timmy d imo. actually have barkley in front of malone too, but that's just my take having watched them both. in terms of legacy i'd rank karl second i suppose.
since when has bowen horry, BARRY!!! and horry been great players, only bowen here is a good role player everyone else is average, and berry is below average
since when has bowen horry, BARRY!!! and horry been great players, only bowen here is a good role player everyone else is average, and berry is below average
Spurs are stacked and you know it. Finley, Horry, Barry, Elson, Vaughan, etc. etc. make for a very strong bench. All are savvy vets that know exactly what is expected of them.
And as far as Horry being average goes, well....I guess I'll just say that I'm sure those '97, '98 Jazz teams could have used a guy with seven rings and a list of huge/clutch shots as long as my arm coming off the bench.
since when has bowen horry, BARRY!!! and horry been great players, only bowen here is a good role player everyone else is average, and berry is below average
Those guys all can step up big, and have a lot of skill for coming off the bench, and are good playoff players.
Compare the recent Spurs team with Karl's '91-'92 team
Jeff Malone, Blue Edwards, Thurl Bailey, Tyrone Corbin, Mike Brown, David Benoit, Erick Murdock, Mark Eaton, Delaney Rudd, Corey Crowder, Bob Thornton, Ike Austin (he was absolutely horrible and over-weight at this point in his career)
Saying that Bulls was in the way is no good. It is the same as I would be saying that Mavs would had the title this year if was not for GSW
Yeah, but he doesn't make the players THAT much better, give me a break.
No, the Bulls were maybe the best team ever, they were not the underdogs. It's more like saying "said team" would have won if it wasn't for the 1957-1969 Celtics that won 11 championships... There's a HUGE difference between the MJ Bulls and the recent GSW.
Last edited by Chalkmaze : 07-26-2007 at 03:55 PM.
"he doesnt have better teammates, he MAKES his teammates better. " hehe yeah sure...
And they would have won it twice had the Bulls not been in the way... and yes Duncan did have Robinson... and recently he has Ginobli, Parker, Horry, Bowen, Finley, Barry...
So, um... they've been stacked with good players.
poor...the Jazz were better than the Bulls in '98. Michael Jordan literally pulled two perfect plays out of his *** to edge the Jazz during the course of the series, but the Jazz were definately better then.
Duncan is better to me. He has superior floor awareness on both ends of hte floor, and he is a great passer like Malone eventually would be, and far superior shot blocker and offense rebounder. Other skills are needless to agrue because obviously Malone is the more powerful player, the better scorer, and a much more intimidating force, and everything else is more or less equal. The X factor eventually would be durability. Malone played 19 seasons in the NBA and played very well during all but 2 of them (his first and last seasons). Let's see how if Duncan will still play great basketball into his later years...
cant use excuses to prop up Malone and tear down Duncan
Duncan has a greater impact on Defense than Malone and has an equal impact on offense..
I mean Malone could probably score a little more on offense, but it would depend on what john stockton was doing that night...
Duncan dont have better teammates he simply has proper balance of shooters and slashers (and of course him anchoring the paint)on offense and he has the proper balance of one on one defenders (bruce bowen) and him in the paint to protect the goal and good team defense..
their players arent better, they just happen to have collected all the necessary pieces to surround duncan
Jazz had alot of pieces themselves but they couldnt quite win a title
poor...the Jazz were better than the Bulls in '98. Michael Jordan literally pulled two perfect plays out of his *** to edge the Jazz during the course of the series, but the Jazz were definately better then. .
You go ahead and start a new thread titled "the '98 Jazz were better than the '98 Bulls", and we'll see what kind of responses you get.
Yeah, but he doesn't make the players THAT much better, give me a break.
No, the Bulls were maybe the best team ever, they were not the underdogs. It's more like saying "said team" would have won if it wasn't for the 1957-1969 Celtics that won 11 championships... There's a HUGE difference between the MJ Bulls and the recent GSW.
Okei. If the suns beat mavs last year. Miami would not be able to keep it up and Heat would lose the finals against the mavs...
You go ahead and start a new thread titled "the '98 Jazz were better than the '98 Bulls", and we'll see what kind of responses you get.
I know the jazz were favored in that series
looking back at it...the bulls were a dynasty and people realized they simply wouldnt be denied...
but honestly, the jazz had 2 straight shots at the Bulls and were favored in 98, so they dont really have any excuses....even those who say the bulls were better i think would admit that the jazz were capable of winning, they just didnt get it done
Re: Tim Duncan Vs Karl Malone
