I actually got the idea of this thread from another board, but it is something that I always think about. Too often the rockets team that got beat by the celtics in '86 is forgotten. Not for what they did (eventhough they did beat a great lakers team of the 80's) but for what they could've been. We know how Hakeem turned out (the best big man of his era) with guys like Otis Thorpe, Pete Chilcutt, and Robert Horry playing next to him, but one could only imagine what the Hakeem and Sampson tandem could have did. For all those that don't know Sampson was a 7'4 PF who was athletic and if not for injuries would've went on to have a hall of fame career. Just to think that a team that was viewed as underdogs against the Lakers of Magic, Kareem, Worthy, etc. beat them in 5 games. They were the "new" thing in the league at the time. Who knows what happens with a little experience (Hakeems game wasn't as developed then, and you have to think Sampsons game would've developed also) and a couple of pieces here and there would do to this roster and the league. I think they could've pulled off a title or two in the 80's and I think they would've dominated the early/mid 90's with the Celtics and Lakers out of the picture....anyways just thought I'd share those thoughts.....discuss.
Sampson and Olajuwon at the time were raw talent. They both had moves but Olajuwon later in his career developed his game much more. Sampson was a finesse big man, kind of like Kareem. His thin frame overall led to his downfall because of the roughness of the paint. No doubt Olajuwon-Sampson was amazing, and could have been even better.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Duncan-Robinson> Olajuwon-Sampson ^ Real Twin Towers</div> haha... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Sampson and Olajuwon at the time were raw talent. They both had moves but Olajuwon later in his career developed his game much more. Sampson was a finesse big man, kind of like Kareem. His thin frame overall led to his downfall because of the roughness of the paint. No doubt Olajuwon-Sampson was amazing, and could have been even better.</div> yeah his frail frame definitely lead to his downfall (especially considering how much more physical the game was back then)......
<div class="quote_poster">NBA MAN Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Duncan-Robinson> Olajuwon-Sampson </div> Wilt Chaimberlain-Nate Thurmond > Robinson-Duncan. Wilt and Thurmond only played together for two years, the first was Thurmond's rookie season but in the second season they averaged a combined 55.4 ppg, 41.6 rpg and they were two of the top 10 defensive big men of all time. They didn't record blocks back then but I'm sure those numbers would have been insane.
I doubt Sampson plays PF in this era. It would have been Hakeem as PF and Sampson as C. But nonetheless, Robinson and Duncan are the best two tower. If a prime Robinson and a prime Duncan vs prime Hakeem and prime Sampson, I take the primce TD and DR.
^I agree. Robinson and Duncan were the best tandem under the basket for sure. Plus - Duncan> Olajuwon Robinson> Sampson
Invalid Video Link I thought this video would be appropriate for this thread. It seems Hakeem isn't getting enough credit as a basketball player.
<u>Hakeem Olajuwon Career Stats</u> 21.8 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 2.5 APG, 3.09 BPG, 51% FG, 71%FT <u>Tim Duncan Career Stats</u> 23.8 PPG, 12.5 RPG, 3.5 APG, 2.8 BPG, 50% FG, 70 % FT <u>Olojuwan's Awards and Accolades</u><ul> [*]2 championship rings [*]2 finals MVPs [*]1 NBA MVP [*]2 Defensive Player of the Year [*]6 All NBA-first team [*]3 NBA all second team [*]12 time allstar [*]5 1st team defense[/list] <u>Tim Duncan's Awards and Accolades</u><ul> [*]4 Championship rings [*]3 Finals MVP [*]2 NBA MVP [*]Rookie of the Year Award [*]9 NBA all first team (10 Total all NBA teams and still counting) [*]7 1st team defense (10 Total all defense teams and still couting) [*]9 Time all star and still counting[/list] Yes, Hakeem was a great player...but please, please tell me how he was better than Duncan when everything points in Duncan's direction?
thats like coulda woulda shoulda how great would a. hardaway turn out had he not gotten injured how great would have grant hill been had he not gotten injured how great would c. webb be if he didnt call that time out
^^^yes, that's the point of the thread, lol <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Yes, Hakeem was a great player...but please, please tell me how he was better than Duncan when everything points in Duncan's direction</div> well numbers wise if you take off the last 3-4 years when Hakeem was over the hill and injured he'd be better than Duncan in certain categories, you also have to factor in eras also....Duncan never played in the same era of Magic, Bird, Kareem, Jordan, Barkley,Malone,Stockton,Shaq,Robinson,Ewing, Isiah...........I think you get the point....I won't argue why I think Olajuwon is better than duncan, because I've mentioned it in numerous threads already, lol......when I think of who's better than who I think of both men in their prime, and I'll say Olajuwons prime was better than Tims....with all that being said Sampson was a bad man, and had he stayed healthy I'd take him and Hakeem over Robinson and Duncan (mainly because what I saw Hakeem do to other big men in his era, it would be scary to have another great big man next to him)... edit after taking Hakeems first 12 years in the league (before his numers dropped)...I came up with these numbers roughly 24 ppg....12 rpg....4 bpg....2 spg...3 apg. Those are what I consider more "accurate" Hakeem numbers...I just came up with a new stat, lol.
The guy in the video couldn't even say his name right. He kept saying HHHakeem lol, it was getting annoying. Him and Sampson would have been pretty dang incredible but I would still take Duncan and Robinson overall plus it's not like Sampson got screwed over, he was just too skinny for the nba
After seeing a documentary on the 1995 Rockets and Hakeem's greatness, I have to say that many of you guys are severely underrating him. I believe Duncan is better for achieving so much as soon as he set foot on an NBA floor, but Hakeem is legendary, and it can't be emphasized enough. I don't think his numbers should be scrutinized as much as they are. 50 years from now, when people see Duncan's numbers, would they be able to tell his impact on a Spurs game(not looking at the rings or MVP's)? Same applies for Hakeem. Parker got the MVP but who was the anchor of that Spurs team throughout the season? Who was the anchor both offensively and DEFENSIVELY when the team needed him? Yes, it was Tim Duncan. Back to my point. After watching Hakeem absolutely ridicule and destroy the reigning MVP in Robinson on the biggest stage in the Western Conference, and upstaging that by stamping his name on the series against Shaq (SWEEP!), as well as providing many moments of clutchness, amazing footwork and a phenomenal array of skills, I would advise you guys to not base everything on numbers.
Hakeem was unlucky I think, he was playing with alot higher class players, and was probally robbed of an MVP or 2, and a DPOY or 6-7, lol. You put Tim Duncan in Hakeems era and he is no where near as successful as he has been this era. 1989/1990 (82 Games): 24.3ppg | 14.0rpg | 2.9apg | 2.1spg | 4.5bpg 1992/1993 (82 Games): 26.1ppg | 13.0rpg | 3.5apg | 1.8spg | 4.1bpg Those are numbers Duncan could only dream of putting up in a season.
