<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Oct 20 2006, 11:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That's my point, remove the backboard and Tim Duncan has to look for a new career.</div> :HAHAHA: :HAHAHA: :HAHAHA: How about we remove the ball too? Its not like Malone was a three point threat. :HAHAHA:
Are you kidding me? Tim Duncan has some of the best footwork in the history of the NBA maybe besides Hakeem the Dream. That is why he is called "Mr Fundamental". I think its funny how alot of your posts are the exact opposite of the truth.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Oct 20 2006, 12:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Are you kidding me? Tim Duncan has some of the best footwork in the history of the NBA maybe besides Hakeem the Dream. That is why he is called "Mr Fundamental". I think its funny how alot of your posts are the exact opposite of the truth.</div>It's because he has an extreme bias to pre-'00's basketball and gives players of this era little credit.
Even if, Duncan was great from 97-99. First Team All NBA as a rookie and didnt stop getting them until last season.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Oct 19 2006, 11:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's because he has an extreme bias to pre-'00's basketball and gives players of this era little credit.</div>Nope, good try though.I'm not saying Tim Duncan sucks, I wouldn't be disapppointed with either one. But since the thread is asking who's better, I say Malone. Mailman has a better game outside of the paint.
And Duncan has a better game inside of the paint, is a better rebounder, a better defender, and has won 3 rings in which he was the MVP in all of them. Go look at Tim Duncan's support in 03 and 99 and tell me that he had a better supporting cast than Stockton and Hornacek.
Okay, but playing against the Nets wasn't the hardest thing to do. At least then. Malone is just as good as TD on Defense. And he's a tougher, more durable player. A guy who, in his prime would get you 30 and 10 if you asked him to. That does it for me. Malone is a good post player, plus he's a better scorer and he has a decent game at about 20 feet.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Oct 19 2006, 11:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Okay, but playing against the Nets wasn't the hardest thing to do. At least then. Malone is just as good as TD on Defense. And he's a tougher, more durable player. A guy who, in his prime would get you 30 and 10 if you asked him to. That does it for me. Malone is a good post player, plus he's a better scorer and he has a decent game at about 20 feet.</div>Holy Crap. Tim Duncan has gotten first team all defense and second team all defense every year he has been in the leauge. Every season, his team is in the top 3 in most defensive categories. That is a complete lie. Look at the minutes played out of Tim Duncan and Karl Malone and that will be why Tim Duncan doesn't score as much as Malone. In this case, look at percentages not PPG and that will tell you the whole story.And Sure, the Nets werent the best opponnent but they had to beat the Lakers to get there and they handled them with ease.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Oct 20 2006, 12:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Okay, but playing against the Nets wasn't the hardest thing to do. At least then. Malone is just as good as TD on Defense. And he's a tougher, more durable player. A guy who, in his prime would get you 30 and 10 if you asked him to. That does it for me. Malone is a good post player, plus he's a better scorer and he has a decent game at about 20 feet.</div>TD had 32/12/4 against Mavs this year when his team needed him, he had 24/17/5/5 against Nets in 02-03, 28/12/5 when they beat the reigning 3 peat Lakers, so don't give me that crap. If he wanted he could get 30PPG too, and he gets more RPG, blocks, etc... And unlike Malone, shows up in clutch.And Nets may not have been best team, but they were damn good. They won 10 straight games going into Finals, had a good overall team with by far the best PG in league, 2 all stars, good coach, and good role players. If Duncan didn't have a H-U-G-E series the Spurs probably wouldn't have won (especially since no one else really showed up in the series).
Meh, I'm still picking Malone. He's just as good. With both players, you're going to get similar results, the trick is, building a good enough team around each. Don't overrate the 2003 Nets. They were good by the Eastern Conference standards but that's it. In 2002 the Lakers didn't even try to beat them and ended up sweeping them without breaking a sweat. And don't give Duncan credit for the Lakers playing like complete sh*t in 2003. He doesn't have superpowers.
I like Mr Michael Bryant. He is stounchest defender of old school there is. Sadly If the team I built starting with TD went up Against his starting with Malone- he would get Owned. Duncan would be all over Malone like a seagull on a sick prawn. I have nothing further to add as I know that his arguements are futile and he simply hasn't got a case. For example "take away the backboard and TD will have to finds a new career." "Malone is a better shooter" "he (malone)had more moves than Duncan" Is everyone laughing yet? Why does using the backboard make TD a bad shooter? TD has the best moves/footwork for a big besides the dream.It is a joke. Malone was great and I'm not knocking him but Michale Bryants arguements are weak at best and I find them Humerous.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Oct 20 2006, 08:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Meh, I'm still picking Malone. He's just as good. With both players, you're going to get similar results, the trick is, building a good enough team around each. Don't overrate the 2003 Nets. They were good by the Eastern Conference standards but that's it. In 2002 the Lakers didn't even try to beat them and ended up sweeping them without breaking a sweat. And don't give Duncan credit for the Lakers playing like complete sh*t in 2003. He doesn't have superpowers.</div>Ok, then you can say TD is easier to build around....just anothe rplus for him.Nets of 2002-2003 was different than 2001-2002. They had a better and deeper bench, they let Kenyon and RJ start to blossom, and they were another year smarter and better. They matched up better with the Spurs as they didn't need to stop a player like Kobe, while with Spurs they let Duncan go off and tried to stop everyone else, and it would've worked if TD didn't have one of the craziest statlines in a long time. And TD was, by far, the biggest factor against Lakers, averaging 28/12/5. Lakers couldn't stop him. Lakers didn't play like sh*t, Kobe had 32PPG, Shaq 25/14, and the role players played pretty well. They got beat by the better team, led by the best leader on the court, Tim Duncan.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Oct 20 2006, 09:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ok, then you can say TD is easier to build around....just anothe rplus for him.</div>Umm, okay, that's true. Kind of, I mean you could build around Malone too, but it would probably be easier to build around TD, I agree with you there.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Oct 20 2006, 09:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>]Nets of 2002-2003 was different than 2001-2002. They had a better and deeper bench, they let Kenyon and RJ start to blossom, and they were another year smarter and better. They matched up better with the Spurs as they didn't need to stop a player like Kobe, while with Spurs they let Duncan go off and tried to stop everyone else, and it would've worked if TD didn't have one of the craziest statlines in a long time. And TD was, by far, the biggest factor against Lakers, averaging 28/12/5. Lakers couldn't stop him. Lakers didn't play like sh*t, Kobe had 32PPG, Shaq 25/14, and the role players played pretty well. They got beat by the better team, led by the best leader on the court, Tim Duncan.</div>Come on, the Laker role players struggled big time in that series, which explains their loss. Shaq and Kobe aren't going to be inconsistant, but the role players, maybe, and they were the key to the threepeat, they didn't show up in that series against the Spurs.Obviously you and I differ on the definition of "crazy stat line", to me, a crazy stat line is like 35/29/13; not to say 28/12/5 isn't good but, I wouldn't call it crazy, let's say great.
When I meant crazy statline I meant the 24/17/5/5 he put up for the series against Nets. You will NEVER see inflated numbers like you saw in the '60's again.Lakers role players didn't struggle big time, they were a bit under average, but considering Kobe and Shaq played fantastic, I wouldn't say they sucked for the series like you say.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Oct 21 2006, 12:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When I meant crazy statline I meant the 24/17/5/5 he put up for the series against Nets. You will NEVER see inflated numbers like you saw in the '60's again.</div>They weren't inflated, in fact only one guy ever put up numbers like that. But apparently he is nothing compared to the unbelievable greatness that you claim is Dwight Howard and his modern cohorts. But let's not turn this into one of those debates, now's not the time.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Oct 21 2006, 12:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Lakers role players didn't struggle big time, they were a bit under average, but considering Kobe and Shaq played fantastic, I wouldn't say they sucked for the series like you say.</div>They didn't suck for the series, but compared to the display of dominance that the Lakers had shown us during the three previous years, they were indeed below par. Role players did not play as well, and they did struggle a lot, a whole lot. That enabled the Spurs to let Kobe and Shaq go nuts while shutting down the role players which in turn, reduced the Lakers to just two superstars putting up points.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Oct 21 2006, 01:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They weren't inflated, in fact only one guy ever put up numbers like that. But apparently he is nothing compared to the unbelievable greatness that you claim is Dwight Howard and his modern cohorts. But let's not turn this into one of those debates, now's not the time.</div>So ignorant...<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>They didn't suck for the series, but compared to the display of dominance that the Lakers had shown us during the three previous years, they were indeed below par. Role players did not play as well, and they did struggle a lot, a whole lot. That enabled the Spurs to let Kobe and Shaq go nuts while shutting down the role players which in turn, reduced the Lakers to just two superstars putting up points.</div>They didn't shutdown the role players. No, they weren't where they were in the 3 peat, but the team as a whole certainly did not suck like you said.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Oct 21 2006, 01:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So ignorant...</div>Look in the mirror.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Oct 21 2006, 01:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They didn't shutdown the role players. No, they weren't where they were in the 3 peat, but the team as a whole certainly did not suck like you said.</div>Come on! That series pissed me off, the Lakers were way better than the Spurs during their run, I blame the lack of cohesivness that year. Oh well, right? But LA's role players were very good, Foxy, Shaw, Horry, Fisher, Madsen, Medvedenko and Devean George performed flawlessly during the threepeat; they became a staple of the Lakers team. That series in 2003 was a serious letdown, they were better than the Spurs and could have beat them. They dug themselves too many holes, and they had no backup. However, in 2004, the roleplayers came back to bail out the Lakers, just how LA had become so used to. I think Shaq's injury and subsequent surgery kinda shook the team out of it's form.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Oct 21 2006, 02:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Look in the mirror.</div>Seriously bro, when EVERYONE is in agreement that the stats of player sin '50's/'60's were WAY over-inflated, and bring in stats to prove it, and you just shrug it off, that's just being blind.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Come on! That series pissed me off, the Lakers were way better than the Spurs during their run, I blame the lack of cohesivness that year. Oh well, right? But LA's role players were very good, Foxy, Shaw, Horry, Fisher, Madsen, Medvedenko and Devean George performed flawlessly during the threepeat; they became a staple of the Lakers team. That series in 2003 was a serious letdown, they were better than the Spurs and could have beat them. They dug themselves too many holes, and they had no backup. However, in 2004, the roleplayers came back to bail out the Lakers, just how LA had become so used to. I think Shaq's injury and subsequent surgery kinda shook the team out of it's form.</div>They were certainly not way better. They may have been a better team, but the Spurs were pretty damn good that year with Duncan, Robinson, the rise of Parker & Ginobli, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen and their deep bench. With Duncan's fantastic play and leadership, and team coming together nicely, it would have been a VERY tough series for ANY of the championship Laker teams.Bottom line is Lakers did not suck. They got big production out of the big 2, and the role players, while not great, weren't as bad as you make them out to be. Outside of Kobe and Shaq the team had 38PPG, whoch isn't terrible considering that Shaq and Kobe had big series'. What killed the Lakers was not being able to hold Duncan to reasonable averages, allowing them to shoot 47% from 3, and letting Parker and Ginobli have pretty big series'.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Oct 21 2006, 01:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Seriously bro, when EVERYONE is in agreement that the stats of player sin '50's/'60's were WAY over-inflated, and bring in stats to prove it, and you just shrug it off, that's just being blind.</div>Who's everyone? everybody on this site? There are a lot of experts and NBA historians who would take my side in that debate. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Oct 21 2006, 01:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They were certainly not way better. They may have been a better team, but the Spurs were pretty damn good that year with Duncan, Robinson, the rise of Parker & Ginobli, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen and their deep bench. With Duncan's fantastic play and leadership, and team coming together nicely, it would have been a VERY tough series for ANY of the championship Laker teams.Bottom line is Lakers did not suck. They got big production out of the big 2, and the role players, while not great, weren't as bad as you make them out to be. Outside of Kobe and Shaq the team had 38PPG, whoch isn't terrible considering that Shaq and Kobe had big series'. What killed the Lakers was not being able to hold Duncan to reasonable averages, allowing them to shoot 47% from 3, and letting Parker and Ginobli have pretty big series'.</div>No way, what killed the Lakers was them always falling behind by like 25 points and then having to make an insane comeback in the 4rth quarter just to have a chance to tie the game. TD's big numbers really didn't hurt LA, the Lakers were always able to deal with that quite well. Parkers penetration was troublesome at first, but once the Lakers started knocking him on his ass, he cooled off. Ginobili was big though, you're right about that.
