Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: If Duncan and D-Rob switched places, how many titles does Duncan win without D-Rob?

Voters
15. You may not vote on this poll
  • None

    5 33.33%
  • 1 Title

    3 20.00%
  • More than 1 title

    7 46.67%
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 61
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ja-Blam
    Posts
    7,368
    vCash
    1500

    Switch David Robinson and Tim Duncan's careers

    The question is simple: If you had switched when they were drafted (Duncan drafted in 89 and Robinson in 98) would the Spurs have won a Championship before David Robinson got there?

    Thinking critically, does Robinson's inability to win a title without Duncan hurt his legacy and is it fair if you don't believe Duncan could have done it either.

    Who do you think the better player is between Duncan and Robinson and why do you think that if not championships?
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Valade you have totally owned this thread. Well done
    My fanbase is growing.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,291
    vCash
    1500
    Tim with 4 rings. Robinson with 4 rings.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ja-Blam
    Posts
    7,368
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SPURSFAN1 View Post
    Tim with 4 rings. Robinson with 4 rings.
    How many are won without each other (or are you implying they win 4 rings together)?

    As a Spurs fan what makes you say that?
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Valade you have totally owned this thread. Well done
    My fanbase is growing.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,291
    vCash
    1500
    2 in Tims younger career and 2 with young Robinson. Then Robinson wins 2 more as the man. He just never had good players playing with him that could take over in short bursts.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Brunswick
    Posts
    12,513
    vCash
    1500
    prime Robinson in place of Duncan in 2003 doesn't get past the Lakers. in a world where Duncan is old and Robinson is the young guy- they'd be competitive. I think they compete strongly in 2005 and win 2007 with prime Robinson instead of Duncan.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ja-Blam
    Posts
    7,368
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SPURSFAN1 View Post
    2 in Tims younger career and 2 with young Robinson. Then Robinson wins 2 more as the man. He just never had good players playing with him that could take over in short bursts.
    What years do you think they win it? Do you think a Tim Duncan led Spurs in the 90's could have knocked off Jordan's Bulls or Hakeem's Rockets?
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Valade you have totally owned this thread. Well done
    My fanbase is growing.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,291
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruno View Post
    prime Robinson in place of Duncan in 2003 doesn't get past the Lakers. in a world where Duncan is old and Robinson is the young guy- they'd be competitive. I think they compete strongly in 2005 and win 2007 with prime Robinson instead of Duncan.
    Young robinson was better than prime shaq. Young robinson >>2003 shaq.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,291
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    What years do you think they win it? Do you think a Tim Duncan led Spurs in the 90's could have knocked off Jordan's Bulls or Hakeem's Rockets?
    Possibly. It's not like duncan has never beaten stacked teams.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,252
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SPURSFAN1:28445095
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruno View Post
    prime Robinson in place of Duncan in 2003 doesn't get past the Lakers. in a world where Duncan is old and Robinson is the young guy- they'd be competitive. I think they compete strongly in 2005 and win 2007 with prime Robinson instead of Duncan.
    Young robinson was better than prime shaq. Young robinson >>2003 shaq.
    What in the....
    TWINSIES!!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    32,654
    vCash
    1894
    Its a great question and one I've asked here in the past; http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sho...re-The-Admiral



    Side note: While looking for that thread, I found another in which you chastise me for not valuing rings as much as I should.

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Why do you use advanced stats like they are always 100% right and tell the entire story? You know EVERY stat is flawed right?

    Larry Bird is 18th all-time in PER, do you really think he's the 18th best player?

    Heck, Elton Brand is 35th!
    Good fun tho...




    Anyways, on topic. One thing I realized is that, because D-Rob was drafted before he finished his Navy duties, his absence allowed San Antonio to continue rebuilding before adding their final centerpiece. This gave them a more developed D-Rob and a young Sean Elliot, which led to such a huge turnaround season for them. But assuming they somehow switch years perfectly, Duncan enters the league at a much younger age and thus has a longer window of dominance (which is what we are seeing today) but also, hes not as developed as a guy who was basically in his prime from day 1 so you're not likely to win anything at that juncture. We also have to assume that Duncan stays in San Antonio when he does fail, which without D-Rob early on, was far from a guarantee.

    And with less success, comes different draft picks and who knows how that plays out. But, for the sake of the argument, lets assume everything stays picture perfect with regards to their teammates, this is how I project their careers.

    From 89-93, they dont win jack, maybe they're a lesser regular season team but not too different from what D-Rob accomplished in terms of playoff success.

    But by year 5, thats when things look slightly different. Duncan was a star from day 1, but his prime absolutely began in his 5th year. Thats when I noticed the guy who you used to be able to get away with single coverage on became a guy who required constant doubles. He wasn't an overwhelming offensive player, but definitely one that could be the fulcrom of an elite offense if the support was right.

    So in 94 (Year 5) the Spurs have given Duncan the joy of Dennis Rodman. Now you could argue that Duncan would have commanded more respect from Rodman, but from what I can remember, the guy didn't respect Pop all that much either, so lets just be fair and say Rodman remains the same cancerous player he was for them.

    I see the Spurs being better in 94/95 but ultimately losing to Dream and the Rockets in much the same way.



    By 96-97, D-Rob was injured and the Spurs had to deal with a lottery season. Does this happen for Duncan or do we just assume that the Spurs continue their winning ways and somehow land D-Rob?


    Since I dont want to over think this, Im going to skip this season altogether.


    In 97-98, the Spurs add a prime 25 year old D-Rob to a 29 year old Duncan. At this stage in Duncan's career, he was battling with severe plantar fasciitis all year and it only dissipated come playoffs. As a result it was a down year regular season wise for him but the dude tore it up in the playoffs (losing in 7 to Dirks Mavs) and was still very much in his peak/prime form, its why the Spurs wound up winning it all the next year.

    Back to the 98 Playoffs.

    Do you take a Y1 D-Rob+Duncan+Avery and absolutely no shooters (thanks to Sean Elliots Kidney disease) over a Jazz team that made the Finals? What about a very vulnerable Bulls team with a hobbled Pippen?


    I say no, their best chance of winning comes in 99, which they won anyways. The difference is that both D-Rob and Duncan are in their primes.

    In the shortened season of 99, I see this duo (along with a recovered Sean Elliot) absolutely CRUSHING the league. As it was, I feel like those Spurs are underrated. They won 46-7 in their final stretch (which includes playoff competition), the only reason they were slow off the gate was because this was the year D-Rob needed some games to get going again. So they win in 99, probably have the All-Time winning% IMO, but its still obviously Duncan's team.



    After that, it gets really interesting. Duncan is no longer the superstar he once was but D-Rob is clearly not the same type of playoff performer as prime Duncan. Is that enough to beat the ensuing powers to come? I think this post is long enough for now.
    Yo Kobe, get at me bro, we'd have a good time, man

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,291
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Method28 View Post
    What in the....
    I guess you're not smart. Robinson was winning MVP by his 6th year in the league.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    32,654
    vCash
    1894
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruno View Post
    prime Robinson in place of Duncan in 2003 doesn't get past the Lakers. in a world where Duncan is old and Robinson is the young guy- they'd be competitive. I think they compete strongly in 2005 and win 2007 with prime Robinson instead of Duncan.
    Agreed, but in 2003 Robinson isn't playing with a shell of Duncan, hes getting a Tim Duncan that was still an All-NBA caliber player. Is that enough?
    Yo Kobe, get at me bro, we'd have a good time, man

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,291
    vCash
    1500
    37 year old Duncan is ALL NBA first team. HAHAHAHAHA

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    58,342
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SPURSFAN1 View Post
    Young robinson was better than prime shaq. Young robinson >>2003 shaq.
    you might have the honor of being the biggest homer on this site.

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    58,342
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SPURSFAN1 View Post
    I guess you're not smart. Robinson was winning MVP by his 6th year in the league.
    yeah, when he was 29, and he was given the trophy just in time for Hakeem to literally destroy him in the WCF's.

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •