Originally Posted by DMAVS41
You either didn't watch Bird or haven't paid attention to Duncan to think it's absurd to say Duncan.
I could give you a ton of reasons, but winning 4 titles and winning 50 or more games 14 consecutive years (never been done before...previous high was 12)...all while playing with by far the least amount of help any superstar to win that amount has had...I'll take Duncan.
I can't even imagine what the results would have been like if Duncan had played on teams even close to as talented as Bird's Celtics.
They don't win in 81, much less in 84.
Duncan has been a much different player since 2005. You could take the injuries that he kept hushed when going back to 2005, but since then his role and option status has been the been one of the guys on the team, in an equal opportunity offense. Which is fine, Jordan had the same thing happen in 1991. But his court status was still the #1 guy. Duncan was the best player and a player within the system. From 2005/06 on he was nowhere near the same player. The offense did not go thru him the same way and he didn't have the level of responsibility that is associated with his peak. He always played the right way but he was much more conservative from then on. Honestly, a valid reason (as justification) could very well have been not having Robinson next to him and instead of having Nesterovic, then Oberto, and also backups who weren't that good. Of course, much of this would have been avoided if he moved to center, but I digress...
Duncan straight up is not close to Bird. And the thought is ridiculous. He has a list of accomplishments that make it sound valid but he's float out not as good and didn't have as much impact. He has more longevity, but not enough to discount that Bird was easily a better player. Bird had better teams and he also had more than twice the competition. If Duncan was on teams as good as the ones Bird was on then Duncan wouldn't have stood out as much.