San Antonio Fans. What if?

[ArbitraryWater]

i convinved him of that. prior to me posting about the spurs here, everyone, icnluding TLP, thought it was ridciulous to have anyone not named duncan as the spurs' best player that year, and even as far as 2007.

i dont call myself a teacher, but it is what it is....

You ain't gonna convince anyone of Shaq > Wade in '06 though, lol

[SCdac]

There was nothing wrong with the offensive scheme in 2003. Tim Duncan was the best player in the game and the offense flowed through him. Was an era more rewarding to post-play and big men (handchecking rules changed not long after). Duncan was a beast and attracted attention so shooters can shoot. Frequent double and triple teams, teams collapsing on him. I know everybody has heard of (or taken part in) "inside-out" type offensive strategies. Duncan had/has great court vision, passing skills, and poise in the post. Great jumper too, midrange, bank shots, etc

[T_L_P]

Well that is a step in the right direction. But lets be real here.. dude is hanging on Tim Duncan's nuts for dear life.. and I don't think that will change anytime soon.

Let's be real here: you are the exact opposite.

Just the other day you were so salty about him getting a triple double (as if any player getting one means anything anyway) that you flat out lied about him stat-padding.

4 or 5 posters asked you to explain what you meant. You quickly jumped ship (and don't act like you left, you posted in the same thread shortly after but you just chose to ignore it).

In b4 'he was statpadding, I don't need to qualify anything'.

Just in case 'you don't remember'

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=361691

[rmt]

Kobe and Lebron stans trying to discredit 03 Duncan who was a beast. Pop always goes with what give him the most - from Duncan in the post, to pick n roll with Parker/Manu and Duncan to the current emphasis on ball movement.

The reason why they HAVE the current scheme is because the big 3 and in particular, Duncan, have aged and can't carry the load that they once did. Now, they deliberately get players who can shoot and pass - each more talented and expensive compared to in the past. Back then, the role players were cheap, veteran, spot up 3 pt shooters. The current scheme would not have worked with those older, less talented players who didn't pass well.

[ninephive]

Blatantly obvious you didn't watch that squad, because you didn't mention Speedy Claxton, who was clearly our best PG.

It's true, our 9th-best scorer (Claxton) was better than our 2nd best scorer (Parker). Bro, honestly...I would really like to know what Tony Parker did to you/your family. Help me make sense of your grudge.

[navy]

It's true, our 9th-best scorer (Claxton) was better than our 2nd best scorer (Parker). Bro, honestly...I would really like to know what Tony Parker did to you/your family. Help me make sense of your grudge.

Tony Parker being good discredits Duncans accomplishments according to Duncan stans.

Happens all the time. Why Jordan fans will call Pippen garbage, Kobe stans claim Pau isnt a HOFamer, Lebron stans hate Love and Bosh, etc, etc.

[ninephive]

Your knowledge of organs.

You die without a heart. We had no Parker in game 6 last year and still lived.

Go back to school, chump.

Hey, I went ahead and made this thread just for you so you would shut up about Game 6. It basically says, in every playoff game, we didn't "need" one of our good players to get a win:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=363763

[Artillery]

Are we really comparing the 80s-90s Knicks to the Spurs... aside from Ewing/Duncan being a wash, the Spurs are infinitely better at every single position. **** outta here with your nonsense.

lol yeah cause Derek Anderson, Terry Porter, Antonio Daniels makes you a deep team

[ninephive]

Tony Parker being good discredits Duncans accomplishments according to Duncan stans.

Happens all the time. Why Jordan fans will call Pippen garbage, Kobe stans claim Pau isnt a HOFamer, Lebron stans hate Love and Bosh, etc, etc.

I completely agree...I still have Duncan top 5 with all the help he's had. No one in the top 10 have won much without great help.

[Artillery]

Tony Parker being good discredits Duncans accomplishments according to Duncan stans.

I've never seen a Duncan fan shit on Ginobili. Manu's legit - he would have been great on any NBA team. Parker...not so much. He's a product of the Spurs system. He's been incredibly fortunate to have played next to Duncan and Manu his entire career.

Happens all the time. Why Jordan fans will call Pippen garbage, Kobe stans claim Pau isnt a HOFamer, Lebron stans hate Love and Bosh, etc, etc.

IMO, it's an insult that you even compared a playoff choke artist in Tony to legends like Pippen and Pau.

[mehyaM24]

It's true, our 9th-best scorer (Claxton) was better than our 2nd best scorer (Parker). Bro, honestly...I would really like to know what Tony Parker did to you/your family. Help me make sense of your grudge.

tlp like many duncan fans are in complete denial. sad, because the type of player duncan is deservers a better class of fan.

i have no problem saying duncan was the best spurs player from 1998-2004, but after that it more than arguable (between the parker/manu tandem at least).

back to 2003 though. parker, as you said, not only gave you 15ppg, but ~5 assists (depending on the series) and limited turnovers.

in the laker series i referenced earlier, he closed them out with back 2 back games of, 21/5/3 and 27/5/2 on ~57%TS.

of course - this doesn't account for all the veterans, david robinson (second on the team in PER), bowen (best perimeter defender in the league) and others (5 players on that team averaged over 10 points a game per 36 minutes).

2003 was a solid run for tim duncan, but really, its not all that its cracked up to be - at least on ISH.

[T_L_P]

It's true, our 9th-best scorer (Claxton) was better than our 2nd best scorer (Parker). Bro, honestly...I would really like to know what Tony Parker did to you/your family. Help me make sense of your grudge.

Parker, even then, was eating up possessions that should have gone to other, better players.

It's not like he should be criticized for it, because he was only 20 years old. But he was actually very strong in the 02 season (both Regular Season and Playoffs), and in the 03 Regular Season.

But he flat-out sucked in the 03 postseason. 15/3/3 on 40% shooting (27% on 3s, 71% at the line) is nothing to be proud of. And I know you hate the metrics, but our defense was sixteen points better when he was off the floor (and it was sixteen points better with Speedy on the floor).

Pop chose to play Speedy over Parker late in 4th quarters because he was a better playmaker (for a Point Guard, rookie-fifth year Parker wasn't much of a passer), and he stuck to the plan (giving Duncan the ball or look for open 3 point shooters).

Parker is routinely called one of the worst championship second options for a reason, tbh. He made great strides and around 07 he became a star player. But 03 wasn't his fight.

Do you think he was our second best player or something?

[mehyaM24]

Hey, I went ahead and made this thread just for you so you would shut up about Game 6. It basically says, in every playoff game, we didn't "need" one of our good players to get a win:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=363763

great thread. its nice seeing objective spurs fans here for once, not duncan-only fans.

[rmt]

tlp like many duncan fans are in complete denial. sad, because the type of player duncan is deservers a better class of fan.

i have no problem saying duncan was the best spurs player from 1998-2004, but after that it more than arguable (between the parker/manu tandem at least).

back to 2003 though. parker, as you said, not only gave you 15ppg, but ~5 assists (depending on the series) and limited turnovers.

in the laker series i referenced earlier, he closed them out with back 2 back games of, 21/5/3 and 27/5/2 on ~57%TS.

of course - this doesn't account for all the veterans, david robinson (second on the team in PER), bowen (best perimeter defender in the league) and others (5 players on that team averaged over 10 points a game per 36 minutes).

2003 was a solid run for tim duncan, but really, its not all that its cracked up to be - at least on ISH.

2003 Playoffs
Duncan 24.7 pts / 15.4 rebs / 5.3 asst / 3.3 blks 53% 116 ORtg 92 DRtg 5.9 WS
Parker 14.7 pts / 3.5 asst 40% 96 ORtg 102 DRtg 1.1 WS
SJax 12.8 pts / 4.1 rebs 41% 96 ORtg 100 Drtg 1.3 WS
Manu 9.4 pts / 3.8 rebs 39% 107 ORtg 97 DRtg 2.1 WS

If Parker was so great, why was he on the bench and Speedy on the floor almost the whole 4th quarter of game 6 of the NBA Finals?

[huskerdu]

The only Spurs team of the prime 2000's that could run the offense as fluid as now might be the 2005 and 2006 teams.

The Spurs roster in those days were beasts defensively but the run and gun style wouldn't work as well with Bruce Bowen as well as say Danny Green (who has a much faster release on his 3's whereas Bowen needed forever to set up but would knock them down).


2003 would have no chance in hell, people need to understand that Duncan carrying that team to a title kicking and screaming is one of the 5 best playoff performances ever. Very very few players could've pulled that off.


2005 you have a lot more versatility with Brent Barry coming into the fold and an improved Ginobili/Parker. Beno Udrih wasn't bad as a backup (though he sucked in the Finals that year). Horry was the perfect stretch 4 even though he obviously isn't as versatile as Boris Diaw.


Spurs had to go through a very rough patch in the 2009-10 seasons where they looked done for good. Even the 2011 team was fool's goal with their shoddy defense, but the beginnings of an elite offense were starting to click.


In a nutshell, the personnel of the 2000's era Spurs wasn't quite as capable of playing the style of today's Spurs. Spurs also are much deeper in this era whereas back then they were about 6-7 deep tops.