List all the big men in history better than Duncan
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
70sdude
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Feb 2009
Posts: 4567

PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:05 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I didn't compare them to Nash and Harden. Cousy was a below average shooter in his own time. Baylor did a little better, but he had seasons below the league average or right at the league average.

Anyway, your comments make my point about direct translation. We have to imagine what these guys would have been like in a game that requires a different skill set. They might be able to adapt and succeed, or they might not. I doubt that Cousy could have done it, because 6' 1" PGs don't make it in the current NBA unless they have tremendous athleticism and great shooting skills. I can imagine Baylor carving out some sort of role, but his size makes him too small to be a rebounder, and he really didn't have the skill set of a guard.

Having said that, I'd never write off someone who has elite competitive drive. Just the same, there are a lot of guys with elite competitive drive who just don't make it in the NBA.


I drew the comparison of Cousy and Baylor to Nash and Harden intentionally. Each modern player here represents the type of guy the older player represents in his own era's game, and are similarly sized and athletically gifted, and were league stars of essentially the same order.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13708

PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:07 am    Post subject:

Wino wrote:
Dreamshake wrote:
Of the ones I've seen:

Cap
Dream

The ones I haven't seen but believe in:

Russell
Wilt

I go back and forth between him and Shaq.

I don't see any legit argument for any other big ahead of him. Maybe Moses Malone.


Shaq destroyed Duncan, in Duncan's prime.


So what would you consider what Duncan did to Shaq in 99 (29/11/3/1/2 on 51%) and 2003 (28/12/5/1 on 53%)? Duncan wasn't even in his prime in 99.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wino
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Jun 2002
Posts: 9674
Location: San Diego

PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:07 am    Post subject:

70sdude wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
No love for Mikan winning 5 titles in six years for the Lakers, while everyone gives Russell a free pass to the top of the all time list.


I saw George play and I've seen footage of some of his games. He was a bit of a big awkward mover. He had a few shots (a nice straight-arm running hook principally). He blocked shots well. He may have been the game's first excellent very tall man. I don't recall any other guys over 6'8" he competed against. The game of his era was quite different than what we saw just ten years later. It was a rougher game and it was a segregated game for the most part. Mo Stokes, Bill Russell, and Willie Naulls became the game's first great black players in this league just as Mikan's championship level career closed in 1955.

Mikan's success is undeniable in terms of his era-specific greatness.

There's a difference though between that and projecting (guessing at) his relative competitive greatness with modern players, in terms of skills, strength, speed, quickness, hoops IQ (all the things which comprise greatness as a whole.) The player mix has changed radically. The rules have changed radically. The training methods and travel conditions have changed. The pay has changed. Medical support has changed. Staff has changed radically in the NBA.

I just think we should resist going back to 1950 and going into much detail at all about the transferability of the games of that era's stars to a period seventy years forward.

In general,we're probably safe to think Wilt could probably do awfully well today. So too I think some specific guys such as Cousy, Pettit, Russell, Gola and Baylor would prosper rather welll. Don Barksdale, Willie Naulls, and Mo Stokes ? Yeah, they could compete too I think. When one gets down to Vern Mikklesen, Clyde Lovellette, Dolph Schayes, Mel Hutchins and Ray Felix - gosh, I really start to have serious doubt that any part of their game transfers across time to the modern one very well. But who knows !


Pretty much agree. Not sure where that line is exactly, but certainly sometime in the late 50's players started to have skills that would transfer much better than before. Mikan was a very awkward style player, IMHO. He was so much bigger than anyone else, nobody could guard him or score on him with much ease. But Shaq would destroy him and make him look worse than Sacre.


But you start getting into guys like Russell, Cousy, West, etc. and those guys would be stellar players in todays game, I have no doubt. On top of it, they would have the benefits of all the modern methods, some of them might even be better now, than they were then.
_________________
Never argue with stupid people! They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!! - Twain
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:11 am    Post subject:

Dreamshake wrote:
Skill sets are acquired via practice and putting the time in. What makes you think a player with that type of dedication in the stone ages wouldn't acquire those skills in an era where it's easier to pick them up? If Jerry West is dedicated enough to hone his skills in his time I have no doubt the same person with the same mindset could hone skills in a time with instructional videos, adequate facilities, specialized coaches, camps, etc.

I know it's all assuming but the assuming clearly favors those who succeeded with less available to them, IMO. When looking at older players compared to today, if their body type would work today then I assume the same individual would pick up the necessary skills to be dominant today. The mindset to excel and best everyone is the most overlooked part.


That's possible, but again, not everyone has the natural ability to do some of these things at an elite level. In the case of Cousy, he wasn't an elite shooter in his own time. Why would you assume that he could develop elite shooting skills today? There are PGs who manage to succeed in the modern game with poor shooting skills (Rubio, Kidd for much of his career), but they aren't 6' 1". I have a really hard time imagining Bob Cousy making it in the NBA today.

Admittedly, Cousy and Baylor are low hanging fruit for my position. You can make a better argument for West or Russell or Oscar. If we had a time machine to bring some of those guys to 2015 in their prime, there is a decent chance that some of them would manage to succeed. However, the only player from the '50s or '60s who I have no doubt about is Wilt. Size and mobility in a big man are timeless. I don't think he'd dominate like some people say (that argument has been worn out in other threads), but I have no doubt that he would be one of the better centers in the league, and possibly even the best.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wino
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Jun 2002
Posts: 9674
Location: San Diego

PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:24 am    Post subject:

Dreamshake wrote:
Wino wrote:
Dreamshake wrote:
Of the ones I've seen:

Cap
Dream

The ones I haven't seen but believe in:

Russell
Wilt

I go back and forth between him and Shaq.

I don't see any legit argument for any other big ahead of him. Maybe Moses Malone.


Shaq destroyed Duncan, in Duncan's prime.


So what would you consider what Duncan did to Shaq in 99 (29/11/3/1/2 on 51%) and 2003 (28/12/5/1 on 53%)? Duncan wasn't even in his prime in 99.


Well in 99, the Lakers had not jelled yet as a team, they were still trying to figure out how to win as a team.

In 2003, stats wise, they were pretty close and the Lakers were burned out after three post seasons going to the finals and winning. Winning in 2003 would been a 4-peat and that is a very hard thing to do.

I just go by what I saw on the floor, and it always looked to me like Duncan got pushed around pretty easily by Shaq. I do believe that Duncan was a very good player, of course, and he always found ways to have a big impact.

Maybe destroyed was too hard a word, just think Shaq got the better of the matchup over the course of his career.
_________________
Never argue with stupid people! They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!! - Twain
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13708

PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:07 am    Post subject:

Wino wrote:

Well in 99, the Lakers had not jelled yet as a team, they were still trying to figure out how to win as a team.


And the Spurs were gelled in 01 and 02?

As far as the rest of the response, I can make excuses for why SA lost playoff series to LA as well...

Wino wrote:
Maybe destroyed was too hard a word, just think Shaq got the better of the matchup over the course of his career.


Aside from 99 and 03, for "other reasons".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner

PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:31 am    Post subject:

Wino wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
No love for Mikan winning 5 titles in six years for the Lakers, while everyone gives Russell a free pass to the top of the all time list.


That is because Russell is a much better player. Jeez, just go watch them. Mikan would be a stiff in todays game because he can't move like modern players.

Russell would kick butt now, just like he did then. But Russell is NOT a ball dominant big man who is gonna score 25+ ppg.


Russell was athletic, but that doesn't guarantee a similar level of success in today's game. The game in 60s as well as the 50s was so different than what we've had over the past fifteen- twenty years that it's pointless to try to make the time machine argument. It makes more sense to compare dominance versus the respective era that they played.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LandsbergerRules
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 11197
Location: The Other Perspective

PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:27 am    Post subject:

fiendishoc wrote:
Wino wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
No love for Mikan winning 5 titles in six years for the Lakers, while everyone gives Russell a free pass to the top of the all time list.


That is because Russell is a much better player. Jeez, just go watch them. Mikan would be a stiff in todays game because he can't move like modern players.

Russell would kick butt now, just like he did then. But Russell is NOT a ball dominant big man who is gonna score 25+ ppg.


Russell was athletic, but that doesn't guarantee a similar level of success in today's game. The game in 60s as well as the 50s was so different than what we've had over the past fifteen- twenty years that it's pointless to try to make the time machine argument. It makes more sense to compare dominance versus the respective era that they played.


You're right. Nothing's guaranteed. But comparing Mikan to Russell athletically, it's no contest. Russell is much, much closer to the players today athletically than Mikan was.
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/138/7/f/russdunkolympics_by_dantheman9758-d506gc1.gif (Great gif, dantheman9758!)

_________________
"Chick lived and breathed Lakers basketball…but he was also fair and objective and called every game the way it was played."
-from Chick: His Unpublished Memoirs and the Memories of Those Who Knew Him
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2015 3:47 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Dreamshake wrote:
Skill sets are acquired via practice and putting the time in. What makes you think a player with that type of dedication in the stone ages wouldn't acquire those skills in an era where it's easier to pick them up? If Jerry West is dedicated enough to hone his skills in his time I have no doubt the same person with the same mindset could hone skills in a time with instructional videos, adequate facilities, specialized coaches, camps, etc.

I know it's all assuming but the assuming clearly favors those who succeeded with less available to them, IMO. When looking at older players compared to today, if their body type would work today then I assume the same individual would pick up the necessary skills to be dominant today. The mindset to excel and best everyone is the most overlooked part.


That's possible, but again, not everyone has the natural ability to do some of these things at an elite level. In the case of Cousy, he wasn't an elite shooter in his own time. Why would you assume that he could develop elite shooting skills today? There are PGs who manage to succeed in the modern game with poor shooting skills (Rubio, Kidd for much of his career), but they aren't 6' 1". I have a really hard time imagining Bob Cousy making it in the NBA today.

Admittedly, Cousy and Baylor are low hanging fruit for my position. You can make a better argument for West or Russell or Oscar. If we had a time machine to bring some of those guys to 2015 in their prime, there is a decent chance that some of them would manage to succeed. However, the only player from the '50s or '60s who I have no doubt about is Wilt. Size and mobility in a big man are timeless. I don't think he'd dominate like some people say (that argument has been worn out in other threads), but I have no doubt that he would be one of the better centers in the league, and possibly even the best.



Yeah, it's hard to see Cousy making the NBA today. In his own time, he was considered a bad shooter by his contemporaries. It's hard to imagine a scenario where he would become even a decent shooter in the modern NBA. I mean, it's possible, but I don't see any logic in assuming that would happen.

Then you have a 6'1" point guard who was considered a great passer, a bad shooter, and a poor defender during his own time. He'd be a shorter Steve Nash without a jump shot.

Cousy seems like the type of guy today who might be a college star in the right situation, but would probably go undrafted and be an invitee who was cut during training camp.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 4:03 am    Post subject:

70sdude wrote:
I drew the comparison of Cousy and Baylor to Nash and Harden intentionally. Each modern player here represents the type of guy the older player represents in his own era's game, and are similarly sized and athletically gifted, and were league stars of essentially the same order.


If you drew the comparison intentionally, it was an error on your part. Cousy was a below average shooter in his own time. Nash was an elite shooter in his time. I realize that you would like to fantasize that Cousy would be Nash, but no, he wouldn't. Cousy was a guy who never shot 40% from the field in his whole career. In his MVP season, he shot .378 from the field. The league average that year ('57) was .380. As an undersized PG, Cousy probably wouldn't even make an NBA roster today.

The same is true for Baylor and Harden, though Baylor would have a better chance of carving out a role in the modern NBA. He was an average to below average shooter percentage wise, though he had big numbers due to volume. Basically, he was a high volume, low efficiency chucker. It was his rebounding that really made him special. Meanwhile, Harden is a guard who is an elite shooter on the perimeter. You fantasize that Baylor could be Harden, but Baylor had few of Harden's guard skills. He was a forward, and he would be too small to play that position today.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
70sdude
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Feb 2009
Posts: 4567

PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:04 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
70sdude wrote:
I drew the comparison of Cousy and Baylor to Nash and Harden intentionally. Each modern player here represents the type of guy the older player represents in his own era's game, and are similarly sized and athletically gifted, and were league stars of essentially the same order.


If you drew the comparison intentionally, it was an error on your part. Cousy was a below average shooter in his own time. Nash was an elite shooter in his time. I realize that you would like to fantasize that Cousy would be Nash, but no, he wouldn't. Cousy was a guy who never shot 40% from the field in his whole career. In his MVP season, he shot .378 from the field. The league average that year ('57) was .380. As an undersized PG, Cousy probably wouldn't even make an NBA roster today.

The same is true for Baylor and Harden, though Baylor would have a better chance of carving out a role in the modern NBA. He was an average to below average shooter percentage wise, though he had big numbers due to volume. Basically, he was a high volume, low efficiency chucker. It was his rebounding that really made him special. Meanwhile, Harden is a guard who is an elite shooter on the perimeter. You fantasize that Baylor could be Harden, but Baylor had few of Harden's guard skills. He was a forward, and he would be too small to play that position today.


The error of your ways is obvious. I realize that you would like to fantasize that Cousy would not be capable of competing in today's game, but you'd be wrong to do it. Cousy's prowess would translate well to today's game, as an elite dribbler, defender, and lead guard and passer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100

PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:22 am    Post subject:

70sdude wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
70sdude wrote:
I drew the comparison of Cousy and Baylor to Nash and Harden intentionally. Each modern player here represents the type of guy the older player represents in his own era's game, and are similarly sized and athletically gifted, and were league stars of essentially the same order.


If you drew the comparison intentionally, it was an error on your part. Cousy was a below average shooter in his own time. Nash was an elite shooter in his time. I realize that you would like to fantasize that Cousy would be Nash, but no, he wouldn't. Cousy was a guy who never shot 40% from the field in his whole career. In his MVP season, he shot .378 from the field. The league average that year ('57) was .380. As an undersized PG, Cousy probably wouldn't even make an NBA roster today.

The same is true for Baylor and Harden, though Baylor would have a better chance of carving out a role in the modern NBA. He was an average to below average shooter percentage wise, though he had big numbers due to volume. Basically, he was a high volume, low efficiency chucker. It was his rebounding that really made him special. Meanwhile, Harden is a guard who is an elite shooter on the perimeter. You fantasize that Baylor could be Harden, but Baylor had few of Harden's guard skills. He was a forward, and he would be too small to play that position today.


The error of your ways is obvious. I realize that you would like to fantasize that Cousy would not be capable of competing in today's game, but you'd be wrong to do it. Cousy's prowess would translate well to today's game, as an elite dribbler, defender, and lead guard and passer.
While Cousy was elite relative to his era, there are Jr. High School players who can dribble, shoot, defend and pass better than Cousy in absolute terms.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:41 am    Post subject:

JerryMagicKobe wrote:
70sdude wrote:
The error of your ways is obvious. I realize that you would like to fantasize that Cousy would not be capable of competing in today's game, but you'd be wrong to do it. Cousy's prowess would translate well to today's game, as an elite dribbler, defender, and lead guard and passer.

While Cousy was elite relative to his era, there are Jr. High School players who can dribble, shoot, defend and pass better than Cousy in absolute terms.

Yep. I'm open to the idea that some of the guys from the '60s might make it in the modern NBA if they were directly translated to the present day. But I'm surprised to have someone go all-in over Bob Cousy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Cutheon
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 12111
Location: Bay Area

PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:48 am    Post subject:

^ I think that rationale is a subconscious response to the unarticulated argument that players like Wilt wouldn't translate, so to speak, if his competition would not similarly translate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:14 am    Post subject:

Cutheon wrote:
^ I think that rationale is a subconscious response to the unarticulated argument that players like Wilt wouldn't translate, so to speak, if his competition would not similarly translate.


I don't think that many people argue that Wilt wouldn't translate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Cutheon
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 12111
Location: Bay Area

PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:17 am    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
Cutheon wrote:
^ I think that rationale is a subconscious response to the unarticulated argument that players like Wilt wouldn't translate, so to speak, if his competition would not similarly translate.


I don't think that many people argue that Wilt wouldn't translate.


I don't think so either, but I think the response (that Cousy and others would) is an attempt to bolster the extent to which Wilt would. Again, I think it anticipates an unmade criticism (or, at the least, an unconvincing criticism). I don't really see another rationale for it - at least, not one intimately tied to nostalgia and confounding, illogical biases.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Voices
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 8287
Location: Oxnard, Ca.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:20 pm    Post subject: Re: List all the big men in history better than Duncan

SuperboyReformed wrote:
I'm so tired of the Duncan over-praising.
He's not a top 10 of all time player, he's not even a top 10 big man.
So here's my list.

My view: Duncan is a standard big man, legit 7-footer, plays the big man role. He knew he'd have better career accolades if he is considered a PF, so that's his gimmick. He's really just a center, who is kind of soft and whatever. If people considered him a center, he'd be criticized a lot more.

Big men better than Duncan:
Wilt
Kareem
Shaq
Hakeem
Russell
Walton
Ewing
Mikan
Sabonis
Mchale
Drob
Sampson
Deandre


That's quite a list and Duncan belongs on that list, he is a truly all time great player.
_________________
.....
.....
ALTHOUGH HE STANDS 6 FEET 2 INCHES, JIM BUSS ATTENDED JOCKEY SCHOOL WHEN HE WAS 20.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Voices
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 8287
Location: Oxnard, Ca.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:22 pm    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
Cutheon wrote:
^ I think that rationale is a subconscious response to the unarticulated argument that players like Wilt wouldn't translate, so to speak, if his competition would not similarly translate.


I don't think that many people argue that Wilt wouldn't translate.



Yep! I'm not going there.
_________________
.....
.....
ALTHOUGH HE STANDS 6 FEET 2 INCHES, JIM BUSS ATTENDED JOCKEY SCHOOL WHEN HE WAS 20.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:41 am    Post subject:

If KG had Popovich coaching him his whole career, he would have been just as successful (if not more) in my opinion.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:06 am    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
If KG had Popovich coaching him his whole career, he would have been just as successful (if not more) in my opinion.


Maybe, but Tim's personality (or lack thereof) is a big factor. KG's ways can be grating, and no telling if that would destroy the cohesiveness there.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
70sdude
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Feb 2009
Posts: 4567

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:18 am    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
If KG had Popovich coaching him his whole career, he would have been just as successful (if not more) in my opinion.


Nah. Duncan's the more ideal fit to Pop and the better player as well. Garnett's inability to restrain his megalomania would have interfered with the chemistry Pop creates.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
70sdude
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Feb 2009
Posts: 4567

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:19 am    Post subject:

Cutheon wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
Cutheon wrote:
^ I think that rationale is a subconscious response to the unarticulated argument that players like Wilt wouldn't translate, so to speak, if his competition would not similarly translate.


I don't think that many people argue that Wilt wouldn't translate.


I don't think so either, but I think the response (that Cousy and others would) is an attempt to bolster the extent to which Wilt would. Again, I think it anticipates an unmade criticism (or, at the least, an unconvincing criticism). I don't really see another rationale for it - at least, not one intimately tied to nostalgia and confounding, illogical biases.


NO, that's not it at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LandsbergerRules
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 11197
Location: The Other Perspective

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:09 am    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
kikanga wrote:
If KG had Popovich coaching him his whole career, he would have been just as successful (if not more) in my opinion.


Maybe, but Tim's personality (or lack thereof) is a big factor. KG's ways can be grating, and no telling if that would destroy the cohesiveness there.


Prime against prime, I think KG is just as good as TD. Maybe even better. But I agree Duncan's ability to suppress his ego for Pop and be a good soldier made him better in the long term than Garnett.
_________________
"Chick lived and breathed Lakers basketball…but he was also fair and objective and called every game the way it was played."
-from Chick: His Unpublished Memoirs and the Memories of Those Who Knew Him
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4083

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:14 am    Post subject:

LandsbergerRules wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
kikanga wrote:
If KG had Popovich coaching him his whole career, he would have been just as successful (if not more) in my opinion.


Maybe, but Tim's personality (or lack thereof) is a big factor. KG's ways can be grating, and no telling if that would destroy the cohesiveness there.


Prime against prime, I think KG is just as good as TD. Maybe even better. But I agree Duncan's ability to suppress his ego for Pop and be a good soldier made him better in the long term than Garnett.

i agree with kikanga.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:01 am    Post subject:

LandsbergerRules wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
kikanga wrote:
If KG had Popovich coaching him his whole career, he would have been just as successful (if not more) in my opinion.


Maybe, but Tim's personality (or lack thereof) is a big factor. KG's ways can be grating, and no telling if that would destroy the cohesiveness there.


Prime against prime, I think KG is just as good as TD. Maybe even better. But I agree Duncan's ability to suppress his ego for Pop and be a good soldier made him better in the long term than Garnett.


Also, KG is rather anemic in the post. He prefers pick and pops. Duncan's ability to still post was a major impetus for their 5 rings.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB