Phil Jackson talk/rumors (merged)

[bigbadred00]

If more coaches had Michael Jordan and Shaq IN THEIR PRIMES -- quit being stubborn, that's not even arguable -- you're damn right more coaches would win titles. Not all of them. But the good ones would. You swap teams for MJ and Drexler in that '92 series between Portland and Chicago, and Adelman wins the title, PJ goes home emptyhanded. You swap Shaq and Webber in the 2002 WCF, then Adelman wins the series, PJ goes home emptyhanded (heck Adelman wins if even have a healthy team).

ONE MORE TIME: look at the names of the players who have led their teams to multiple titles -- MJ, Magic/Kareem, Bird, Hakeem, Duncan/Admiral, Shaq/Kobe etc. etc.. Just look at them. Absorb that list for a moment. The greatest players in NBA history. If you have them on your team, IN THEIR PRIMES, and you are a good coach, your chances are excellent. And if you are their coach when they are in their primes and you win with them (as you SHOULD), you don't get fired. You get to repeat. Pile up championships. Get impressionable youth to worship you without considering the context of your titles.

Phil's never won a title he shouldn't have. He's had the best players, he's had them in their prime, he should win the title. And EVERY SINGLE YEAR when he HASN'T had the best players, or they have been too young, too old, too injured, Phil has lost just like any other coach.

So obviously from your POV coaching in the NBA means little to nothing. No coach really exemplifies his or her self. I find that rather absurd. Brick please name me 1 coach who HAS won a title he shouldn't have. Then you can open your argument back up. Atleast for the years I've been alive I can't think of one.

So in 1993-1994 without MJ when he took Scotty to game 7 against the eventual Eastern Conference finals opponent isn't an impressive feat. Honestly who was on that team, Brick. The greatest collection of talent known to man not really. It was scotty and company and they still won 55 games without MJ. Why is that year not an impressive feat considering the loss of the best player on the team. Honestly does a lineup consisting of Scotty Pippen, Grant, Armstrong, Kukoc and whoever played center really give you a sense of "scariness." Yet you view Riley's Winning with Mashburn, Mourning and Hardaway a much more amazing accomplishment yet both teams never won titles. My question to you is why did Riley lose so many times in the playoffs in comparison to Jackson when he had arguably a more talented team as a whole yet Riley's the better coach in your eyes.

Honestly I still think your rationale is flawed, Phil definitely was helped, I never said he wasn't by the great players he had, but alot of coaches have had great players, maybe not to MJ's stature but have accomplished considerably less.

Basically all I've summed up from you Brick is your belief that NBA coaches success is entirely linked with the talent of the players on the team. If coach A and Coach B are relatively the same skilled, coach A and coach B will have similar records and similar success if they coach the same team. Cause obviously coaching philosophhy and strategy have nothing to do with winning titles. Who else ran the triangle and ran it as well as Phil. Please name names. I guess then anyone with Tex Winter could have won the title.

Honestly as I've said before, examples in the NBA are tough but I know examples in other sports like the back of my hand. The one I can think of that won in his first year is Larry Brown who replace Rick Carlisle who is also a great coach. Larry won it in his first year at Detriot with basically the same cast of characters minus Sheed. Larry got the job done, Rick hasn't yet, does that make Larry significantly better at what he did in Detroit? Maybe, now for some reason after years without titles he finally has his, is he that much better of a coach now than let's say 5 years ago? Not really. What he always a good, maybe great coach probally, but unlike Rick, he got the job done and now he's great while Rick is just good. With your logic, Rick would have won the title with the same roster as Larry. Is that really true? I doubt it.

 

[El Duque]

bigbadred00,

The NBA is a players' league first, second, and third. The less talent you have, the more coaching matters. Chicago's gameplans weren't really the biggest thing you worried about when you faced the Bulls in the 90's. You just hoped you could keep a (relative) lid on Pippen and Jordan. That's been the basis of Phil's acumen since he began coaching in the NBA.

 

[VF21]

So obviously from your POV coaching in the NBA means little to nothing. No coach really exemplifies his or her self. I find that rather absurd. Brick please name me 1 coach who HAS won a title he shouldn't have. Then you can open your argument back up. Atleast for the years I've been alive I can't think of one..

Obviously, from your POV, you have no clue about what Bricklayer is trying to say. He's said it time after time after time after time. He NEVER said that coaching means little to nothing.

...

Dude, the horse is dead. I think you can quit beating it...

 

[Ryle]

I look at the fact that prior to Jackson coaching in Chicago and LA both Jordan and Shaq were considered great players but they couldn't lead there teams to a championship. It took Jackson to get them to where they needed to be plain and simple.

 

[Nikos]

P.S. Tim Duncan is not one of the ten best of All Time. He's Top 50, but 2nd tier great. Nobody would take him over Magic, Bird, MJ, Wilt, Russel, Hakeem, Shaq etc. etc.

He has a great chance to finish his career as a Top 10 player of all time no?

 

[Bricklayer]

He has a great chance to finish his career as a Top 10 player of all time no?

I don't really think so. He's very good and very very consistent. But nowhere near as dominant as those super-elite guys at their peaks.

If

MJ
Magic
Bird
Oscar
Kareem
Wilt
Russel
Hakeem
Shaq
Malone
are the Top 10 (just off the top of my head), and guys like Dr. J, Moses, Ewing, Admiral, West, Havilcek, Baylor etc. etc. are the next crew, think he's much more likely to fall somewhere in the teens or twenties than to crack those mega-stars.

 

[Nikos]

Hard to really consider Kareem, Oscar, and Wilt IMO. It was a different era, so I won't factor them into the discussion.

But Malone? Come on, Duncan is right there with Karl in terms of overall impact on the floor. Admiral was basically a very slight cut below Hakeem and only because of the 95 playoffs. Hakeem would get the nod over Admiral cause of that great playoffs in 95, but other than that was he really much better? Admiral and Duncan are pretty close, hard to say who is better there. Admiral had more athleticism, but Duncan has better results. And Shaq is pretty much on the same plain as Hakeem.

Is Hakeem really that much better than a prime Drob, or Duncan? I could see people saying he is better, but a lot better?

Malone to me is not quite as good as Hakeem and no better than Duncan or Drob.

Dr.J is tough, but I always seen him as basically another Clyde Drexler in his days in the NBA. The best OG, but there was no Michael Jordan around. And Moses was the best player on the team when they won the title anyway.

 

[Bricklayer]

Malone gets his inclusion for pure longetivity, although it should be noted that he may be the only PF in my lifetime to average 30ppg in a season -- he was a TREMENDOUS scorer in his prime. 28, 29, 30 ppg year after year after year. Just remarkable. He played at Duncan's level for 15 years. Timmy has only maybe had one really tremendous (as in an all-time) year.

Duncan reminds me more of Patrick Ewing -- tough minded but a little stodgy. Not a renaissance player like an Admiral or Barkley, less skilled overall, but more focused and tougher/healthier and hence in the end maybe more successful. A clear step below Hakeem who exploded after age 30 and stood there alone for a few years as clearly the best player on the planet (not to mention being perhaps the most versatile athlete to ever play that position). And never as dominant as Shaq in his prime who was completely unstoppable.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

Malone gets his inclusion for pure longetivity, although it should be noted that he may be the only PF in my lifetime to average 30ppg in a season -- he was a TREMENDOUS scorer in his prime. 28, 29, 30 ppg year after year after year. Just remarkable. He played at Duncan's level for 15 years. Timmy has only maybe had one really tremendous (as in an all-time) year.

Duncan reminds me more of Patrick Ewing -- tough minded but a little stodgy. Not a renaissance player like an Admiral or Barkley, less skilled overall, but more focused and tougher/healthier and hence in the end maybe more successful. A clear step below Hakeem who exploded after age 30 and stood there alone for a few years as clearly the best player on the planet (not to mention being perhaps the most versatile athlete to ever play that position). And never as dominant as Shaq in his prime who was completely unstoppable.

Ewing was great, but not Duncan...Tim has 2 rings, and maybe a third this year.

 

[SoupNazi]

according to Jim Crandell from FOX40, PJ is not coming to sacramento because he wants too much money.

So I guess the Phil Jackson deal is over and puts the maloofs in a difficult situation now.

 

[Bricklayer]

Ewing was great, but not Duncan...Tim has 2 rings, and maybe a third this year.

Tim would also have a big fat zero if he was running into the Jordan Bulls every year.

I would actually agree that I hold Duncan is slightly higher esteem, but they are similar in being throwback back to basics players lacking the special spark of the very greatest, but powering their teams through hard work and determination.

 

[Nikos]

Duncan is as good as it gets at PF.

Malone wasn't exactly making any finals in years that Jordan wasn't around either. It's not like Malone was losing to historically great teams in the early 90s when he and Stockton couldn't sniff the finals till the late 90s. He was losing to what, the Blazers? Even before they lost to Hakeem in 94 they still never made the finals, so its not like Hakeem was the reason they didn't make it in the early 90s. Portland was very good on both ends as a unit, but Drexler isn't in Duncan's league. And just because you lose to MJ doesn't make you great either.

Even Hakeem despite his MJ esque play in 93-95 had some years where he barely could lead his team in the playoffs, let alone a title. Not saying Duncan is better than Hakeem, but if he keeps winning he certainly can be considered better.

Duncan and Ewing? I was a huge Knicks fan back then (being in the area) and there is no way in hell Ewing close to Duncan. Talk about lacking spark, but there is no way Ewing was the well rounded player Duncan is, even in his best years.

 

[bigbadred00]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2074360

I'm not in the minority when considering TD one of the best of all time at his position. Maybe it's skewed to newer results. Suprises, Amare getting more votes than Webber after what 3 years. But a very interesting article. TD is odds on to get his 3rd title which is light years ahead of the top PF candidates on this list. Brick, I honestly say I don't like TD, but he's just a good, solid player. If you look at his stats this year, his #s are down, not because he is getting older, there down because he doesn't have to play many minutes. He only played around 35. Now in the playoffs, when he has to play, he's produced.

 

[bigbadred00]

Duncan's beaten Shaq. Isn't that the Bar for any big man to really needs to step to? He might not be able to have conquered Jordan in his prime, but he beat Shaq in the playoffs twice, 1 pre-Jackson, 1 during the Jackson years.

 

[Bricklayer]

Uh...who the hell said Duncan wasn't a "good solid player"?

But people forget -- the far greater tendency is to annoint whoever's current because memories fade and people are too young to have watched other guys. To whit:

Duncan at 28:
33.4 min 20.3pts (.496 FG% .670 FT%) 11.1reb 2.7ast 0.7stl 2.6blk 1.9TO

Ewing at 28:
38.3min 26.6pts (.514 FG% .745 FT%) 11.2reb 3.0ast 1.0stl 3.2blk 3.6TO

Malone at 28:
37.7min 28.0pts (.526 FG% .778 FT%) 11.2reb 3.0ast 1.3stl 0.6blk 3.1TO


Timmy is getting himself in the conversation with those guys, but he's certainly not dusting them, and they kept on rolling along right intot heir mid to late 30's.

 

[Bricklayer]

Duncan's beaten Shaq. Isn't that the Bar for any big man to really needs to step to? He might not be able to have conquered Jordan in his prime, but he beat Shaq in the playoffs twice, 1 pre-Jackson, 1 during the Jackson years.

He's gotten crunched by Shaq every time the teams were on the same level. Duncan's WORST argument is his team's performances againt the Lakers (the one really great team of the era) over the years. And then two titles, but over complete patsies in the Finals. Think they'll get this one this year over a very good team and defending champ, but even there one of the weakest defending champs in decades. He's got the titles, but victories over 40-50 win East teams aren't exactly chest thumpers in all-time discussions.

 

[hoopsfan]

^^^ Wow...for once we agree.

 

[Nikos]

Come on you know those stats are misleading with Duncan getting 4-5mpg less playing time -- that is a HUGE difference in the stat department. Not to mention the Spurs of this year played a slower pace than either of the Knicks or Jazz of those years where Malone and Ewing were 28.

Malone was more potent on offense than Duncan, but Duncan's D is clearly superior to Malone's.

Duncan was superior to Ewing on offense and overall in the stat department. Duncan simply had more impact than Ewing.

Malone and Duncan are pretty close if you factor Malone's peak years. But I give the edge to Duncan due to his superior defense.

 

[Nikos]

He's gotten crunched by Shaq every time the teams were on the same level. Duncan's WORST argument is his team's performances againt the Lakers (the one really great team of the era) over the years. And then two titles, but over complete patsies in the Finals. Think they'll get this one this year over a very good team and defending champ, but even there one of the weakest defending champs in decades. He's got the titles, but victories over 40-50 win East teams aren't exactly chest thumpers in all-time discussions.

Duncan's team was not on the same level of Shaq's in 2002, and Duncan still put up great numbers. Their second best player was also not healthy in 2002 (Drob). How is that destroying Duncan? When Duncan had a healthy Drob who didn't have a half functional back he swept Shaq out of the playoffs. True Duncan might have given up down 3-0 to the Lakers in 2001, but people forget DA was hurt, and Drob wasn't exactly healthy that year either. Not that the Spurs would have won, but Duncan's support certainly wasn't equal in 2001 when he had to rely on a 38 year old Porter and ready to retire Sean Elliot to hit shots. Antonio Daniels was the second best player of that series for goodness sake.

 

[Nikos]

I agree the Spurs didn't beat any great teams in the finals. But I don't exactly consider the Lakers beating the weaker version of those Nets of 03, the Sixers, and Pacers to be stalwarts either. Not that the Lakers weren't a great mini dynasty, but to be honest the Kings at their best were as good as they were. Lakers never faced anyone as good as the Kings of 0102 in there 3 year title run.

EDIT: 9900 Blazers were good, but that was also a dogfight. 0001 was a joke in my mind, no good teams had any sort of chemistry yet. Kings were up and coming, Spurs had an aging Drob and old role players.

 

[Bricklayer]

Patrick and Malone were BOTH more prolific offensively than Duncan during their primes. Malone MUCH more so.


Duncan's advantages:

vs. Malone
1) little better rebounder
2) obviously bigger/much better shotblocker than Malone

vs. Ewing
1) little better rebounder (although hard to factor in the Oakley factor sucking up a ton of boards)
2) better/more willing passer

Duncan's disadvantages:

-- much less prolific scorer than Malone
-- slightly less prolific scorer than Ewing (considerably less than Ewing at 27/28)
-- free throw woes
-- lacks the quick hands of Malone in particular that racked up big steal numbers, but Ewing averaged 1.5stls himself in his youth

Ewing is the appropriate comparison I think. If I said that next year Duncan was going to average 24.0pts 11.2rebs 1.9ast 1.1stl 3.0blk few people would even lift an eyebrow -- maybe steals a tad high, assists a tad low. And those were Ewing's numbers from his 29th year. Lot of similarities.

 

[Nikos]

How was Ewing more prolific offensively? He put up more pts because he played in higher paced offense, or rather a higher paced league. Ewing's best offensive season was on par with Duncan's best offensive season in terms of efficiency and production relative to league pace/efficiency of their respective eras.

Aside from Ewing in 1989-90 he was never superior to Duncan on offense. Better shotblocker in his time than Duncan is, but aside from that Duncan is superior in almost every aspect of the game. More efficient and consistent. Bigger impact if you factor both sides of the ball and all aspects of the game.

I agree with your point on Malone somewhat. He was superior to Duncan on offense. But I think Duncan has the superior edge on D to make up for the edge Malone had on O. Sure Malone had better hands on D, but Duncan is a MUCH better help defender and can anchor a defense all by himself. No Duncan team will ever not be elite on defense. Put some solid defenders with him and you have an elite defense. He might not make as many shot blocks or steals as Hakeem but his impact is still bigger than Malone's was on D.

 

[bigbadred00]

Duncan's Spurs scored 96 PPG this year. He scored 20.2 PPG in 35 MPG. In the Playoffs, this year he is averaging 24.8 and 12.0 RPG in 37 MPG including games where he took off for veruss Denver.

Ewing averaged 26.6 in 40+ MPG for a team that scored 103 PPG. If it really matters. Ewing never led his team to a title. Really in 2002, the teams were comparable. Are you serious?

This was the team that lost to the 2002 Lakers, and is similar to the 2001, and 2002 teams.

Lineup was Parker in his first year, David who was at the tailspin of his career, Daniels, Steve Smith, and Rose. Honestly is that comparable to the Lakers dynasty teams. You have to be kidding me. Parker emerged next year as a much better player, so did Stephen Jackson and for the only time that year, Manu Ginobili played well versus another team in the playoffs.

Duncan's accolades of what 8 First team All-NBA teams and 7 All-NBA first defensive teams are records by themselves as well as the 2 MVPs. Ewing can't even compete with those stats and was never the best player in the league. NEVER. Duncan is arguably the best player in the league since Jordan retired (you can argue Shaq if you want to, but if Duncan wins 1 this year, Duncan's titles = Shaq's titles, and he's younger and has a very capable team.

 

[Bricklayer]

Duncan's Spurs scored 96 PPG this year. He scored 20.2 PPG in 35 MPG. In the Playoffs, this year he is averaging 24.8 and 12.0 RPG in 37 MPG including games where he took off for veruss Denver.

Ewing averaged 26.6 in 40+ MPG for a team that scored 103 PPG. If it really matters. Ewing never led his team to a title. Really in 2002, the teams were comparable. Are you serious?

This was the team that lost to the 2002 Lakers, and is similar to the 2001, and 2002 teams.

Lineup was Parker in his first year, David who was at the tailspin of his career, Daniels, Steve Smith, and Rose. Honestly is that comparable to the Lakers dynasty teams. You have to be kidding me. Parker emerged next year as a much better player, so did Stephen Jackson and for the only time that year, Manu Ginobili played well versus another team in the playoffs.

Duncan's accolades of what 8 First team All-NBA teams and 7 All-NBA first defensive teams are records by themselves as well as the 2 MVPs. Ewing can't even compete with those stats and was never the best player in the league. NEVER. Duncan is arguably the best player in the league since Jordan retired (you can argue Shaq if you want to, but if Duncan wins 1 this year, Duncan's titles = Shaq's titles, and he's younger and has a very capable team.

You started off with a decent point and then descended into a confusing ramble.

1) Yes, Shaq was CONSIDERABLY better than Duncan when Shaq was still in his prime. Clearly more dominant. 29pts 13rebs all-time dominant. Duncan has never played at close to that level. To whatever degree Duncan has surpassed him its because Shaq has gotten old and injured.

2) If young Hakeem, young David, young Shaq, young Ewing, young Zo etc. etc. had all been Duncan's contemporaries, let alone young Mailman, young Barkey, JORDAN etc. etc. etc., then Tim Duncan wouldn't be anybody's best player in the league either. In fact he's still far from universally designated as such. One of the guys, yes. THE guy? Not unless you live in Texas.

3) the fascination with 2002 is amusing since I did not mention that year. Spurs got their asses handed to them, yes. But the great strength on strength clashes were in '01 and '04, and both times the Spurs were right at the top of the league all season and then completely collapsed and lost 4 straight to get swept out of the series vs. the Lakeshow. The only time they beat the PJ Lakers was in '03 when the Lakers were a faded 50 win mess and the Spurs were clearly the superior team. It does not make Duncan a "loser" that the Spurs struggled so badly against the Lakers, but there is certainly next to no room to use getting repeatedly punked -- not beat, but embarrassed -- by the one great team of an era as proof that you yourself are great.

4) since I clearly provided the minutes number for Ewing at 28 (37.7), there is no call to go around trying to distort it into 40+. It was about 4min more than Tim this season. As Ewing was every bit as efficient as Duncan with his offense -- career .504 shooter and .740 from the FT line to Tim's .507 and .690 (and that's including the numbers from Ewing's declining years which stage Duncan has not even reached yet) and took no more shots to get his points (indeed Duncan was less efficient at .496 and .670 than Ewing's .514 and .745), you can feel free to explain how his team's faster pace that year is a demerit for him.

5) Nikos -- if you took the combined top 7 years scoring wise for Ewing and Duncan, 6 of the 7 would belong to Ewing. Hence more prolific. Not dramatically so as in the Mailman/Duncan comparison (Karl had 11 seasons where he scored more than Tim did in his BEST year). But the difference between a 22pt scorer and a 24pt scorer, and the difference between a guy who broke out to a career best 25.5ppg, and a guy who broke out to a career best 28.6ppg. Through his prime, Patrick was a more prolific scorer than Tim (and as noted, just as efficient).

 

[Nikos]

3) the fascination with 2002 is amusing since I did not mention that year. Spurs got their asses handed to them, yes. But the great strength on strength clashes were in '01 and '04, and both times the Spurs were right at the top of the league all season and then completely collapsed and lost 4 straight to get swept out of the series vs. the Lakeshow. The only time they beat the PJ Lakers was in '03 when the Lakers were a faded 50 win mess and the Spurs were clearly the superior team.

Derek Anderson and Drob being injured might have had something to do with that? Kind of like Peja for the Kings in 2002? In fact Drob in 2002 was completely hurt and didn't even play in a lot of games that playoffs, and he was their second best player on offense AND defense -- maybe even the best on D. Why is this fact ignored?

Secondly, its funny how bad you claim the Lakers were in 03, yet they finished the second half of the season with one of the best records of all the league. They had a nice large winning streak, that the Spurs broke during that regular season. Keep in mind the Lakers started off poor when Shaq was hurt early in the year. By the time the season ended Kobe and Shaq were still dominating enough on offense to compete for the title even with mediocre role play. No team was going to beat the crap out of them even if the role players were mediocre. That team could have competed with even a healthy Kings team if Webber was healthy, but likely would have lost that year due to the Kings increased experience.

The Lakers swept the weak competetion in 2001, and you considered them a great team despite their even WEAK regular season SIMILIAR to 2003? To me that is almost like a double standard. Your rationale for the 03 Lakers not being good was only in the fact they lost in the playoffs and had a mediocre regular season? I tend to think the competetion actually was getting better, and the Lakers role players might have slipped a bit. But a lot of that regular season rust was gone by the time the Lakers hit the playoffs. They were an excellent team when healthy, maybe not dominant, but not exactly weak.

Bottom line, the Lakers were bad in 2001 in the regular season relative to their playoffs, competetion was weak, no team in 2001 that they faced were nearly as good as the Spurs of 03 or the Kings of 01-03. Had it been there is no way in hell they sweep through either of those teams, even in their best years. Actually I doubt any Laker team would dominate the best of the Kings and Spurs of the past few seasons.

5) Nikos -- if you took the combined top 7 years scoring wise for Ewing and Duncan, 6 of the 7 would belong to Ewing. Hence more prolific. Not dramatically so as in the Mailman/Duncan comparison (Karl had 11 seasons where he scored more than Tim did in his BEST year). But the difference between a 22pt scorer and a 24pt scorer, and the difference between a guy who broke out to a career best 25.5ppg, and a guy who broke out to a career best 28.6ppg. Through his prime, Patrick was a more prolific scorer than Tim (and as noted, just as efficient).

You are talking total fantasy stats, but the reality is the Pace in the league was faster in Ewing's day. Not to mention Duncan played less minutes. If you go on a Per minute basis by the stats AND factor Pace of their respective teams and of the league, Duncan's past 4 seasons are greater than any season Ewing has ever had.

I just don't value guys for a certain point total in the regular season when they aren't doing it efficiently like an MJ. Ewing was not any more efficient than Duncan, and he certainly didn't produce more per minute. So I would confidently say Duncan was clearly the superior player to Ewing.

Malone vs Duncan makes for an excellent argument IMO. Malone was the superior passer, and offensively was more efficient. But personally I think Duncan a considerable edge on defense in terms of value to a team. He may not have been a much better one on one defender, but the ability to play excellent help D and block shots is the difference to me when comparing Duncan and Malone.

 

[bigbadred00]

Why is it others popular belief that Duncan is also the best ever? Yes offensively he might not be the best offensive player ever. But on both sides of the ball he was by far the best. I guess the only comparisons on both sides of the ball to Duncan at the 4/5 position and of similar age are Garnett who is also one of the best ever who he continually smokes, Webber who some may argue was better when healthy in his prime, and now Amare and Dirk. In an era of big men, there are a lot of great big men in the NBA today. Maybe not centers, maybe not to the level of Hakeem or David, but there are on average more quality 4s in the league today then there were in the past.

Your right last year they did get smoked by the Lakers team. The Lakers were a forced to be wreckened with Malone and Payton last year. I don't know how many games Malone missed, but when he did play including playoffs they won 80% of there games which is good for a 65 win team which would have been better than the Spurs regular season team.

You act like all those you listed never failed. Other than Jordan, who failed repeatedly and late in his career, everyone one of those you listed never played significantly better than it's competition throughout his career. Hakeem never got past the WCF during the Jordan years. David never got passed the WCF during the Jordan years either. David never won a title when he was the best player on his team. I guess Duncan is benefit of his surroundings much like Kobe was. If Duncan were to let's say have gone to an "appropriate" #1 draft pick team we might not be mentioning him in these levels.

But his accolades are sick and he's only 28. If he continues or even slows down a little it's better than all but few careers. Ewing made the all Nba first team once. Duncan did 7 times in 7 years. I guess you can point to the league is much weaker, I guess it is, but there is more parity than ever in the league.

There is no fascination with 2002. 2000-2002, the Spurs team wasn't that strong. Phil + Shaq has always made a great combination. I never denied that. The Spurs with Daniels and others only did it once. Obviously the current team, with 2 finals in 3 years is more talented than the one in the past.

If you want to argue peers, I guess you can argue Duncan is in a weak period, or is he just that much better than them in the playoffs? Jordan is argued by many to be the best ever, so was Magic, they too lost in the playoffs to great teams. Why does Duncan have to be that much better. You act like Karl never lost, repeatedly to superior teams, does that deminish Karl's stature. Hakeem's Rocket's never did much e/c the 2 years they won titles in. Why isn't that mentioned? Why couldn't Hakeem make his teams that much better? That's obviously what Duncan does.

On top of his GM picking well, trading well, Duncan has made less than top talent into top talent in the league. Isn't that the true mark of a winner and one of the best ever, the ability to make your teammates that better. Please tell me you were one of the ones that thought Tony and Manu and other's would be potential all-stars in the league before there arrival. Obviously there still good without him, but with him, as we've seen lately he's made them great.

 

[Gargamel]

That was one helluva post, Bricklayer. I've already worn that discussion with Nikos to death and he wasn't any more convincing this time than he was last. If he thinks the 03 Lakes were comparable to the 01 Lakes, he wasn't paying attention.

 

[VF21]

I'm sorry. I must be confused. I thought this thread was for the Phil Jackson talks/rumors...

::VF21 leaves, scratching head::

 

[Gargamel]

EDIT: 9900 Blazers were good, but that was also a dogfight. 0001 was a joke in my mind, no good teams had any sort of chemistry yet. Kings were up and coming, Spurs had an aging Drob and old role players.

Lol. That joke of a #1 overall seeded Spurs team in 2001.

Btw, Kobe scored 37 ppg against Derek Anderson that season. And 2nd, Derek didn't miss the entire series. The Spurs flat out got humiliated. The whole Lakers team was so dominant (Fisher went 15-20 from the arc in that series) that the Spurs gave up after Gm2. Don't sit there and claim after the fact that the #1 overall seed was weak. The only thing weak is the claim itself.

 

[Gargamel]

Duncan's beaten Shaq. Isn't that the Bar for any big man to really needs to step to? He might not be able to have conquered Jordan in his prime, but he beat Shaq in the playoffs twice, 1 pre-Jackson, 1 during the Jackson years.

1999 Lakers = 4th seed. Coaching change, Derek Harper, JR Reid starters during the series. Rodman fiasco. Mid-season trade nixing Jones for Rice who never regained his form pre-elbow surgery and couldn't play off of Shaq/Kobe well.

2003 Lakers = 5th seed. 3-9 start. Only 16-14 in the first 30 games after Shaq returned. Shaq bothered by conditioning and toe problem all season long. Horry and Fox were ancient bodywise as starters on a legit title contender. Horry shot .005 from the arc during the two playoff series. Even at that, they took the Spurs to 6 games -- 7 games if not for a clanking 3 by Horry.

Duncan could never beat LA when they were both at a comparable level. Matter of fact, the Spurs were methodically taken apart in 2001, 2002, and 2004. I think the fact that Brick, as an unbiased observer, is claiming this makes this argument all the more solid.