Why the thread is comparing Duncan and Dream? And now I am focusing on Duncan's competition in his Championship run's. Looking specifically at the opponents the Spurs have beaten in different playoff series when winning championships. If you want to say that the 07 Jazz the Spurs beat were as good as the Jazz of the mid and late nineties or that the 05 Suns were an amazing team then say it. I just don't think so. The NBA is a more balanced league today, the competition is better at the bottom. First round matches can be tougher. However the elite teams are not nearly as good as the elite teams of the nineties. That's where I stand. If you don't want people who are going to be critical about your team or hero then stay on the Spurs thread on a Spurs fan site.
^5....I think right is sorta like 90s, except for without maybe the same amount of elite teams. Their alot of good teams in league like 90s.....we have Spurs, Pistons, Mavs, Suns, Heat, Jazz, Rockets, and then teams like Clippers, Cavs, Wizards, Lakers (they've haven't missed the playoff any years where Bryant played at least 75 games) Most of teams above usually win about 47-65 games. With that being said, with exception of S.A....none of those teams have really been dominate as far as winning championships for the matter...consecutive champs. But the balance between the average teams and really bad is not that much. In 90s as far as elite teams, you could say it was pretty much just Chicago and maybe Houston...with Jazz, Lakers , Magic, Suns, Spurs, Sonics, and Knicks being very good followed by Heat, Pacers, and Hawks. But disparity between the average team and worst teams was pretty great...if you didn't have great C or PF or a Michael Jordan...you're team was probably about average or in lower rung of the lead. All the teams mentioned above had a great C/PF, except for the Pacers....but even they had Smits and Davis who are somewhat all-stars or borderline while everyone else had legit big men. In the 80s, disparity was at it's greatest....the Lakers appeared in every championship in 80s except for 81,86,90, which is funny because the team that took their place where in the finals couple times as well the Trailblazers and Rockets. The West was really kinda one sided...one really really great...a few good teams, not really elite or even top 3 or 5 and pretty much garbage....there were teams in the west that 10 to 20 games under .500 that made playoffs in 80s. That's pretty bad...it would be like putting the Bulls of 90s in the East right now subtract maybe Miami (with Shaq). The Lakers won the Pacific divison 10x in row, which was a sports record up until the Braves broke it 2002. And Yankees tied it last year. 80s East was something watch you had a great and elite Celtics team for most of decade with occasional flash of greatness 76ers with a few good odd teams like the Hawks, Bucks, Knicks, and Cavs...with Pistons and Bulls pretty much taking over near end of decade. Three and half really great teams, the Bulls really hadn't peaked yet with about two perennial good teams Cavs and Bucks....and then the Hawks and Knicks. You put Duncan in 80s it's almost guranteeded if he wasn't on one those teams mentioned above he wouldn't championship.
I agree with most of what you're saying except with these really exceptional teams. I feel like they are better than any team in the League today. 92,93,94 Knicks (lost to the bulls in 7 than 6, than the rockets in 7) 94,95,96,97,98 Jazz (lost to the Rockets in 5 WCF, 5 agian in the first round, Sonics in the WCF, Bulls in 6, Bulls in 6 again in the finals. 96 Sonics- The best team I've seen in one season not to win a championship. They won 67 games, ended our championship run, and took the best Bulls team ever to 6 without Nate Mcmillan. 93,94,95 Suns- Lost to Bulls in 6, Then the Rockets in 7, and again to us in 7.
Look Duncan is a center. He was at Wake Forest and he still is now. The position is interchangable in today's NBA and the Spurs choose to list him as a PF. Does that mean Omberto or Elston are centers? Absolutely not, neither can really post up. Duncan is the center of the team.
Chauncey Billups > John Stockton (and Steve Nash) because 1 > 0. Tim Duncan > Wilt Chamberlain because 4 > 2. Hakeem was Duncan on steroids and all NBA fans outside of SA know this. He did everything Tim did, but better. Was Duncan better than Wilt? If not, save the ridiculous 4 > 2 crap. Duncan wouldn't have won any titles in the 80's/90s.
I'm still trying to find the correlation between the 80's and Tim Duncan. Considering Haleem was in his prime in the 90's I am at a loss to care about how TD would have fared in the 80's.
Hakeem's career began in 84, so he was a "80's/90's" player. If Duncan began his career in 84 instead of 97, he'd have to get past teams like the Showtime Lakers, Bird's Celtics, Isiah's Pistons to win a Ring. The field was much tougher back then. Bird only won 3 titles to Duncan's 4, but Bird got them against much, much tougher competition. You put the great 80's teams in today's NBA and they are winning 70 plus games and cruising to titles. The league today is very very weak.
Actually I did well in high school, college, and do well for myself today. Apparently you still have time to go to Rockets fan sites, even though you're a Spurs fan. You must be doing really well for yourself to have so much free time. And all things were not equal that's what everyone has been saying. If they were, then Dream would be the better player. That's my point dip ****, oh I mean George Gervin.
My point is I don't see how mentioning Duncan made someones all-time team at the PF spot has much relevance in a Hakeem/Duncan debate since they play different positions, unless you are going to argue that Duncan would beat out thet C's that made the team (since they obviously are the ones who kept Hakeem off). It's just as silly as comparing All-NBA teams for both of them when Duncan has two chances to make the team and Hakeem has one.
The correlation is that most Duncan supporters mention his titles (team success) as an indicator that he is better when comparing the two players. It is highly arguable that Hakeem played against better competition for the majority of his career (teamwise and at his position), which makes it a lil harder to get championships. I guess you see the Spurs teams beating the 80's Celtics, 80's Lakers, 80's Pistons or 90's Bulls?
The closest thing that Spurs have faced to one of those four teams mentioned was....2000 Lakers....and out of four meetings they only one once...but you could say their best team was the following year (in 05 or 07). I think the Spurs have a great roster that compliments TD, very well. Yeah, but the Dream was a freak of nature...
