PDA

View Full Version : What if Duncan never got hurt before the playoffs?



Chronz
04-10-2014, 06:23 PM
The 99 Spurs never got a chance to defend their title due to injury. The Spurs mopped the floor with the Lakers that championship season, but that was before Kobe's ascension and pre-Phil Jackson. The Lakers mopped the floor with them in the 01 "rematch", but 2 years makes a big difference with older players like D-Rob/Elliot/Avery (not to mention they lost their starting 2).

If both were completely healthy, who wins the matchup?

P&GRealist
04-10-2014, 06:26 PM
What if Patrick Ewing was fully healthy to actually play in the 1999 NBA Finals?

Would the Spurs even be defending champs heading into the following postseason?

Chronz
04-10-2014, 07:20 PM
What if Patrick Ewing was fully healthy to actually play in the 1999 NBA Finals?

Would the Spurs even be defending champs heading into the following postseason?

I've actually made that thread before. But it ends up asking for alot, Ewing going down to injury is precisely what sparked their improbable Finals run. I would agree however, if they could somehow make the Finals with Ewing "fully healthy", they would have fared better against the "Twin Towers".

koreancabbage
04-10-2014, 08:41 PM
another championship.

ILLUSIONIST^248
04-10-2014, 10:17 PM
The 99 Spurs never got a chance to defend their title due to injury. The Spurs mopped the floor with the Lakers that championship season, but that was before Kobe's ascension and pre-Phil Jackson. The Lakers mopped the floor with them in the 01 "rematch", but 2 years makes a big difference with older players like D-Rob/Elliot/Avery (not to mention they lost their starting 2).

If both were completely healthy, who wins the matchup?

Do you get drunk and think about threads to start? Lol

ILLUSIONIST^248
04-10-2014, 10:17 PM
another championship.

Kobe and shaq are laughing.

Cal827
04-10-2014, 10:21 PM
Kobe and shaq are laughing.

What if Kobe and Shaq weren't laughing at the prospect that Duncan could be healthy for the series?

lakerboy
04-11-2014, 02:11 PM
I think the Lakers still beat them mainly because of age and timing. The Spurs just wasn't good that year.

Even without Duncan, they should have beaten the Suns in the first round, or at the very least, win more than 1 freaking game. A championship team can win a playoff round even without their best player. This shows they had a weak supporting cast around TD. This is mostly because of age. AJ, Elie, Elliot and DR were all on their way out. It was a transition because Ginobili was a rookie then, and Tony Parker was not a Spurs yet if I recall correctly.

If you remember, by their next championship 3 years after, it was Parker, Ginobili and Duncan leading the team already. The years in the middle were a transition period for the Spurs, where they had an old supporting cast with a young superstar, and then turned it into a young supporting cast with a young superstar. The Lakers on that year were extremely hungry, on their prime and at the right age.

archdevil84
04-11-2014, 02:30 PM
you are starting a lot of threads these days lol

KnicksorBust
04-11-2014, 02:49 PM
This was the period of time where Shaq just started massacring other big men. I don't think Duncan would have been able to stop him and 2001 was proof of that.

D-Leethal
04-11-2014, 03:10 PM
I've actually made that thread before. But it ends up asking for alot, Ewing going down to injury is precisely what sparked their improbable Finals run. I would agree however, if they could somehow make the Finals with Ewing "fully healthy", they would have fared better against the "Twin Towers".

Agreed. I don't know if they make the Finals with a hobbled, old and slow Ewing, but they definitely had a better shot against SA. I actually watched an interview with Ewing the other day and they asked him this question, and he candidly said he wasn't sure but it would have been a better series. This is coming from a guy who guaranteed a championship every ****ing year. I don't think it makes a huge difference, but on paper it was certainly better for that particular matchup.

D-Leethal
04-11-2014, 03:11 PM
This was the period of time where Shaq just started massacring other big men. I don't think Duncan would have been able to stop him and 2001 was proof of that.

I agree with this. Shaq was too dominant during those prime years. It wasn't even fair. His size would have been too much for SA.

D-Leethal
04-11-2014, 03:13 PM
Which is why I am pretty much stumped as to who gets the nod for me between Shaq and Duncan as all time greats. Both had longevity, Duncan had more consistency along that longevity, Shaq was more dominant during his peak years where there literally was no way to defend the guy.

mdm692
04-11-2014, 09:15 PM
What if Joe Johnson didn't get injured in the 04-05 playoffs? What if Stat didn't get injured the following season? What if Diaw and Stat didn't get suspended for checking on Nash? What if someone boxed out Artest vs LA?

bleedprple&gold
04-11-2014, 09:31 PM
What if Joe Johnson didn't get injured in the 04-05 playoffs? What if Stat didn't get injured the following season? What if Diaw and Stat didn't get suspended for checking on Nash? What if someone boxed out Artest vs LA?

Haha this. injures are part of the game. What's in the point in speculating what would happen without them? Every team has them, not just Duncan that one year

Shlumpledink
04-11-2014, 09:49 PM
What if Memphis had drafted Tony Parker, and SA drafted Jamaal Tinsley, would memphis still lose first round to the spurs in 03? I think Pau Gasol and Tony Parker could play really well together.

Chronz
04-12-2014, 12:46 AM
What if Joe Johnson didn't get injured in the 04-05 playoffs? What if Stat didn't get injured the following season? What if Diaw and Stat didn't get suspended for checking on Nash? What if someone boxed out Artest vs LA?
The suns core wasn't comprised of champs tho, they put up inferior numbers and were obviously a peg behind the Spurs. Whereas this is a comparison of the 2 champs.

I would agree that the Spurs are not unique, but nobody ever said they were, just that the Duncan injury is one the leagues most pivotal

Kevj77
04-12-2014, 01:44 AM
IDK the Lakers just started to put it all together around this time. Kobe started playing like an all star, Shaq was the best player period in the NBA, after getting rid of Van Excel, Eddie Jones and Elden Campbell Fisher Horry and Fox filled their roles without worrying about stats or touches. Then you add Phil the triangle fit that team well.

I still got LA this was when they gelled and elevated their game.

FlashBolt
04-12-2014, 03:30 AM
Normally I wouldn't mind "What if" questions but so many different What If's have occurred. What if Wade wasn't injured on purposely by Rasheed Wallace in 2005? What if RWB wasn't injured last year? What if Kobe and Shaq never split? Hard to answer but most likely Spurs would've won.

Ebbs
04-12-2014, 03:34 AM
This was the period of time where Shaq just started massacring other big men. I don't think Duncan would have been able to stop him and 2001 was proof of that.

Agreed. Shaq was eating no matter what was on the table over this span of his career.

MickeyMgl
04-12-2014, 04:32 AM
Normally I wouldn't mind "What if" questions but so many different What If's have occurred. What if Wade wasn't injured on purposely by Rasheed Wallace in 2005? What if RWB wasn't injured last year? What if Kobe and Shaq never split? Hard to answer but most likely Spurs would've won.

Not with the way Kobe was playing in those playoffs.