I don't think the Spurs would still be in SA....and I don't think Duncan would have finished his career here...but without getting Duncan when we did...I don't think we'd have the team we do now that is a potential dynasty.
I'd still take big Dave in game of 1 on 1 though...he'd just be too quick for Duncan to guard...
Last edited by whottt; 12-05-2004 at 01:46 PM.
Who are the only players to be on the all nba 1st team their 1st 7 years in the league?
Larry Bird (9 years)
Tim Duncan
By the time Robinson retired, sure, Duncan was better. But Duncan never has been and never will be as good as Robinson was at his peak. He simply doesn't have the athleticism or the strength that the Admiral had. Robinson could do it all against anybody in his prime. Duncan is key to the Spurs today, but Robinson was one of a kind.
Agreed that physically Robinson more gifted but I believe Duncan more driven and fundementally sound. Robinson more like Garnett while Duncan to me much like Hakeem. Apples and oranges great great players. My only complaint with Duncan is that he seems to take some quarters off when he could have 30+ point nights and needs to at some point demand the ball more crunch time to be one of 2-3 best big ever - he is the one of the 4 named who can move into that category potentially all said and done.
Could you imagine the hype of any of the 4 named here if they were in LA or NY?
MadDoc
Wott thank you.
I didn't know taht you were talking about it on that forum.
Well Dave had an athleticism and all that stuff but Tim realy makes the team better adn I think a little bit smareter than Dave.
They were playing one on one on trainings when Duncan came to the leauge. What was the result?
The first time?
Pop said he had second thoughts about if he should have drafted Adonal Foyle instead...
Obviously it got better, but that Drob was not the same as the original...that was the Drob that destroyed himself by playing in the Olympics with a hernia that lead to other performance killing injuries...not to mention the injury plagued season that lead to the drafting of Duncan...
The 96-97 season is the demarkcation point of David Robinson's career...he was never the same player after that...he was still damn good...good enough to be a franchise player for a lot of teams...
And just know this...Drob still drew the toughest defensive asignments up until the last year of his career...no doubt Duncan had a better arsenal of post moves than Drob...but Drob was the total package to the nth degree as a youngman...Duncan could not have guarded Drob as well as Drob could have guarded Duncan.
Ya gotta realize that Duncan is 10 or 11 years younger than Drob...
Actually if you look at career stats right now. David with 13 seasons and Tim with 8 seasons the numbers are very similar.
I think the only way to settle the this is to realize that if you switch Tim and Davids careers (Tim plays from 89-03 and David plays from 87-now every other teammate and skills set the same) the results would be:
Spurs would probably not be in SA any longer (Tim wouldn't have been as successful with Davids former teams
From 87 to now the Spurs would have won at least 4 championships. Two of the three losses to the Lakers would not have happened. David before the back troubles never lost to Snaq. That is NEVER lost to SHAQ. Add a 7ft PF to a young DRob (7ft MJ seriously)
If you dont believe it go back a watch some games from Davids 1st 5 seasons in the league. His moves to the basket were more explosive than MJs. He played excellent defense and passed better than Tim does now. David didnt need to put the ball on the floor but did it better than Tim does with less turnovers. When David caught the ball he didnt stop, think, wait, turn ball over like Tim does sometimes. When David caught the ball the reacted immediately.
Tim would have had to play against these guys in their primes Pat Ewing, C Barkley, Hakeem, Shaq, Zo, Malone
David would only have KG and Shaq to worry about now, there is no one in the league today that could stop DRob vintage 89-95
The other argument is how successful would Tim be if he didnt have Pop running the club or image if David early years were lead by 87-now Pop and financial backing. Red McCombs always tried to build a team of has beens and retreads around DRob, other than Sean Elliot.
My take:
-DRob was by far the better athlete. One of the top 5 who ever played the game, probably. One example: the famous story where Larry Brown promised to stop a practice short if Robinson could walk the length of the court on his hands--which he did. DRob also was much better defensively. (I think TD is a fine defender, but has always been overrated, especially in his first 2-3 years--no way was he a 1st team All-Defense ahead of DRob.)
-TD has much more polished offensive basketball skills and instincts. That Robinson was able to score so much was initially a shock to everyone, and a tribute to his pure raw ability rather than any particular basketball skill. Robinson's biggest weakness was that he never developed a fundamental go-to move, which really hurt him in his later years (in addition to the back problems).
-Statistics are tough to compare because of the significant difference in league statistics between the early 90s and the late 90s.
Right now what I can see from your posts that Dave is/was better.
I think Tim would handle the Robinson's teams. The club would be still in San Antonio.Because Tim makes teammates better. That much better. Right now you don't have an Allstar player in Spurs.
Tim would like to have that athletic body - he does't.
Dave was more of a ststistical leader, Tim is mentaly better leader.
Shoogar, to me Duncan dosn't have a statistical leg to stand on in a comparison with Drob...I mean no matter how you slice it, Drob was the league leader among over his HOF caliber peers on different sides of the ball at various times in his career.
I see a lot of people say this...but if you took Hakeem, Malone, Ewing and Barkley and plopped them down in this era...you wouldn't see much of a difference.
Let's look at the guys that crossed eras...
Start with John Stockton, who has a freak career FG % for a PG of his size...Well Stockton began his career in the run n gun 80's and he ended in the defensive oriented 00's...
Yet Stockton's numbers were about the same as a 42 year old PG as they were in his late 80's and early 90's prime. Still freakish.
And you can compare Shaq this way as well...Shaq was 28 PPG scorer in DRob's era and he remained one until last season when he had to share the ball with an additional two other HOF'ers...
You say the era are slightly different...that's a good point...but simply put...there aren't as many freak talented bigmen as there were in Drob's era. That's got as much to do with the difference in eras as any rule changes...
Drob still racked up FTA like a big dog even when he was a broken down old man. And that was his offensive skill that enabled him to be dominant offensive player without a skilled arsenal of post moves...it also encouraged opponents to double him...
And as for the consistency of his offense...guys say Duncan is soft when the Spurs lose just like they did Drob...they say Duncan was afraid...Duncan choked...same BS they hit Drob with...and Duncan is ing clutch...yet people still say this kind of crap about him when we lose.
The difference between their careers...you don't hear of an SJax or JJax or Kerr, stepping up in big playoff games and bombing our opponents with threes in Drob's prime...you do hear about it in Duncan's...and you hear about it specifically in years we won les.
I gurantee you that Drob got guys as much or more open than Duncan did.
But if you look at it...that's as much DRob's fault as it is anyone elses'. Duncan has put tremendous pressure on the Spurs to surround him with talent..And it was Duncan that called Kerr off the bench in 03. Drob wanted to use the NBA as a springboard to other things...Duncan just wants to be a basketball player.
I still think Drob wanted to win more than he gets credit for...but it was out of a sense of duty more than anything else. Whent he Spurs won in 99...most of the Spurs, like most other champions, had a look of joy on their faces...Drob looked relieved. His duty was done. But...he wasn't going to judge his career a success or failure based on winning les.
Last edited by whottt; 12-05-2004 at 04:25 PM.
Season highs for each player:
Points per game:
Robinson, 1993: 29.8
Duncan, 2001: 25.5
Rebounds per game:
Robinson, 1990: 13.0
Duncan, 2002: 12.9
Blocks per game:
Robinson, 1991: 4.5
Duncan, 2002: 2.9 (2004 so far: 3.1 in career low minutes)
Assists per game:
Robinson, 1993: 4.8
Duncan, 2002: 3.9
Steals per game:
Robinson, 1991: 2.3
Duncan, 2003: 0.9
Field goal %:
Robinson, 1990: 55.2%
Duncan, 1997: 54.9%
I know this isn't the proper way of telling who is the better player, but it's not as flawed as counting championships either (and anyway, how many has Duncan won without Robinson?). Both are extraordinary players, but i would give the edge to David. Too bad the injuries got to him after 1996. Can you imagine what they would be doing together both in their prime?
I don't think the stats lie Karl, like others mentioned...Drob was a statistical and physical marvel on both sides of the ball...there aren't many made like Drob was...but they don't show every thing. There are certain things that arent' statistically fair to Duncan...Like Duncan is definitely clutch, I mean there is no doubt about it, if it's the last shot of a game, I'd prefer to have Duncan taking that shot.
Drob wasn't a choker like he is often made out to be though, he made his share of big shots and game winning plays...but there was no mystical clutchness to it...he'd make his share and he'd miss his share, regardless of the situation. While Duncan definitely qualifies as having the knack for the clutch shot.
Last edited by whottt; 12-05-2004 at 04:44 PM.
My questions to those who watched Drob in his prime:
Was Drob a much better defender than Duncan? The stats indicate Drob was a better shotblocker and also a much better thief. But was he a much better overall defender? What if Drob had a player like Rasho along his side, or another 7 footer who could block shots?
Was Drobs best support better than what Duncan has had since Drob retired? Did Drob have less help, therefore feel the need to have to do more overall?
Robinson was a freakishly talented athlete who excelled at professional basketball and is a sure-fire Hall of Famer and had a huge impact on the game.
But Duncan just knows the game better. He's just a more talented player. He just wins more of the important games.
I don't think there's any question here. We all feel nostalgic about DRob and his career, but Duncan, when it's said and done, will be short-listed on the best-ever. It's not necessarily shown in the stats game-by-game, but how many les he will have won and how he controlled the game around him.
Put another way, just for fun: one-on-one, who would win? Duncan, easily.
Yes, and you should be able to judge this for yourself...even the old Drob was a better defender. Even the old Drob was the anchor of the Spurs D...
The stats don't lie. For the Spurs to win, Drob had to take the toughest D assignment as well as carry the O...Duncan has never had to do that on defense yet in order for the Spurs to win.The stats indicate Drob was a better shotblocker and also a much better thief. But was he a much better overall defender?
Drob would still have been the better defender...if Ben Wallace played alongside him Drob would still have been the better defender.What if Drob had a player like Rasho along his side, or another 7 footer who could block shots?
The worst supporting cast of the Duncan era would be superior to all but about 2 of Drob's teams, 89-90 and 94-95.Was Drobs best support better than what Duncan has had since Drob retired?
This is not to say that Drob didn't play on any talented teams...he did, but Drob's teams were always weak in the back court...he usually had excellent frontcourt help...and the other problems with his teams...they just didn't stay together and healthy for very long.
And now? Manu - Second best SG in Spurs history, already, yes even over Alvin. Parker - IMO already close to the best PG in Spurs history.
I mean either Duncan has a better supporting cast or Rasho is a better center than Drob was...since we are off to the best start in team history, and will finish with the best record in team history this season(barring injury)...even better than the Duncan Robinson era.
On the scoring end this was definitely true, DRob was asked to do more, he had to do more...Defensively...well he had to do more there as well but at the same time...I gurantee you Pop wants Duncan to block as many shots as possible and I don't think he would have a problem with his bigman racking up some steals either...since that would be the last line of defense.Did Drob have less help, therefore feel the need to have to do more overall?
So I think Robinson's O numbers were definitely boosted by lack of surrounding talent and him being required to do more...but the defensive numbers...Duncan would love to put up those numbers...no matter how much help he is getting...it's not like Duncan could just bust out with 2 and half steals per game if he felt like it.
No way...
Drob = Taller, longer, faster, stronger, could jump higher, could block shots better, could steal the ball better.
Duncan = Notoriously TO prone when putting the ball on the floor..prone to it getting stolen...he'd eat his share of balls and Drob would have a dunk fest and win, he wouldn't even have to shoot.
Mr. Body,
David in his prime was a defensive freak. Duncan wouldn't have the speed or the strength to keep up with David. One-on-one David wins hands down.
For younger guys, imagine David as a KG with less range and array of offensive moves, but taller, stronger, probably as fast, and 10 times better defender (let's not talk about character either).
Image Tim moving twice a fast, that was David. DRob didnt have as many moves as Duncan, but he was so much faster. I once saw David block 3 shots in a row on the same possession. Thats how fast he was.
Just image that there was a real possibility to trade for Charles Barkley the year he went to the Suns, but Red "cheapskate" McCombs wouldnt plug the trigger.
What confuses me is why were the Spurs of today (post Drob retirement) better on defense than any of the Drob led teams? Was their backcourt defense REALLY weak? I know it was not above average, but usually teams with great frontcourt defense can still be elite without having a Bowen.
Drob had Rodman and mings to help defensively underneath in the mid 90s, why were they never close to as good defensively as say the Knicks of that time, who like the Spurs of 03 were two of the best defensive teams of all time?
Ten times better defender than KG? I find that hard to beleive he is MILES better of a defender than Duncan and KG. Superior by a reasonable margin yes, but Drob was not much better than on D than Hakeem, Mutumbo, or maybe even Ewing if at all. Ok better than Ewing, but the other two is surely debatable no?For younger guys, imagine David as a KG with less range and array of offensive moves, but taller, stronger, probably as fast, and 10 times better defender (let's not talk about character either).
Are Duncan and KG really that much worse than the elite centers back of the mid 90s? I am having a hard time thinking they are much worse, if at all than Hakeem or Drob.
Put it another way..Drob in his prime was almost as good at stealing the ball as Manu...while blocking 3 1/2 to 4 shots per game.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
