migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

rsxracer wrote:yea, KG is the best current PF in the league but i like duncan more. if KG was to switch teams for a season with duncan, the spurs wouldve done better with him than with tim. KG is the best, but not my favorite of the 2.

Totally disagree! Duncan's game, especially his post game which is superior to KG's, fits the team concept alittle better, especially with the players the Spurs have and have had

I don't know. I tend to prefer the guy who has more points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, FG%, FT%, 3p%, less turnovers and less fouls

but yet has never won a championship, even when he has played with pretty much as many allstars, not past allstars but allstars on his teams ie. Wally, Cassell. Duncan has had Robinson, Ginobili and Parker.
Flip Saunders and Popovich are both great coaches so that is not such a factor.

Duncan just gets it done!

Garnett does get it done, he dominates the playoffs, he just doesn't have the teammates. He hasn't won a championship because the best team he ever had was Latrell and Cassell (not to mention that if cassell wasn't injured he probably would have won the 2004 championship). If he won a championship with the squads he's had he'd be in the running for top five all time. Duncan is very consistent, but KG is better at everything overall. If the spurs had KG instead of duncan they'd have about 5 championships instead of 3. There is absolutely no anecdotal or statistical category that supports Duncan over KG except for the weak "More rings" argument. By that logic Beno Udrih>Lebron and Barkley.

And Popovic is a great coach, FLIP IS A CHOKER!

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

rsxracer wrote:yea, KG is the best current PF in the league but i like duncan more. if KG was to switch teams for a season with duncan, the spurs wouldve done better with him than with tim. KG is the best, but not my favorite of the 2.

Totally disagree! Duncan's game, especially his post game which is superior to KG's, fits the team concept alittle better, especially with the players the Spurs have and have had

I don't know. I tend to prefer the guy who has more points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, FG%, FT%, 3p%, less turnovers and less fouls

WEll we disagree.

I reckon Duncan is one of the alltime great champions and does what he has to do to win





but yet has never won a championship, even when he has played with pretty much as many allstars, not past allstars but allstars on his teams ie. Wally, Cassell. Duncan has had Robinson, Ginobili and Parker.
Flip Saunders and Popovich are both great coaches so that is not such a factor.

Duncan just gets it done!

Garnett does get it done, he dominates the playoffs, he just doesn't have the teammates. He hasn't won a championship because the best team he ever had was Latrell and Cassell (not to mention that if cassell wasn't injured he probably would have won the 2004 championship). If he won a championship with the squads he's had he'd be in the running for top five all time. Duncan is very consistent, but KG is better at everything overall. If the spurs had KG instead of duncan they'd have about 5 championships instead of 3. There is absolutely no anecdotal or statistical category that supports Duncan over KG except for the weak "More rings" argument. By that logic Beno Udrih>Lebron and Barkley.

And Popovic is a great coach, FLIP IS A CHOKER!

Duncan just fits the Spurs style so well and the success shows that but KG has got to be frustrated with his lack of winning

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:And Popovic is a great coach, FLIP IS A CHOKER!

Word. Preach, pest. Tell them the truth.

CjR wrote:TMC, you're probably the only person I know to like Bernard King as much as I do. He was a baaad man, indeed. Hella raw!

The best player that nobody talks about... And better than some of those so-called stars.

Funny thing is that, when he was drafted, I thought that Glenn Robinson was going to become the second coming of Bernard... boy, how wrong I was.

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

rsxracer wrote:yea, KG is the best current PF in the league but i like duncan more. if KG was to switch teams for a season with duncan, the spurs wouldve done better with him than with tim. KG is the best, but not my favorite of the 2.

Totally disagree! Duncan's game, especially his post game which is superior to KG's, fits the team concept alittle better, especially with the players the Spurs have and have had

I don't know. I tend to prefer the guy who has more points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, FG%, FT%, 3p%, less turnovers and less fouls

WEll we disagree.

I reckon Duncan is one of the alltime great champions and does what he has to do to win





but yet has never won a championship, even when he has played with pretty much as many allstars, not past allstars but allstars on his teams ie. Wally, Cassell. Duncan has had Robinson, Ginobili and Parker.
Flip Saunders and Popovich are both great coaches so that is not such a factor.

Duncan just gets it done!

Garnett does get it done, he dominates the playoffs, he just doesn't have the teammates. He hasn't won a championship because the best team he ever had was Latrell and Cassell (not to mention that if cassell wasn't injured he probably would have won the 2004 championship). If he won a championship with the squads he's had he'd be in the running for top five all time. Duncan is very consistent, but KG is better at everything overall. If the spurs had KG instead of duncan they'd have about 5 championships instead of 3. There is absolutely no anecdotal or statistical category that supports Duncan over KG except for the weak "More rings" argument. By that logic Beno Udrih>Lebron and Barkley.

And Popovic is a great coach, FLIP IS A CHOKER!

Duncan just fits the Spurs style so well and the success shows that but KG has got to be frustrated with his lack of winning

One thing I'll say is that there's no way that KG wouldn't have 3 rings at least if he replaced duncan

1999: spurs face a **** team, no contest
2003: Spurs face jason kidd and some jason kidd created stars. Easy win
2004: The game is not within a point to allow the fisher shot from happening, as a result, san antonio wins it all
2005: Spurs beat the pistons more convincingly with KG because Rashweed is TD's cryptonite.
2006: KG definately makes the several point difference to get past dallas, phoenix is a pushover for the spurs and the spurs don't choke like the mavs did so they win it all easily.

Now you can argue with 04 and 06 but you can't argue with that the spurs still would have won in 99, 2003, and 2005 if they had KG. I don't see how duncan fits the "team concept" more. He doesn't get as many assists, doesn't shoot as high a % on the same # of shots, doesn't play any worse defense. There is NOTHING Duncan does better than KG.

You know why KG has no rings? Two words: Joe Smith

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:You know why KG has no rings? Two words: Joe Smith

I thought those words were Kevin McHale.

TMC wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:You know why KG has no rings? Two words: Joe Smith

I thought those words were Kevin McHale.

either way, if KG gets draft picks on his team from 00-04 he wins a ring

Not if those picks become Ndubi Ebis...

Don't underestimate McHale's skill to f*ck up any situation.

true. but even Isiah drafted nate dawg, channing frye, etc. a first round pick per year for five years should eventually get you a quality player

starting 5:


pg: John Stockton
sg: michael jordan
sf: lamar odom
pf: kevin garnett
c: david robinson

bench:
pg: Steve Nash
sg: jason richardson
sf: scottie pippen
pf: amare stoudamire
c: hakeem the dream

[must say that most of my fav SFs are "pointforwards" -starting with scottie who revolutionized that term and lamar today carrying it on]

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

rsxracer wrote:yea, KG is the best current PF in the league but i like duncan more. if KG was to switch teams for a season with duncan, the spurs wouldve done better with him than with tim. KG is the best, but not my favorite of the 2.

Totally disagree! Duncan's game, especially his post game which is superior to KG's, fits the team concept alittle better, especially with the players the Spurs have and have had

I don't know. I tend to prefer the guy who has more points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, FG%, FT%, 3p%, less turnovers and less fouls

WEll we disagree.

I reckon Duncan is one of the alltime great champions and does what he has to do to win





but yet has never won a championship, even when he has played with pretty much as many allstars, not past allstars but allstars on his teams ie. Wally, Cassell. Duncan has had Robinson, Ginobili and Parker.
Flip Saunders and Popovich are both great coaches so that is not such a factor.

Duncan just gets it done!

Garnett does get it done, he dominates the playoffs, he just doesn't have the teammates. He hasn't won a championship because the best team he ever had was Latrell and Cassell (not to mention that if cassell wasn't injured he probably would have won the 2004 championship). If he won a championship with the squads he's had he'd be in the running for top five all time. Duncan is very consistent, but KG is better at everything overall. If the spurs had KG instead of duncan they'd have about 5 championships instead of 3. There is absolutely no anecdotal or statistical category that supports Duncan over KG except for the weak "More rings" argument. By that logic Beno Udrih>Lebron and Barkley.

And Popovic is a great coach, FLIP IS A CHOKER!

Duncan just fits the Spurs style so well and the success shows that but KG has got to be frustrated with his lack of winning

One thing I'll say is that there's no way that KG wouldn't have 3 rings at least if he replaced duncan

1999: spurs face a **** team, no contest
2003: Spurs face jason kidd and some jason kidd created stars. Easy win
2004: The game is not within a point to allow the fisher shot from happening, as a result, san antonio wins it all
2005: Spurs beat the pistons more convincingly with KG because Rashweed is TD's cryptonite.
2006: KG definately makes the several point difference to get past dallas, phoenix is a pushover for the spurs and the spurs don't choke like the mavs did so they win it all easily.

Now you can argue with 04 and 06 but you can't argue with that the spurs still would have won in 99, 2003, and 2005 if they had KG. I don't see how duncan fits the "team concept" more. He doesn't get as many assists, doesn't shoot as high a % on the same # of shots, doesn't play any worse defense. There is NOTHING Duncan does better than KG.

You know why KG has no rings? Two words: Joe Smith

Difficult to say that a team would still win a championship or championships if their most important player was replaced. The Spurs were totally geared around Duncan from his second season until the present, as even David Robinson was second choice to him, and his game is different to KG's and so the team would have to play very differently.

I personally don't think the Spurs would have won a championship with Garnett

TMC wrote:

CjR wrote:TMC, you're probably the only person I know to like Bernard King as much as I do. He was a baaad man, indeed. Hella raw!

The best player that nobody talks about... And better than some of those so-called stars.

Funny thing is that, when he was drafted, I thought that Glenn Robinson was going to become the second coming of Bernard... boy, how wrong I was.

Agreed totally. Bernard King was simply in different class, and he belongs with the best. He was relentless and simply, simply unstoppable. I don’t think we’ll ever see his style of play again. And I still remember his FT release with that step back. I was always thinking his shot will be short.

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

rsxracer wrote:yea, KG is the best current PF in the league but i like duncan more. if KG was to switch teams for a season with duncan, the spurs wouldve done better with him than with tim. KG is the best, but not my favorite of the 2.

Totally disagree! Duncan's game, especially his post game which is superior to KG's, fits the team concept alittle better, especially with the players the Spurs have and have had

I don't know. I tend to prefer the guy who has more points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, FG%, FT%, 3p%, less turnovers and less fouls

WEll we disagree.

I reckon Duncan is one of the alltime great champions and does what he has to do to win





but yet has never won a championship, even when he has played with pretty much as many allstars, not past allstars but allstars on his teams ie. Wally, Cassell. Duncan has had Robinson, Ginobili and Parker.
Flip Saunders and Popovich are both great coaches so that is not such a factor.

Duncan just gets it done!

Garnett does get it done, he dominates the playoffs, he just doesn't have the teammates. He hasn't won a championship because the best team he ever had was Latrell and Cassell (not to mention that if cassell wasn't injured he probably would have won the 2004 championship). If he won a championship with the squads he's had he'd be in the running for top five all time. Duncan is very consistent, but KG is better at everything overall. If the spurs had KG instead of duncan they'd have about 5 championships instead of 3. There is absolutely no anecdotal or statistical category that supports Duncan over KG except for the weak "More rings" argument. By that logic Beno Udrih>Lebron and Barkley.

And Popovic is a great coach, FLIP IS A CHOKER!

Duncan just fits the Spurs style so well and the success shows that but KG has got to be frustrated with his lack of winning

One thing I'll say is that there's no way that KG wouldn't have 3 rings at least if he replaced duncan

1999: spurs face a **** team, no contest
2003: Spurs face jason kidd and some jason kidd created stars. Easy win
2004: The game is not within a point to allow the fisher shot from happening, as a result, san antonio wins it all
2005: Spurs beat the pistons more convincingly with KG because Rashweed is TD's cryptonite.
2006: KG definately makes the several point difference to get past dallas, phoenix is a pushover for the spurs and the spurs don't choke like the mavs did so they win it all easily.

Now you can argue with 04 and 06 but you can't argue with that the spurs still would have won in 99, 2003, and 2005 if they had KG. I don't see how duncan fits the "team concept" more. He doesn't get as many assists, doesn't shoot as high a % on the same # of shots, doesn't play any worse defense. There is NOTHING Duncan does better than KG.

You know why KG has no rings? Two words: Joe Smith

Difficult to say that a team would still win a championship or championships if their most important player was replaced. The Spurs were totally geared around Duncan from his second season until the present, as even David Robinson was second choice to him, and his game is different to KG's and so the team would have to play very differently.

I personally don't think the Spurs would have won a championship with Garnett

well Garnett with Robinson seems the same thing as Duncan with Robinson. they'd both win rings but Garnett would have the better numbers. they only put Duncan over Garnett cuz of the rings, if Garnett won the same amount of rings Timmy has than they'd be in the same rank all analyst's boast about. but, due to the fact KG has never had a center like David than we can't say Duncan is better. but then again we can't say Garnett is better either. and even when it's both careers are ended, respectively, that question will remain neutral. but in my opinion, i'd take KG over Duncan. he seems more active than Timmy.

Here's my roster:

Start:

PG: Gilbert Arenas
SG: Richardson
SF: Tayshaun Prince
PF: Malone
C: David Robinson

Bench:

PG: Payton (w/ the Sonics a while back)
SG: Spree (pre-choke)
SF: Mullin
PF: Rasheed Wallace
C: Olajuwon

Other two: Eddie Jones, Earl Boykins

And about the Duncan/Garnett thing: Garnett is better. There's no arguing that Duncan fits with the Spurs "style". Their "style" is to give the ball to Duncan, who draws extra defenders and creates open shots for Ginobli and Parker. Garnett would do the exact same thing, while contributing with other stats. No comparison, even though they're both greats.

xBayAreaWarriorx wrote:

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

rsxracer wrote:yea, KG is the best current PF in the league but i like duncan more. if KG was to switch teams for a season with duncan, the spurs wouldve done better with him than with tim. KG is the best, but not my favorite of the 2.

Totally disagree! Duncan's game, especially his post game which is superior to KG's, fits the team concept alittle better, especially with the players the Spurs have and have had

I don't know. I tend to prefer the guy who has more points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, FG%, FT%, 3p%, less turnovers and less fouls

WEll we disagree.

I reckon Duncan is one of the alltime great champions and does what he has to do to win





but yet has never won a championship, even when he has played with pretty much as many allstars, not past allstars but allstars on his teams ie. Wally, Cassell. Duncan has had Robinson, Ginobili and Parker.
Flip Saunders and Popovich are both great coaches so that is not such a factor.

Duncan just gets it done!

Garnett does get it done, he dominates the playoffs, he just doesn't have the teammates. He hasn't won a championship because the best team he ever had was Latrell and Cassell (not to mention that if cassell wasn't injured he probably would have won the 2004 championship). If he won a championship with the squads he's had he'd be in the running for top five all time. Duncan is very consistent, but KG is better at everything overall. If the spurs had KG instead of duncan they'd have about 5 championships instead of 3. There is absolutely no anecdotal or statistical category that supports Duncan over KG except for the weak "More rings" argument. By that logic Beno Udrih>Lebron and Barkley.

And Popovic is a great coach, FLIP IS A CHOKER!

Duncan just fits the Spurs style so well and the success shows that but KG has got to be frustrated with his lack of winning

One thing I'll say is that there's no way that KG wouldn't have 3 rings at least if he replaced duncan

1999: spurs face a **** team, no contest
2003: Spurs face jason kidd and some jason kidd created stars. Easy win
2004: The game is not within a point to allow the fisher shot from happening, as a result, san antonio wins it all
2005: Spurs beat the pistons more convincingly with KG because Rashweed is TD's cryptonite.
2006: KG definately makes the several point difference to get past dallas, phoenix is a pushover for the spurs and the spurs don't choke like the mavs did so they win it all easily.

Now you can argue with 04 and 06 but you can't argue with that the spurs still would have won in 99, 2003, and 2005 if they had KG. I don't see how duncan fits the "team concept" more. He doesn't get as many assists, doesn't shoot as high a % on the same # of shots, doesn't play any worse defense. There is NOTHING Duncan does better than KG.

You know why KG has no rings? Two words: Joe Smith

Difficult to say that a team would still win a championship or championships if their most important player was replaced. The Spurs were totally geared around Duncan from his second season until the present, as even David Robinson was second choice to him, and his game is different to KG's and so the team would have to play very differently.

I personally don't think the Spurs would have won a championship with Garnett

well Garnett with Robinson seems the same thing as Duncan with Robinson. they'd both win rings but Garnett would have the better numbers. they only put Duncan over Garnett cuz of the rings, if Garnett won the same amount of rings Timmy has than they'd be in the same rank all analyst's boast about. but, due to the fact KG has never had a center like David than we can't say Duncan is better. but then again we can't say Garnett is better either. and even when it's both careers are ended, respectively, that question will remain neutral. but in my opinion, i'd take KG over Duncan. he seems more active than Timmy.

Duncan's playing style makes the players around more effective than Garnett's. Duncan plays more on the inside, while Garnett is a little more of a midrange player. Duncan is so good that Robinson had to become the second option on the Spurs

true. this is sorta like iverson/kobe. KG is better in statistics than Tim while Tim has a better all-around game than KG. well, maybe its not like AI/Kobe. but still, KG puts up the numbers, jus not the game Duncan can bring.