I thought this was interesting: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...eld-tim-duncan-back-video-231125169--nba.html Popovich makes a joke about how he's held back Tim Duncan during his career, and another coach (like Don Nelson) would have showcased the full breadth of Duncan's talents much more. Tim Duncan obviously has had a tremendous HOF career, but ask the typical NBA fan what they think of him and the response is likely to be something like "His game is boring." Was Duncan capable of being of a more dynamic player under a different system? Its hard to argue with Popovich's results, but I do wonder how different people would have viewed Duncan is he played for a different team (say, Boston).
Depends on what you mean by dynamic. Duncan is already an extremely dynamic player in my opinion, his game is pretty complete; he was just never "flashy". I mean, Duncan was a 20/12 guy in his prime. I doubt Don Nelson would have made him anymore of a player than he already is.
I guess. But the fact is Pops helped cement TD's legacy as the best PF ever, with four rings and about 99% of his career spent on a contending/dangerous team. Sure another coach or team would've expanded on TD's skillset and maybe made him more of a point-forward, but he wouldn't have achieved the career he's had. I mean, just ask Chris Webber if he'd trade all the fancy passes for a ring lol.
I think Duncan is a prime example of how a label gets put on a player and kind of sticks. Shaq called him the big fundamental because he used glass so much on his jumpers. Duncan has had plenty of "flashy" dunks and lobs back in his prime. He was also pretty damn athletic.
i dont think duncan was " pretty damn athletic". By nba standards he was mediocre. Thats what i think peopple forget when they compare him to kg or even to hakeem. Duncan never had the phisical tools those 2 guys had. I think he could be on dreams level if he had his athletic ability.
