<div class="quote_poster">thedude9990 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">i dont know, duncan is so fundamentally sound and can score in a variety or ways, just liek garnett. but did you ever think that players like ginobli and parker were late 1st rounder/2nd ronuder and duncan made them into the palyers that they are, something garnett couldn't do since he was never able to get out of the first round except with cassell and spree. im not taking aything away from garnett hes had one hell of a career, proabably top 10 if not top 5 PF to play, but i'd just take duncan over him, cause garnett had a lot of allstar talent around him in cassell, spreewell, brandon (somewhat he was at the end of his career) wally(great player at one point), the last few years have been tough on him since his only other option was davis and a shot first mike james, but both those guys are good players i think they shuold be better than where they are now</div> Well I mean thats my point, he relies on the fundamentals of the game to succeed, and ok there is nothing wrong with that at all, but when you're playing the basics, there isnt really much room for error. At least with guys like KG, Kobe etc. they play outside the square, they arent afraid to try things. I mean its not like Duncan turned the Spurs into a winning team, every season from 1989/1990 to the year in which they won the #1 pick, they had a winning record of .570% or higher. He was what they needed to win a championship, no doubt about that, but you also have to look at the guys he is/was playing with too. Tim Duncan and David Robinson made up possibly one of the best front courts in the history of the NBA, and the Admiral was already winning games before Duncan came along, Duncan just helped push them towards a championship. If you take a look at the team he was playing with in the 2002/2003 championship run, he was helped along by the likes of Tony Parker, Stephen Jackson, David Robinson, Bruce Bowen, Manu Ginobili, Malik Rose etc. so I mean you cant say he was playing with a group of scrubs, he has always been around very capable players, and I mean you have to be to win a championship, so I dont know why people try and mention how weak someones team is in winning a championship, because the fact of the matter is, if that team was so weak, they wouldnt have won it all in the first place. I think the success of the Spurs ultimatley comes down to team work, much like that of the Pistons, everyone knows their role, and does their part for the team, and the hard work pays off. Tim Duncan is the stand out player of that team, obviously, I just think his success is overated, but I mean I guess you get that being a big man, look at Shaq, you can easily argue he would'nt have won a ring without Kobe / Wade, and the fact he couldnt do it with Penny is maybe a testament to that.
Duncan is most likely the one of the best if not the best power forward of all time, but the best player since Jordan? I dont think so. Duncan has the championship rings, but look at the players he's had over his career. The teams he's been on are consistantly stacked. I wouldnt place the Spurs success as much on Duncan as much as i would their front office. Switch Duncan and Garnett or and Garnett has 3 Championships, and numerous other awards. I know a lot of people wouldn't really agree with me on this, but IMO the greatness of a single player has to do with their individual talent and skill, not the success of their team. Duncan is one of the most successful players since Jordan, but the most skilled? no way. I put Kobe, Shaq, Iverson all ahead of Tim Duncan. Shaq is the most dominant player of ALL TIME. How someone could place Duncan ahead of him is just beyond me. Duncan was a great player on some great teams, but not the best since jordan.
<div class="quote_poster">Answer_AI03 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I know a lot of people wouldn't really agree with me on this, but IMO the greatness of a single player has to do with their individual talent and skill, not the success of their team. Duncan is one of the most successful players since Jordan, but the most skilled? no way. I put Kobe, Shaq, Iverson all ahead of Tim Duncan. Shaq is the most dominant player of ALL TIME. How someone could place Duncan ahead of him is just beyond me. Duncan was a great player on some great teams, but not the best since jordan.</div> Who cares how skilled a player is if he can't make his team great? I guarantee you there isn't a single GM on the planet who'd take Allen Iverson before Tim Duncan to start his team. Most (maybe all) would take Duncan over Kobe as well. That points to directly to their individual greatness as players.
I dont agree that Duncan made his team great. He's just been on great teams and the spurs have had good drafts. He didnt turn Ginobli or parker or bowen or anyone else into players they werent going to be otherwise. Duncan has been on great teams, and IS NOT the greatest since Jordan. If your going to say that he's great because hes been on 3 championchip teams, than you might as well say that Horry is the best player ever. If Tim Duncan was drafted by a less talented team, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
You don't agree that Duncan made his team great? Who do you think was making it great, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili? Duncan has had good talent around him, but his teams haven't had GREAT talent, and they haven't been stacked. There have been more talented teams in the league than the Spurs in different years, the Suns are more talented than the Spurs, but Duncan has ALWAYS been a consistent force on both ends. He's an MVP and a DPOY type player every season he plays. I don't even know how Iverson came in the discussion, he's not even CLOSE to Duncan, Shaq, or even Kobe. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">He was what they needed to win a championship, no doubt about that, but you also have to look at the guys he is/was playing with too.</div> Why do people keep saying this, who are these guys he's playing with? Okay, I understand David Robinson during the first championship, and till 01-02, because he was still a very good C, and that does a lot defensively and on the glass. The second championship, during the season Robinson missed 18 games. Parker was in his second season, and Manu was a rookie averaging 7.6 PPG. Stephen Jackson was their clutch guy during the playoffs, a guy no one would call a good third option is he was playing with Kobe, KG, Lebron, any of those guys at that time, and even now (though the GS playoffs boost him up), people would not think much of him. The second leading scorer in the playoffs for them in 02-03, Parker - 14.7 PPG (40% FG, 27% 3PT, 3.5 APG). Stephen Jackson was the third leading scorer 12.8 PPG (41% FG, 34% 3PT, 2.7 APG). David Robinson averaged 7.8 PPG, 6.6 RPG and played 23 MPG. Rookie Manu didn't do much to rave about (9.8 PPG, 39% FG, 38% 3PT, 2.8 APG), and there was stars like Malik Rose, Speedy Claxton and Steve Kerr. Duncan brings a skill set that you can build around very easily, that's why he "always has good teammates". He's able to anchor a defense as good as anyone on the league, and is a legit go to player on offense. There's nothing more impressive about playing outside the box as opposed to not wasting motion and doing what is neccesary.
Just gotta say that at this point, it's easily Shaq, but he didn't come in post-Jordan. He came in the game during Jordan's time. Timmy D is second, and there's a ton of room between him and the next guy. By the end of their careers though, there might be an argument.
<div class="quote_poster">og15 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You don't agree that Duncan made his team great? Who do you think was making it great, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili? Duncan has had good talent around him, but his teams haven't had GREAT talent, and they haven't been stacked. There have been more talented teams in the league than the Spurs in different years, the Suns are more talented than the Spurs, but Duncan has ALWAYS been a consistent force on both ends. He's an MVP and a DPOY type player every season he plays. I don't even know how Iverson came in the discussion, he's not even CLOSE to Duncan, Shaq, or even Kobe. Why do people keep saying this, who are these guys he's playing with? Okay, I understand David Robinson during the first championship, and till 01-02, because he was still a very good C, and that does a lot defensively and on the glass. The second championship, during the season Robinson missed 18 games. Parker was in his second season, and Manu was a rookie averaging 7.6 PPG. Stephen Jackson was their clutch guy during the playoffs, a guy no one would call a good third option is he was playing with Kobe, KG, Lebron, any of those guys at that time, and even now (though the GS playoffs boost him up), people would not think much of him. The second leading scorer in the playoffs for them in 02-03, Parker - 14.7 PPG (40% FG, 27% 3PT, 3.5 APG). Stephen Jackson was the third leading scorer 12.8 PPG (41% FG, 34% 3PT, 2.7 APG). David Robinson averaged 7.8 PPG, 6.6 RPG and played 23 MPG. Rookie Manu didn't do much to rave about (9.8 PPG, 39% FG, 38% 3PT, 2.8 APG), and there was stars like Malik Rose, Speedy Claxton and Steve Kerr. Duncan brings a skill set that you can build around very easily, that's why he "always has good teammates". He's able to anchor a defense as good as anyone on the league, and is a legit go to player on offense. There's nothing more impressive about playing outside the box as opposed to not wasting motion and doing what is neccesary.</div> Great information og, I absolutely concur that this "great" talent around Duncan is a myth. Why do people try to make Manu or Parker out to be All-NBA caliber players? Robinson was definitely on the downside of his career when he met up with Duncan as well. <div class="quote_poster">djdiggydiggy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Just gotta say that at this point, it's easily Shaq, but he didn't come in post-Jordan. He came in the game during Jordan's time. Timmy D is second, and there's a ton of room between him and the next guy. By the end of their careers though, there might be an argument.</div> Easily? No.
No one is making Parker or Ginobli out to be all-nba players but they are all star level players. Duncan DID NOT make them great players. If somehow both parker and ginobli were drafted by the Hawks, then they might even be considered better players than they are now because their stats would be even better. They made themselves the players that they are right now, yes duncan takes attention off them because hes such a dominant post player, but he doesnt make thier skills any higher than they would be. They would be averaging AT LEAST what they are right now on any other team. Also, that 01-02 team was amazing. dont try to say that Duncan single handedly won that championship. They had two young VERY TALENTED gaurds and veterans that mixed well. Their front office did a great job of building a championship team that meshed perfectly. BTW- Iverson is a HOF player, i agree he isnt the best since Jordan, but why shouldnt he be considered, if he's probably 1 of 4 players in the league right now who we can say will be in the hall of fame?
I hate when people say "so and so only won because they had great talent around them". Pardon the expression, but no ***** Sherlock. Yeah, Magic would have really won championships with the worst players in the league around him, right? Ditto for Bird. Dirro for Bill Rusell, Ditto for Isiah Thomas and pretty much every one else who's led thier team to a chamionship. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> dont try to say that Duncan single handedly won that championship. They had two young VERY TALENTED gaurds and veterans that mixed well</div> NO PLAYER IN THE HISTORY OF THE NBA has ever won a championship singlehandedly. You're telling me Shaq would have won 3 straight if Kobe, Horry, Rice, Harper, Fisher, and Fox hadn't been in the mix? Name me one championship team that doesn't have "talent" and won a championship simply because of one player. Yes, even JORDAN had talent around him. If you don't consider Scottie Pippen, Kukoc, Rodman, Cartwright, Horace Grant, John Paxon, Steve Kerr, Ron Harper and BJ Armstrong talents, then I don't know what to tell you. It depends on the ANCHOR of the team. For the Bulls, it was Jordan, for the Spurs it is Duncan and that is why he is known as one of the greatest players playing the game. As for "they had two very talented guards", I doubt you or anyone at that time knew of Parker or Manu's development potential. There's a reason why they weren't picked until late in the first round by the Spurs. Essentially, the fact that Duncan anchored the Spurs to thier 2nd championship behind an aging Robinson, a still-adjusting Parker, a rookie Manu, Stephen "At that time I wasn't considered as crazy as I am now" Jackson, and Steve Kerr on his last legs, makes the feat even more impressive. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> BTW- Iverson is a HOF player, i agree he isnt the best since Jordan, but why shouldnt he be considered, if he's probably 1 of 4 players in the league right now who we can say will be in the hall of fame? </div> Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, Garnett, Payton, Wade, Lebron, and possibly Nash will all be in the hall of fame. He's a hall-of-fame player but he hasn't won anything except one game in the Finals, he shouldn't be in the discussion. Ditto for Kobe (post-Shaq), Mcgrady, Garnett, and pretty much every contending player in this debate. The only two players that have owned this decade are Duncan and Shaq. Shaq peaked for 3 years post Jordan (1999-2002) and now struggles to grab 10 rebounds a game. Duncan won his first championship LEADING the Spurs in his SOPHMORE year BEFORE Shaq, and has won 2 more since then and is still CONSISTENT and DOMINANT. I cannot say the same for Shaq. So, who's been the more dominant player? And who's the best since Jordan? Yeah, thought so. And please, spare me the "if Shaq was Duncan's age" crap. Hypthetical situations are just that, hypothetical.
What people neglect is that one of the reasons Duncan always has great teams is because he fits in about any system you could possibly think of. He doesn't make any player a better player, I don't think that's being implied, but being on a winning team definately boosts a players value. Parker is a guy that I think if he was on another team would be ridiculed and not actually be viewed as good as he is. He's not a pure pass first PG, and his outside shot is nothing to rave about, I actually see it going bad for him if he was somewhere else. I like Garnett, and in certain situations, he could possibly be a better fit than Duncan (though not much difference), but all-around, Duncan can improve more teams to a larger extent than KG can. Duncan is a much superior defensive presence to Garnett, and this isn't saying Garnett isn't good defensively, Duncan is just better. Duncan may not be able to dribble as well, or get as many assists, but you can run an offense through him just as effectively, and he's a superior LOW post player to Garnett. Duncan is really more of a C anyways than he is a PF. Duncan is a guy where you don't need to have the perfect talent around him, and you don't need to have the perfect complimentary players around him because he does things that just make a team better. I'm not saying he makes Parker learn to dribble and shoot floaters, he makes a TEAM better. If you had the PERFECT players around each guy, I would be as inclined to take Kobe as I would Duncan, but you rarely ever get the perfect players around anyone. If I was starting a team from scratch though, I'd take Duncan because of course he's the big man, and because I know that I can get decent enough talent, a good coach, and he'll have my team winning 50+ games. With the perfect players around a player, you really could take any of the top guys in the league and they'd all be very succesful if they can get it going on both ends of the floor. Garnett was actually doing this in Minnesotta in his earlier days, he won 51 games one season with Troy Hudson as his second best player for most of the year. I don't think anyone right now would consider Hudson even close to being a competent second option player. I know someone implied he made Manu and Parker good, but obviously that's false, he doesn't make them good, but he does boost their value, and he does make the team extremely good on defense. Parker or Manu's numbers wouldn't get them in the All-Star game if they were on teams that weren't winning as much as San Antonio. Parker is really nothing special on the defensive end, and of course as a first option post player, he helps improve their efficiency in scoring since they don't have to take as many bad shots when he's on. I'm not saying Iverson is not a HOFer, but that doesn't do anything in this argument, he really doesn't belong, not because he's not very good, but because Duncan and Shaq are clearly more dominant, succesful, etc, etc. Well do have more than 4 players in the league that will likely be HOFers though, we have Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, KG, Nash, Dirk, Iverson, Kidd, Payton, and argument can be made for Dikembe. Then of course there's the young guys (Wade, Lebron), but they have a lot of basketball to be played. EDIT: Karma kinda said what I posted
Shaq- 4 rings (3 in a row) Duncan- Probably 4 rings (no repeat) Did you guys forget how Shaq dominated Tim in his prime? Duncan is more well-rounded but Shaq is the superior player. Since Michael: 1. Shaq 2. Duncan 3. Kobe 4. Garnett 5. Kidd
<div class="quote_poster">NBA MAN Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Shaq- 4 rings (3 in a row) Duncan- Probably 4 rings (no repeat) Did you guys forget how Shaq dominated Tim in his prime? Duncan is more well-rounded but Shaq is the superior player. Since Michael: 1. Shaq 2. Duncan 3. Kobe 4. Garnett 5. Kidd</div> Yes but Shaq had Kobe on his team as well (who coincidently you put third on your list), this contributed to "Shaq's" dominance. Shaq had a very serviceable guard in Hardaway, but he didn't win any rings did he? It is a tough choice to make but Duncan has been more consistent and has proven he can win with less talent around him (Second/Third Ring).
You guys are so forgettful. First off, Duncan is NOT better than Shaq was (in his prime). Shaq was the most dominant bigman in NBA history. Put them together in their prime and Shaq wins hands down, and that's against ANY center to step on a basketball court. Duncan has the luxury of not being the "Man" certain nights. His role on the team isn't as needed as Shaq's was. I wouldn't even put Duncan over Hakeem............
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Duncan has the luxury of not being the "Man" certain nights. His role on the team isn't as needed as Shaq's was. I wouldn't even put Duncan over Hakeem............</div> Are you sure you're not the one that didn't watch them in their prime? Duncan has the luxury of not being the man every night, yet Shaq who played with Kobe didn't? Interesting...
Duncan has PLAYED the best out of all the top players since Jordan -- by far -- whereas like shapecity said, Shaq has underachieved at times, picking up dumb fouls and not committing to conditioning and defense as much as he could. Duncan has just been a winning machine since day 1 in the league, and his supporting casts have been less impressive than Shaq's. I believe LeBron or Dwyane Wade have the potential to take the title away from Duncan in the next few years though....
^Oh with so all Duncan has accomplished Wade and LeBron will surpass him in a couple of years huh. That makes no sense. This isn't about POTENTIAL. Its about facts.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">and Hakeem isn't exactly a "no-brainer" over Duncan either. </div> didn't say it was a no brainer, BUT defensively Hakeem > Duncan...and that really shouldn't even be an argument (would Hakeem allow Amare to avg. 37ppg in a series???)....Duncan has also shown to be timid under certain pressure situations...for instance he really didn't play "great" against the Pistons a couple of years ago, yet his team still won (mostly thanks to Horry being the only player to show up in the clutch of game 5) and .....offensively speaking, Olajuwon was just as versatile if not more versatile than Timmy...and Olajuwon defeated Shaq,Robinson,Ewing,Barkley,Malone,etc. within a span of 2 years.....also add on that Hakeem is a better FT shooter and we are talking about something here....can you really name one thing that Duncan is better at than Olajuwon as far as their games are concerned???...I really don't think so...and Hakeem may be the only player in NBA history to actually put a team of "mediocre" players on his shoulder and carry them to a title.....I think you're underestimating Olajuwon...and I'm saying this as not only a DREAM fan, but a basketball fan also....Hakeem also had years of his career wasted in his prime, because General Management couldn't get anything around him once Ralph Sampson had to retire...who knows what happens if Sampson stays healthy.... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Did you guys forget how Shaq dominated Tim in his prime? Duncan is more well-rounded but Shaq is the superior player. </div> I agree....Hakeem would never let that happen to him in his prime...Hakeem > Duncan, lol........also I can't help but to point out that the era that duncan has and is playing in is a lot weaker than the 80's and 90's ...seriously would those Knick and Net teams even make it pass the 2nd round in a more competitive era??? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Shaq had a very serviceable guard in Hardaway, but he didn't win any rings did he? It is a tough choice to make but Duncan has been more consistent and has proven he can win with less talent around him (Second/Third Ring). </div> more consistent??...I think everyone forgets that Duncans is about 5 years younger than Shaq...Shaq was a 30 ppg player for A LOT of seasons in Orlando and L.A. and he had a 3-peat and another title in Miami...
<div class="quote_poster">phunDamentalz Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Duncan has PLAYED the best out of all the top players since Jordan -- by far -- whereas like shapecity said, Shaq has underachieved at times, picking up dumb fouls and not committing to conditioning and defense as much as he could. Duncan has just been a winning machine since day 1 in the league, and his supporting casts have been less impressive than Shaq's.</div> But you guys aren't being realistic. Shaq has had atleast reached the Finals with 3 different teams. That's alone makes him untouchable! He also KILLED Duncan in his prime. Duncan is a great player, but to say he's better than a young energetic Shaq is really inaccurate. Duncan has been outplayed too many times to even put him in the same class as Shaq. Hakeem SINGLEHANDELY lead the Rockets to a championship. He literally put the Rockets on his back. EVERY possession ran thru him. He didn't have the luxury of having off games like Duncan does. There is NO WAY you can sit here and tell me Duncan dominated both sides of the ball better than Hakeem.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">But you guys aren't being realistic. Shaq has had atleast reached the Finals with 3 different teams. That's alone makes him untouchable! He also KILLED Duncan in his prime. Duncan is a great player, but to say he's better than a young energetic Shaq is really inaccurate. Duncan has been outplayed too many times to even put him in the same class as Shaq. </div> I kinda agree with this one...I think you can put in the same class as Shaq, but in his prime I'm taking Shaq everyday. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">There is NO WAY you can sit here and tell me Duncan dominated both sides of the ball better than Hakeem.</div> I agree with this also.....can anyone seriously name one thing Duncan does better than Hakeem???....nothing comes to mind.
<div class="quote_poster">THE DREAM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I agree with this also.....can anyone seriously name one thing Duncan does better than Hakeem???....nothing comes to mind.</div>I haven't seen a single live game of Hakeem, and I'm leaning (only using the word leaning, because I have so little information to use on Hakeem) towards Hakeem as the better overall player. My guess is that Duncan might be a slightly better post-player defender than Hakeem? Did Hakeem guard Shaq? Duncan didn't always guard Shaq, sometimes D-Rob, Rasho, or even Horry or Malik Rose depending if D-Rob and Duncan got into foul trouble. Did Hakeem's Rockets play at a faster pace than Duncan's Spurs? Would that mean Hakeem had more stamina, but using adjusted pace his stats are similar to Duncan's? I don't even know how to best compare Duncan and Hakeem, maybe through comparing how well they defended against Shaq?
