Re: Do people understand that Garnett has always been better as a player than Duncan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharoh
They are both great players with Duncan rightfully ranked ahead of Garnett in terms of all time status.
As individual players, Duncan is not better. Garnett is a more dominant player,
Quote:
I know some people will talk about Duncan's impact on the game but realize that Duncan plays the most impactful position in the game, that is, a big man playing the low post. It's easier to build around Duncan because of that.
And that's what makes Duncan better. You just contradicted your own argument.... I mean come on, you're saying KG has liek more shooting range and has more 'moves" and skills, so he's better, evne though Duncan is more "impactful"
Well being impactful is a skill. It's not just because Duncan is big and tall. KG is the same height as Duncan, so why can't he play low post? Maybe because Duncan is just more skilled in that area?
So KG is better at shooting further out and at doing a crossover. Duncan is better at posting up and controlling the paint. KG fans always believe the "more moves, can shoot further out, has more handles" makes KG more skilled, when it's just that they are both skilled, but Duncan excels in areas of the game that are more important for a 7 footer.
Re: Do people understand that Garnett has always been better as a player than Duncan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricForman
And that's what makes Duncan better. You just contradicted your own argument.... I mean come on, you're saying KG has liek more shooting range and has more 'moves" and skills, so he's better, evne though Duncan is more "impactful"
Well being impactful is a skill. It's not just because Duncan is big and tall. KG is the same height as Duncan, so why can't he play low post? Maybe because Duncan is just more skilled in that area?
So KG is better at shooting further out and at doing a crossover. Duncan is better at posting up and controlling the paint. KG fans always believe the "more moves, can shoot further out, has more handles" makes KG more skilled, when it's just that they are both skilled, but Duncan excels in areas of the game that are more important for a 7 footer.
well, it helps that KG pretty much hits shots consistently all over the floor, has BETTER defense and smashed Duncan last year when he played against him. KG vs. Duncan in a game = KG wins
Re: Do people understand that Garnett has always been better as a player than Duncan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimus Prime
One thing KG has never really had is a solid team backing him up. Sure, Spree and Sam I Am are pretty good, but Tony Parker/Manu/D-Rob/Etc. > The Best Supporting Cast KG Ever Had.
Not saying KG > Duncan, just pointing out that KG's teams have been anywhere from horrible to above average. Duncan's teams have ranged anywhere from average to the best.
Since when does it matter who a player has around him to determine what kind of player he is? A little hypocricy when it comes to the Tmac v. Bryant debate?
But, going off that 82 games stats, Duncan is obviously the easier player to build around if he is always in the low post. He doesn't take anything away from your perimeter players. I dunno, maybe I'm being a bit skeptical, but it seems like Duncan in Boston would be way better than Garnett in Boston. The one thing it is hard to find a lot of in the history of the NBA is a good big man in the post. When you have one, you often win. Because of Duncan's uniqueness, I give him the upper hand in this debate. Garnett plays the power forward position but plays like a SG or SF. I'd take Duncan over Garnett 7 out of 7 times.
Re: Do people understand that Garnett has always been better as a player than Duncan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic
Since when does it matter who a player has around him to determine what kind of player he is? A little hypocricy when it comes to the Tmac v. Bryant debate?
But, going off that 82 games stats, Duncan is obviously the easier player to build around if he is always in the low post. He doesn't take anything away from your perimeter players. I dunno, maybe I'm being a bit skeptical, but it seems like Duncan in Boston would be way better than Garnett in Boston. The one thing it is hard to find a lot of in the history of the NBA is a good big man in the post. When you have one, you often win. Because of Duncan's uniqueness, I give him the upper hand in this debate. Garnett plays the power forward position but plays like a SG or SF. I'd take Duncan over Garnett 7 out of 7 times.
Re: Do people understand that Garnett has always been better as a player than Duncan?
Quote:
has BETTER defense and smashed Duncan last year when he played against him
So let's get this straight, I just want to make sure that you know that I know you're a dumbass.
How is Garnett a better defender? Just because he's more versatile on defense doesn't mean he's a better defender. You think Jamal Mashburn was a better offensive player because he could score more ways than Shaq? That's basically what your logic is implying.
Why did you say Garnett smashed him last year? You're just spewing garbage now.
I'm almost to the point where I think most of you ****s are just typing down and posting some of the stupidest crap to get me pissed off at you for kicks.
Some of this **** I'm reading doesn't even remotely come close to making sence.
Re: Do people understand that Garnett has always been better as a player than Duncan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbine
So let's get this straight, I just want to make sure that you know that I know you're a dumbass.
How is Garnett a better defender? Just because he's more versatile on defense doesn't mean he's a better defender. You think Jamal Mashburn was a better offensive player because he could score more ways than Shaq? That's basically what your logic is implying.
Why did you say Garnett smashed him last year? You're just spewing garbage now.
I'm almost to the point where I think most of you ****s are just typing down and posting some of the stupidest crap to get me pissed off at you for kicks.
Some of this **** I'm reading doesn't even remotely come close to making sence.
Did you watch games last year? Who are you kidding? Can you spell sense? Sorry, but Garnett is better defensively than Duncan. Strength and speed beats Strength defensively, especially when you know what you're doing. But positions could make a difference.
Re: Do people understand that Garnett has always been better as a player than Duncan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04mzwach
How many SG and SF's stuff Duncan?
Stuff? As in block? That wasn't my point. A prototypical power forward, like Duncan, would play in the low post. Garnett does, but most of his shots are not from the low post like a SG or SF (Allen & Pierce don't play the in the low post a lot). Duncan is not taking shots out where Ginobolli takes his shots. That was my point. Did that one zoom right over your head?
Re: Do people understand that Garnett has always been better as a player than Duncan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic
Stuff? As in block? That wasn't my point. A prototypical power forward, like Duncan, would play in the low post. Garnett does, but most of his shots are not from the low post like a SG or SF (Allen & Pierce don't play the in the low post a lot). Duncan is not taking shots out where Ginobolli takes his shots. That was my point. Did that one zoom right over your head?
Garnett rarely take three pointers. You are being a little over the top. I understand you though, thought you were some smart ass.
Re: Do people understand that Garnett has always been better as a player than Duncan?
Quote:
Did you watch games last year? Who are you kidding? Can you spell sense? Sorry, but Garnett is better defensively than Duncan. Strength and speed beats Strength defensively, especially when you know what you're doing. But positions could make a difference.
I watched a Spurs/Wolves game where Tim Duncan outplayed Garnett. Watched another where Duncan played just as well as Garnett. Usually when someone uses the word "smashes" it means more than two players playing basically even.
Your explanation for why Garnett is better rates poor. It's hard to explain yourself when you know deep down you're wrong, I guess.
Re: Do people understand that Garnett has always been better as a player than Duncan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04mzwach
Garnett rarely take three pointers. You are being a little over the top. I understand you though, thought you were some smart ass.
I'm talking about 10-18 ft out. When I think of low post, I'm thinking 8 ft and in. I just see Duncan having a huge advantage because he has game that people in other positions don't have. Lots of guards and small forwards have a mid range game like Garnett. I just think a team with Duncan presents more of an advantage especially in an era when its hard to find a dominate low post scorer. The ability to score from 10-18 ft out is some what common place.
Re: Do people understand that Garnett has always been better as a player than Duncan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbine
I watched a Spurs/Wolves game where Tim Duncan outplayed Garnett. Watched another where Duncan played just as well as Garnett. Usually when someone uses the word "smashes" it means more than two players playing basically even.
Your explanation for why Garnett is better rates poor. It's hard to explain yourself when you know deep down you're wrong, I guess.
Well, effiency rating is a factor ranking i believe #18 all-time in his mvp season. Duncan not even ranking top 30 as far as I know in numbers. Duncan can't live up to KG in-game. I want to see this season though. It will be fun to see Celtics vs. Spurs. Championships are based on the team around you also. Compare Shaq to Duncan and that's really how it's done. Duncan is a C. If you want to base position on it, then say C's are just better than PF's. But Garnett > Duncan PF level. But should they be compared? That's the question.
Re: Do people understand that Garnett has always been better as a player than Duncan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic
I'm talking about 10-18 ft out. When I think of low post, I'm thinking 8 ft and in. I just see Duncan having a huge advantage because he has game that people in other positions don't have. Lots of guards and small forwards have a mid range game like Garnett. I just think a team with Duncan presents more of an advantage especially in an era when its hard to find a dominate low post scorer. The ability to score from 10-18 ft out is some what common place.
Good point. I agree, but Garnett is more than that. He will get you rebounds and play those minutes. He hasn't gotten a chance to play with good players. Tony Parker got the finals MVP last year. Garnett put up MVP numbers last year, but had no team. Garnett can be proven in this season.
Re: Do people understand that Garnett has always been better as a player than Duncan?
