Re: Battle of the 21's Basically, if you give Garnett Duncan's teammates, he wins at least 5 championships (IE he makes the minute difference it would have taken for them to win in '04 and '06)
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Nov 21 2006, 03:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Basically, if you give Garnett Duncan's teammates, he wins at least 5 championships (IE he makes the minute difference it would have taken for them to win in '04 and '06)</div> LMAO are you joking?
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Nov 21 2006, 04:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Basically, if you give Garnett Duncan's teammates, he wins at least 5 championships (IE he makes the minute difference it would have taken for them to win in '04 and '06)</div>A minmum of 5 championships? That is the biggest joke I have EVER heard. I dont believe Kevin with the Spurs team would win ANY championships. KG had just as much help when Minny made it to the WCF than the Spurs had in 99 and 03. Also, he would have to compete against the Lakers who were almost unstoppable those 3 years. They were simply amazing playing under Phil Jackson. Think before you type...
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Nov 21 2006, 03:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>A minmum of 5 championships? That is the biggest joke I have EVER heard. I dont believe Kevin with the Spurs team would win ANY championships. KG had just as much help when Minny made it to the WCF than the Spurs had in 99 and 03. Also, he would have to compete against the Lakers who were almost unstoppable those 3 years. They were simply amazing playing under Phil Jackson. Think before you type...</div>here's basically what we're looking at. If you think KG is better than duncan then you pretty much have to think he'd give them a minimum of five rings. Why? Because the Spurs were a total of a few points short of two more rings. They would have won it all in '03 had it not been for that fisher shot, and '06 if they had about 2 more points the entire series. Think before you type. You may not agree that KG is better than TD, but if somebody thinks KG is better than TD but wouldn't have won five rings with TD's supporting cast then they are not thinking things through
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Nov 21 2006, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>here's basically what we're looking at. If you think KG is better than duncan then you pretty much have to think he'd give them a minimum of five rings. Why? Because the Spurs were a total of a few points short of two more rings. They would have won it all in '03 had it not been for that fisher shot, and '06 if they had about 2 more points the entire series. Think before you type. You may not agree that KG is better than TD, but if somebody thinks KG is better than TD but wouldn't have won five rings with TD's supporting cast then they are not thinking things through</div>That makes no sense what so ever. KG could not have done a better job in any of these years than Tim Duncan. You note how in 03' when Fisher made that shot, but look who made the shot before that to give them the lead with .4 seconds left. And you honestly have the WORST arguement I have ever heard. Garnett HAS had the supporting cast of Duncan yet he didnt make it to the finals. Now that I think about it, in all years except for 05, KG's supporting cast that year they made it to the WCF was ALOT better than Duncans supporting cast. KG isnt a winner...period.
