In fairness to Duncan he is not in his prime. He was in his prime from 99-03. If he were in his prime he would be getting MVPs in the regular season and post season, and Parker would have had no chance to be the playoff MVP. Really the last two Spurs championships were clearly team efforts with multiple serious MVP candidates among Duncan (both years), Manu (previous year) and Parker (current year). Duncan is still the best player on the team, and close to still the best player in the game, but he isn't as dominant on either end as he once was.
Which is why the should be more up appluaded for having organization...for some reason I think they still will be in playoff pic...when Duncan leaves or retires. They are truly great team...now they will probably considered the team of 00s, instead of those hissy fit Lakers. I think Dream still would run over teams that people considered to be heavy weights. He would probably be at title 5 or 6, because no one today could really guard him....maybe K.G., the Wallaces together, Okafor, Howard, and Brand. But those players can't even guard Yao or Shaq (in twlight of his career). He probably trashed these players and their useless centers. I think the Mavs and Suns are forever at least in this decade are stuck at good, but not great teams, but they don't have good-all round big man like the good teams in 80s thru 00s...neither do have that type of player who can win series or win one game with one play on defense or offense like M.J. or Kobe.....they don't have tough defensive discipline like Pistons and Spurs. Like the Mavs should've won that series, but they didn't have stuff to win it...they are chokers like the Suns are, were in the last two decades. This is why I am crazy...but I will say that the Rockets have a better chance of winning title in the next 5 years than does the Mavs or Suns...why....because I think we have what takes...it's just a matter of reaching the next level. good all round big man - Yao Ming....Nowitzki and Amare are both great players, but they're just PFs and they can't change the game the way Yao can. one player who can win series or make that one great stop or score at end - Tracy McGrady.....again Nash and Nowitzki and etc...are great players, but they can't make stop the other teams best scorer on the last few plays of the game or even carry a bad team or injured team through the season....McGrady can do that (Magic and Rockets last year with Yao's injury). Both the Mavs and Suns have always had talent. I used to be one of the ones who said that McGrady was no better than other human highlights of the NBA, but he has proven me wrong...I think hasn't been on that really really good team yet. defensive discipline - it's there...we were great under VG and decent Rudy T and will probably be good with Adelman. but we didn't have the supporting cast...which means everything when it comes to winning big. this is another reason that we should at least be in the WCF this year....I don't think there are truly any great, nearly unbeatable teams left in the league, maybe Spurs...but that's it....if you saw how the Mavs crumbled against Warriors and how Pistons have beaten the last two years....the Suns lapses of defensive concepts and being able to do it in consistently....we should be able to get to far in playoffs. If Yao and T-Mac are at the best with roster we have...we should be the 2nd best team in conference. Mavs and Suns have no players who can truly matchup with our big guns for the whole series...I think last year we just ran into very good discipline Utah...who had great defensive discipline and should be respected for making so far in playoff their good team and I have feeling they will be that test of team who have to get past to get to Finals. Cause I think we would beat Spurs, if we played them upcoming...I don't think have answer for Yao along with fact that we've gotten so much better over the summer. I know most of this
it's real hard to say somebody would be good in another era. you make a lot of assumptions there. speed of the game changes, strength of the players change, and the rules change. i didn't say anything about duncan's iq. but i can say that the spurs have not had any perimeter player close to kobe bryant during the duncan era (or any other era). at times, duncan had great players like a really old steve smith (yes, he started), old danny ferry, old jaren jackson, hedo turkoglu, and robert horry in one of his worst post-seasons.
cassell became an multiple time all-star, and was 15 ppg to 19 ppg, for several years horry was pretty good in his younger days, better than his Suns and Laker years. maxwell and smith weren't all stars, but pretty good shooters/scorers in mold of say James and Francis....maxwell and smith were both above average shooting guards. Otis Thorpe was good for around 14 - 17 ppg with about 8 - 10 rebs a game, even an all-star a few season before. Elie was very good role player. Drexler was aging...but still good player. Dream wasn't great lone warrior that alot of people on this board makes him out. He was a great center, but he was not alone....he had help. Like most great players do when they win the title. You don't have to have all-stars up and down the roster, but you can have enough good players to win. Plus the teams they were going up against weren't like these unbeatable or ridiculous stacked rosters that you see now or even 80s. The Spurs and Suns were good teams, but neither one could hardly be considered a dynasty.
Hum. You think Duncan is stronger, quicker, and faster than Hakeem, Robinson and Shaq in their primes. Just curious, what is your honest opinion on his raw athleticism compared with those guys? Now some of those Spurs you mention are not great. But the one thing most all of them can do is shoot off of doubles. Same for Barry, Bowen, Horry, Finley, S Jack, etc. Surprising you mentioned Horry, about his all time post-season bomb out was in 04, when all his misses off of Shaq's doubles (along with injuries to Fox and George that left the cuppard bare outside of Shaq and Kobe) ended the Lakers chances at a 4 peat and enabled the Spurs to finally get through that team. Well, you are quite in the minority if you think Duncan was more dominant at that time or demanded more doubles than Shaq. And you are correct they didn't double off of Kobe, they had well below PF, SF, and PGs to double Shaq with. The 1st team not to double in the 00s was Detroit. And Shaq decimated the defensive player of the year, but Detroit controlled Kobe and the rest of the gang and cruised. Odd Duncan never said I'll do my best versus Shaq, you guys control the rest. You might not be aware of the Rockets injuries that year. You might not be aware they beat 4 teams with over 58 wins each (I don't think SA beat any this year?), each with at least one Hall of Famer and top 25 player of all time (Utah had 2), plus 3 more borderline HOF guys (KJ and Penny played at HOF level though other years they were hampered by injuries, plus Rodman- by far the best modern NBA rebounder and regular all-nba 1st team defense). The principal kernal I am trying to get acorss here is competion.
of course they couldnt be a dynasty, nobody was...but they were all consistent teams that performed at high levels year in and year out. suns, jazz, spurs, sonics were all teams that played at that level. for 5-10 years these teams ruled the west, swapping seeds. those teams are all better than the teams now a days. the true test of a team comes when your back are against the walls....i have yet to see the spurs or mavs come back from a 3-1 defecit to win a series during their runs to a finals berth
Hard to say....I think a good team, like the Spurs, Pistons, Mavs, and Suns could take a team like the Spurs, Suns, or Jazz. Spurs 95 squad vs. Spurs 05 squad: Suns 95 squad vs. Suns 05 squad: Seattle 96 vs. Mavs 06 squad: Knicks 95 vs. Heat 06 Pistons 04 vs. Pacers 94. It depends on the matchups...I think Pistons from a few years ago could definitely win the East in Jordan-less year. They would still have one of the best team in the East...they might be better than the Pacers and Knicks. I don't think a non-title from 90s could beat modern day champion...I don't think those western teams that didn't win could come into new millenium and all of sudden become a champion....like I don't think Suns, Supersonics, or the Jazz could come in a beat Shaq lead Lakers, or Duncan lead Spurs.
I disagree...only two or three teams have ever done that in sports period....that's remarkable, but it doesn't happen every day...besides most great teams usually are up 3-1 or 3-0, they wouldn't find themselves in the hole to begin with. And most teams that have done this were total underdogs and lower seeded teams. Most great teams like Yankees, Lakers, Celtics, and etc. are putting teams out of their misery instead losing first 3 out of four games in series.
so with that definition, a team that goes 15-1 in the playoffs wasn't tested at all. does it mean the 2001 lakers were not good?
the spurs just cut the guy with the most raw athleticism on the team because he wasn't a good enough basketball player. your question is irrelevant. jaren jackson was good in 99, but not after. steve smith couldn't throw a stone in the ocean in the playoffs. niether could hedo. ferry brought energy, but that doesn't mean much when duncan gets doubled on every play and nobody can stick a shot in. horry completely sucked in 2003 (with the lakers) and 2004 (with the spurs). no big, it's easy to mix up two seasons. barry hit some shots, so did horry (huge in 2005), sjax, and occasionally finley. and the spurs won some titles. this actually proves my point. guys hit shots and the defense pays for doubling tim. if they don't pay, tim goes to town and scores a lot. shaq decimated defenses when he and kobe were both at their peak, and the other aholes were hitting shots. opinion schminion. i didn't run a poll to get the general public's take on it. i remember that duncan plays power forward and shaq plays center, so i guess i don't remember duncan playing D on shaq. oh yeah, i remember. i remember thinking that the spurs had it in the bag. but the rockets came around at the right time, and the spurs won a lot of games but weren't a team. rodman quit on the team at the worst possible time. i love him, but elliot didn't hit a lot of key playoff shots (except the memorial day miracle). and bob hill seemed like a good coach until i realized teams don't win with guys like that coaching. but i can't take anything away from hakeem's play that playoffs or 1994 either. i'm thinking, however, that he didn't do that in 93, 96, 92, 97, 91, 98, 90, 99, 89, 88, 87, etc. i guess none of that chatter matters: i don't think we're confused about your point. the basis is that hakeem went through some good teams is not disputable. the basis that duncan did not go through good teams is very disputable. you just don't respect the players of today. apparently, i can't change your mind.
Once Shaq slipped a little they were a different team. Kobe probably even got better after 03. Kobe is/was great, but Shaq was absolutely the key. The 95 Spurs team was outstanding, don't sell them short. Best record in the league I believe and made it to the WCF. The Spurs also pushed the Rockets to 6, a lot better than the finalist did. Hakeem was just the difference, the best player on the planet despite many other legendary players in or near their prime in those playoffs (Malone, Stockton, Barkley, Johnson, Jordan, Pippen, Robinson, Shaq, Penny). Also, the years both post and pre those two titles the Rockets were getting to the semis or finals (5 years strait)--including two exits in legendary games (game 7 OT loss in the semis versus Seattle in 03 and game 6 loss to Utah in WCF in 07 when Malone bearhugged Drexler for Utah moment). I seem to rememeber Duncan stuck in the WC semis quite a few years in the middle of his prime. But sure, SA has been near or at the top for longer (7 year stretch in the semis or greater)--no doubt about it. Didn't hurt that TD came in with DR and Elliott (and some other quality vets), they drafted Manu and Parker who later became all-stars (or close), and had made some other savvy signings (Bowen, S Jack). SA's front office had done a fine job having good players around TD--I won't question that either. I respect players today. I think today there are more superstar shooting guards than there was in the mid 90s. But the bigs were better in that era, and the top WC teams were better. The idea either this year's Jazz team or last years Suns team could even get out of the 1st round in the mid 90s is crazy (Carlos Boozer versus Karl Malone, Tim Thomas versus Barkley). Then, when you get to the finals, lets see early 20s something Shaq Oneal waiting for Hakeem, or Drew Gooden waiting for Timmy. These things are cyclical.
Actually since DR left Duncan has consistently played more playoff minutes at C than PF. Many times in the regular season as well. Duncan being considered a PF and not a C/PF is more a matter of convention of the starting lineups, not where he actually plays most of the time. But throughout his career he usually has been able to take the weaker of opposing Cs or PFs. Usually the tougher individual assignments have fallen on whomever among DR, Nazr, Elson, Oberto, Horry etc, has been the other big guy on the floor, not that the strategy hasn't been largely effective.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/olajuha01.html Hakeem's playoff #'s and level of play was actually just as high if not higher from 1986-1988 than it was in 94 and 95. Spurs fans love to tout this BS myth that Hakeem only dominated for 2 years. That's hogwash. In just his 2nd year, Hakeem led the Rockets past the Magic-Kareem Lakers in the middle of their dynasty, due mainly to his level of play. It's funny how Hakeem's #'s dropped from 88-94 isn't it. Funny how when you dont have talent around you due to your team's talent base being decimated by injuries and drug suspensions, teams can triple team you everyplay and get the ball out of your hands and you can't lead your team to the promise land as a result. Hakeem averaged 38 and 18 in the 1988 playoffs on 57% shooting and 88% FT's. Can you name me one series Duncan ever did that? Actually, can you name me any stretch of 4 consecutive games in his entire career Timmy ever did that? Put Hakeem in Duncan's place in the weak 00's with that supporting cast SA had and they would have won 6-7 titles, not 4. He was Tim Duncan on roids. A more athletic version than Duncan and even more skilled.
Hakeem was quite a bit better. Hakeem is a top 5 center of all time..Duncan is a top 7 center of all time.
Maybe this writer needs to come to clutchcity.. Hakeem didn't even make the team.. As I have mentioned before, anyone could make alegit argument that either was better than the other.
The only major problem I have with that list is leaving Wilt off. Even Bill Russell calls him the GOAT. However, that list doesn't change the fact Hakeem, as the 4th or 5th best center of all time, is better than Duncan the best power forward of all time. Duncan no doubt is the "best center masquerading as a power forward of all time". Nobody can take that mantle for him. But whether Hakeem or Duncan line up at C, PF, heck Hakeem had the speed for SF or SG, Hakeem was the greater player.
Why not, if you really look at the series when the spurs played well they dominanted the Suns. Look at game 6. From Game 6 of the western-semis on to the finals, The Spurs played their best basketball. And game 4 they collapsed in the last minutes of the 4th quarter and the Suns won, if dream was playing instead of Duncan that wouldn't happen. Clutch baskets and free thows, and he seals that game up (no game 4 drama). So if not a sweep, Dream would lead the Spurs to a 5 game easy series win.
