1999 Spurs

[ShaqAttack3234]

For my money, this is one of the greatest teams of the past 15 years and the best Spurs team in their history. It's a shame that their defensive-oriented style and the lockout has prevented people from truly appreciating them. They started off the season just 6-8, but finished the regular season on a 31-5 run and they completely crushed every team they faced in the playoffs going 15-2 and They had the best defensive team in the league allowing just 95 points per 100 possessions and they held teams to just 84.7 ppg on 40.2% shooting during the regular season. In the playoffs, they held teams to just 81.2 ppg on 39.9% shooting.

Duncan emerged as the best player in the league with an incredibly polished low post arsenal, a polished face up game and increasingly dominant defensive game. Along with Robinson they formed the greatest interior defensive duo I've ever seen. Duncan was the star, but Robinson was still an excellent player. He was definitely a top 5 defensive player, very mobile for a center even after the back surgery, a very good passer and he hit mid-range shots with consistency. Duncan and Robinson's high/low plays were amazing to watch and both players were versatile enough to play either power forward or center at either end. A lineup with two seven footers causes enough match up problems, but when they're this skilled offensively and so good defensively, they become a true match up nightmare. The most impressive series for this duo were the semi-finals when Robinson did an excellent job defending Shaq while Duncan carried the scoring load and the finals when their size allowed them to seemingly do whatever they wanted. Those 2 alone almost guaranteed a great defense, but the role players bought into this as well. Avery Johnson was an excellent leader who ran the offense, distributed the ball very well and despite his limitations, found a way to score by getting to the basket and he made himself into a decent enough 15-18 footer shooter when he was open. Jaren Jackson and Sean Elliott also gave the team 3 point shooting.

The defense only allowed over 90 points twice during that playoff run and they held teams under 80 points 7 times in the playoffs. They were 4-0 in games decided by 5 points or less. And when you add their well-balanced offense in with their dominant defense, they become virtually unbeatable. They had atleast 3 players in double figures in every playoff game, they had atleast 4 players in double figures in 13 of their 17 games and they had 5 players in double figures in 6 games.

20+ games
Duncan- 12
Robinson- 3
Johnson- 2
Jackson- 2
Elliott- 1

20/10 games
Duncan- 9
Robinson- 3
Johnson- 1

Double/doubles
Duncan- 10
Robinson- 9
Johnson- 3

The team had a great cast of veterans, a superstar big man in Duncan, another great big man in Robinson and every one on the team played like winners stepping up in crucial times whether it be Avery Johnson's jumper from the corner in Madison Square Garden or Sean Elliott's miracle 3 vs Portland. Elie and Kerr had already won multiple championship teams which can't hurt. With that type of size, experience, depth and talent you'll always have a chance to win. However, when you have one of the best coaches of all-time like Gregg Popovich, those odds become even greater.

Here are the numbers for each key player in the 4 series.

1st round vs Minnesota (Spurs won 3-1)
Avery Johnson- 19.5 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 6.3 apg, 1 spg, 2.3 TO, 59.3 FG%, 73.7 FT%
Tim Duncan- 18.8 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 3.3 apg, 3 bpg, 1.8 TO, 46 FG%, 77.3 FT%
David Robinson- 14.8 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3 apg, 2 bpg, 2 spg, 1.8 TO, 50 FG%, 65.4 FT%
Sean Elliott- 12 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 2 apg, 1.3 TO, 43.6 FG%, 50 3P% (4/8), 83.3 FT%

Semi-finals vs the Lakers (Spurs won 4-0)
Tim Duncan- 29 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 3.3 apg, 2 bpg, 1 spg, 4.5 TO, 51.3 FG%, 80.9 FT%
Sean Elliott- 13.5 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 4 apg, 1.5 TO, 44.4 FG%, 40 3P% (4/10), 76 FT%
David Robinson- 13.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.8 apg, 1 bpg, 1.5 spg, 2 TO, 50 FG%, 73.1 FT%
Jaren Jackson- 12.3 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 0.5 apg, 51.4 FG%, 43.5 3P% (10/23), 60 FT%
Avery Johnson- 10.8 ppg, 3 rpg, 8.8 apg, 2.3 spg, 3.3 TO, 43.6 FG%, 61.5 FT%

Conference Finals vs Portland (Spurs won 4-0)
David Robinson- 17.5 ppg, 9 rpg, 3 apg, 3.3 bpg, 2.3 spg, 4.3 TO, 53.3 FG%, 84.6 FT%
Tim Duncan- 16.5 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 2.5 apg, 3.5 bpg, 2.5 TO, 52.1 FG%, 56.7 FT%
Sean Elliott- 15 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 1.5 apg, 1 TO, 58.3 FG%, 47.4 3P% (9/19), 81.8 FT%
Avery Johnson- 12 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 7.5 apg, 1 spg, 2 TO, 40.7 FG%, 80 FT%

Finals vs New York (Spurs won 4-1)
Tim Duncan- 27.4 ppg, 14 rpg, 2.4 apg, 2.2 bpg, 1 spg, 3.4 TO, 53.7 FG%, 79.5 FT%
David Robinson- 16.6 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 2.4 apg, 3 bpg, 1 spg, 1.6 TO, 42.4 FG%, 68.8 FT%
Mario Elie- 11.6 ppg, 4 rpg, 2.6 apg, 1.2 spg, 1.6 TO, 44.7 FG%, 30.8 3P%, 87 FT%
Avery Johnson- 9.2 ppg, 2.6 rpg 7.2 apg, 4 TO, 50 FG%, 60 FT%

I hope I'm not the only one who appreciates this team. While they weren't the greatest team of all-time, I'm not sure you'll see another team like this ever again. A very unique team that won in a way that wasn't appealing to the casual fan.

[jlauber]

Great post! Good to hear from you again.

[branslowski]

Great Post..:applause:

They were a very great team...Although I've questioned this before (due to as you stated "The Lockout") i've come around and did the research and noticed how defensively dominant this team was. They get my respect.

Repped.

[RUCKER]

David Robinson was washed up at that point.

Avery Johnson? The hell out of here. Basically a Poor Man's Derek Fisher.

Tim Duncan? Basically a Poor Man's Karl Malone.

That team is the most overrated team in NBA history. Once Shaq burst onto the Western Conference scene it was over for the Spurs. Hence why the Lakers went on to 3-peat.

You're acting like it's some All-Star Dream Team, when it was anything but. Bunch of overrated has beens and never weres like Avery Johnson and Poor Man Karl Malone's on that team.

The current Spurs team would run circles around that old ass team. Steve Nash would've picked the 99' Spurs team apart, single handedly. That Spurs team played at a time where nobody had stepped up quite yet. MJ had retired, so it was open season, Kobe and Shaq had yet to come into their own.

That championship was a f*ckin gift to the Spurs. There couldn't have been a more "Free-Bee" championship given out than that one. If I was a Spurs fan, or even a Spurs player on that team, I would not be proud of that worthless championship.

[Rose]

Since you said that Timmy and the Admiral are the best big defensive duo you've seen where would you rank sheed and big ben?

Also pretty good read. And repped.

[RUCKER]

Since you said that Timmy and the Admiral are the best big defensive duo you've seen where would you rank sheed and big ben?

Also pretty good read. And repped.

Joakim Noah and Tyrus Thomas would smash all over a prime Robinson/Duncan, and Rasheed/Ben Wallace.

IMO they're the best defensive tandem this game has ever seen. Hands down, bar-none.

[jlauber]

Joakim Noah and Tyrus Thomas would smash all over a prime Robinson/Duncan, and Rasheed/Ben Wallace.

IMO they're the best defensive tandem this game has ever seen. Hands down, bar-none.

You are kidding, right?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Since you said that Timmy and the Admiral are the best big defensive duo you've seen where would you rank sheed and big ben?

Also pretty good read. And repped.

Thanks, and it's tough to say. The 2004 Pistons after the Sheed trade may have been the best defensive team I've ever seen period, but I liked Duncan/Robinson better, more size and shot blocking. Both Duncan and Robinson had legit center size, while Robinson was the guy to guard Shaq, iirc(haven't seen any of the games since the series), Duncan typically did a good job when he did have to guard him. Having 2 guys with enough size not to get bullied by the biggest centers as well as the mobility to guard power forwards and the length and timing to block shots is about all you can ask for.

The advantages the 2004 Pistons had as a team were that they had Prince who was a better perimeter defender than anyone on the '99 Spurs and Billups big size advantage over Avery Johnson also gives them an advantage, but as far as PF/C? I'd still have to rank that duo as the best defensively.

Oakley and Ewing is also up there, then consider the depth that team had with Anthony Mason(who did a very good job on Hakeem in the '94 finals when he guarded him). Though nobody could truly stop Hakeem at that point.

[Rose]

Joakim Noah and Tyrus Thomas would smash all over a prime Robinson/Duncan, and Rasheed/Ben Wallace.

IMO they're the best defensive tandem this game has ever seen. Hands down, bar-none.
Even my Bulls bias/Tyrus Thomas bias....doesn't extend far enough to agree with you.

[Bigsmoke]

here are the teams i think that could beat the 1999 Spurs

00-02 Lakers
2005 Spurs
08 Celtics
10 Lakers "with a healthy Bynum"

[BlueandGold]

David Robinson was washed up at that point.

Avery Johnson? The hell out of here. Basically a Poor Man's Derek Fisher.

Tim Duncan? Basically a Poor Man's Karl Malone.

That team is the most overrated team in NBA history. Once Shaq burst onto the Western Conference scene it was over for the Spurs. Hence why the Lakers went on to 3-peat.

You're acting like it's some All-Star Dream Team, when it was anything but. Bunch of overrated has beens and never weres like Avery Johnson and Poor Man Karl Malone's on that team.

The current Spurs team would run circles around that old ass team. Steve Nash would've picked the 99' Spurs team apart, single handedly. That Spurs team played at a time where nobody had stepped up quite yet. MJ had retired, so it was open season, Kobe and Shaq had yet to come into their own.

That championship was a f*ckin gift to the Spurs. There couldn't have been a more "Free-Bee" championship given out than that one. If I was a Spurs fan, or even a Spurs player on that team, I would not be proud of that worthless championship.

Although I don't agree with everything this poster has to say there is a degree of truth to this post. The league was watered down due to expansion and this was the first "post-jordan" season in the NBA, which also happened to be a shortened season due to a lockout.

As far as star players and hall of famers, the Spurs don't match up to the 80s Celtics/Lakers/Pistons, the 90s Bulls or even the 00 Lakers or this current Laker/Celtic squads. Sure Duncan/Robinson is a fearsome twin tower force, even with Robinson in the twilight years of his career, but I believe that the reason why they went 15-2 in the playoffs was because of the quality of the playoff teams at that point (bunch of new teams out west, beat a Knicks team in the finals without Ewing) due to over-expansion.

[Alhazred]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ShaqAttack3234 again.

Good post, would rep if I could. Do you think the Knicks would have had a chance to win that year had Ewing been healthy? That was something that I was always curious about.

[SCdac]

all these Spurs teams were just that, the epitome of "team". It's made it very easy to be a fan. there were solid veterans (easiest part to underrate) and there were hungry player in Antonio Daniels and Malik Rose. but certainly the teams were lead by Duncan. In the third quarter of the last finals game (game 5) he carried the team, don't remember the exact numbers but I remember Robinson didn't score a point and Tim was the definition of "reliable" hitting turnaround jumpers and doing everything to start the second half.

as a 14-15 year old in 1999, it was Mario Elie and Avery Johnson who were my favorite Spurs players at that time. Both defensive, both tough, and both could hit a clutch shot.... I remember when we finally won a/that championship, my father who is more of a diehard spurs fan than anybody (he grew up in Dallas, listening to SA games back when they were the "Dallas Chaparrals" in the early 70's, then moved to SA in early 80's - he watched Gervin fall flat in the 80's, Robinson be labeled soft in the 90's, a slew of head coaches come and go, and the Spurs play in multiple arenas ), after knocking out the Knicks, it was probably the happiest I had ever seen him, it's hard to explain but it almost felt like he had another child! lol. And maybe the happiest I had ever seen SA, it was great for the city, you'd go outside and just hear people honking their car horns every where you go. I still got one of the original championship t shirts they wore after the game (well, a replica), though it's like 3 sizes too small now.... Spurs not only won, but they won in all the right ways, with teamwork, relentless/focused defense, resiliency, and sparked by playing a 22 year old Tim Duncan 43.1 minutes per playoff game... somebody who wasn't then, but went on to become the best power forward ever.

After 26 years of franchise disappointment ... and the first of the ABA teams to go all the way
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/adrumaddict/91247922.jpg

Going 15-2 in the playoffs is dominant.... as is sweeping a team in the Finals almost 10 years later.... Spurs definitely deserve a good amount of credit, whether the team is filled with popular "names" or not.

[ShaqAttack3234]

As far as star players and hall of famers, the Spurs don't match up to the 80s Celtics/Lakers/Pistons, the 90s Bulls or even the 00 Lakers or this current Laker/Celtic squads. Sure Duncan/Robinson is a fearsome twin tower force, even with Robinson in the twilight years of his career, but I believe that the reason why they went 15-2 in the playoffs was because of the quality of the playoff teams at that point (bunch of new teams out west, beat a Knicks team in the finals without Ewing) due to over-expansion.

Well, no teams from the late 90's/00's come close to the great 80's teams in terms of being stacked and even though the Lakers chemistry was crap due to the coaching changes midseason, the midseason trade of Jones and Campbell for Rice, the Rodman distraction and the Shaq/Kobe feud, that Laker team was still very talented. Sweeping a team that talented is an accomplishment in itself and sweeping just about any team in the conference finals like they did to Portland is as well.

But aside from big names(and Duncan/Robinson were considered a star duo at the time), how many of those teams had better defenses? And the Spurs balance was remarkable, Duncan dominates offensively averaging 29 in the WCSF and 27 in the finals, yet Avery Johnson leads them in scoring in the 1st round and David Robinson leads them in scoring in the WCF.


Good post, would rep if I could. Do you think the Knicks would have had a chance to win that year had Ewing been healthy? That was something that I was always curious about.

If you would have asked the young version of me at the time, I would have said yes, but in hindsight, I doubt it. Then again, it's hard to say what a healthy Ewing was at the time, he was always playing through injuries and he was closer to 40 than 30 at the time.

But it would've made the series more competitive. LJ was getting abused in the post, Duncan was schooling him with moves and when he had to guard Robinson, David would just turn and shoot over him. Kurt Thomas is only about 6'8" and Marcus Camby was in constant foul trouble. Oddly, in short stretches, Chris Dudley seemed to do the best job on Duncan out of any New York big man.

[Rose]

Thanks, and it's tough to say. The 2004 Pistons after the Sheed trade may have been the best defensive team I've ever seen period, but I liked Duncan/Robinson better, more size and shot blocking. Both Duncan and Robinson had legit center size, while Robinson was the guy to guard Shaq, iirc(haven't seen any of the games since the series), Duncan typically did a good job when he did have to guard him. Having 2 guys with enough size not to get bullied by the biggest centers as well as the mobility to guard power forwards and the length and timing to block shots is about all you can ask for.

The advantages the 2004 Pistons had as a team were that they had Prince who was a better perimeter defender than anyone on the '99 Spurs and Billups big size advantage over Avery Johnson also gives them an advantage, but as far as PF/C? I'd still have to rank that duo as the best defensively.

Oakley and Ewing is also up there, then consider the depth that team had with Anthony Mason(who did a very good job on Hakeem in the '94 finals when he guarded him). Though nobody could truly stop Hakeem at that point.

Yeah Both Duncan and Robinson were just amazing at containing shaq in his prime/near his prime. Here's what I've got personally.

Timmy/Robinson
Sheed/Ben are so close though it's not funny.
Ewing Oakley
then Hakeem/Ralph Sampson.

[jlauber]

Yeah Both Duncan and Robinson were just amazing at containing shaq in his prime/near his prime. Here's what I've got personally.

Timmy/Robinson
Sheed/Ben are so close though it's not funny.
Ewing Oakley
then Hakeem/Ralph Sampson.

I would add Chamberlain-Jackson from 65-66 thru 67-68, and perhaps even Chamberlain-Thurmond in 63-64.

[SsKSpurs21]

memorial day miracle!

:bowdown:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1EL38SKyX8&p=407B4E21C9D82568&playnext=1&index=1

[Rose]

I would add Chamberlain-Jackson from 65-66 thru 67-68, and perhaps even Chamberlain-Thurmond in 63-64.
I haven't watched those guys extensively. Right now on days I don't have a lot of homework I'm trying to download Finals games/highlight games from the 90s and backwards as far as I can go. Or at least important playoff series, something of the sort to improve my knowledge. If you can hook me up with some footage I'd be much obliged!

[BlueandGold]

Well, no teams from the late 90's/00's come close to the great 80's teams in terms of being stacked and even though the Lakers chemistry was crap due to the coaching changes midseason, the midseason trade of Jones and Campbell for Rice, the Rodman distraction and the Shaq/Kobe feud, that Laker team was still very talented. Sweeping a team that talented is an accomplishment in itself and sweeping just about any team in the conference finals like they did to Portland is as well.

But aside from big names(and Duncan/Robinson were considered a star duo at the time), how many of those teams had better defenses? And the Spurs balance was remarkable, Duncan dominates offensively averaging 29 in the WCSF and 27 in the finals, yet Avery Johnson leads them in scoring in the 1st round and David Robinson leads them in scoring in the WCF.

While I agree that the 99 Spurs were one of the top defensive teams these past 2 decades, it's just hard to compare them to other great defensive teams because of the shortened season as well as the sleuth of younger teams that the Spurs saw during the playoffs.

Another point worth mentioning is that the Knicks made the Finals as an 8th seed and without Ewing (the latter point being beaten to death). I think that just shows how wacky a year the 99 season was for the NBA.

[jlauber]

I haven't watched those guys extensively. Right now on days I don't have a lot of homework I'm trying to download Finals games/highlight games from the 90s and backwards as far as I can go. Or at least important playoff series, something of the sort to improve my knowledge. If you can hook me up with some footage I'd be much obliged!

Not a lot out there, but there is game four of the '64 Finals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZMw_B8srw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvZAhQ8ra5k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgpKTTFE1CI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4t_HI2tWsY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCiOuGRLNIE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fge14TJ_x20&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDfRGjWxm9U&feature=related


And in '67 ECF's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWNzHgG94XM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pNVXU8jjag&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlq0fVh2ao&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hABf-SVfIBg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKWsELSogUo&feature=related


Of course, as with almost all Wilt footage (except game five of the '72 Finals), these games were losses, and Wilt was not nearly at his best.

[Rose]

Not a lot out there, but there is game four of the '64 Finals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZMw_B8srw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvZAhQ8ra5k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgpKTTFE1CI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4t_HI2tWsY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCiOuGRLNIE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fge14TJ_x20&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDfRGjWxm9U&feature=related


And in '67 ECF's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWNzHgG94XM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pNVXU8jjag&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlq0fVh2ao&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hABf-SVfIBg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKWsELSogUo&feature=related


Of course, as with almost all Wilt footage (except game five of the '72 Finals), these games were losses, and Wilt was not nearly at his best.

Ohh thanks. I'm watching the first one right now.

[Duncan21formvp]

For my money, this is one of the greatest teams of the past 15 years and the best Spurs team in their history. It's a shame that their defensive-oriented style and the lockout has prevented people from truly appreciating them. They started off the season just 6-8, but finished the regular season on a 31-5 run and they completely crushed every team they faced in the playoffs going 15-2 and They had the best defensive team in the league allowing just 95 points per 100 possessions and they held teams to just 84.7 ppg on 40.2% shooting during the regular season. In the playoffs, they held teams to just 81.2 ppg on 39.9% shooting.

Duncan emerged as the best player in the league with an incredibly polished low post arsenal, a polished face up game and increasingly dominant defensive game. Along with Robinson they formed the greatest interior defensive duo I've ever seen. Duncan was the star, but Robinson was still an excellent player. He was definitely a top 5 defensive player, very mobile for a center even after the back surgery, a very good passer and he hit mid-range shots with consistency. Duncan and Robinson's high/low plays were amazing to watch and both players were versatile enough to play either power forward or center at either end. A lineup with two seven footers causes enough match up problems, but when they're this skilled offensively and so good defensively, they become a true match up nightmare. The most impressive series for this duo were the semi-finals when Robinson did an excellent job defending Shaq while Duncan carried the scoring load and the finals when their size allowed them to seemingly do whatever they wanted. Those 2 alone almost guaranteed a great defense, but the role players bought into this as well. Avery Johnson was an excellent leader who ran the offense, distributed the ball very well and despite his limitations, found a way to score by getting to the basket and he made himself into a decent enough 15-18 footer shooter when he was open. Jaren Jackson and Sean Elliott also gave the team 3 point shooting.

The defense only allowed over 90 points twice during that playoff run and they held teams under 80 points 7 times in the playoffs. They were 4-0 in games decided by 5 points or less. And when you add their well-balanced offense in with their dominant defense, they become virtually unbeatable. They had atleast 3 players in double figures in every playoff game, they had atleast 4 players in double figures in 13 of their 17 games and they had 5 players in double figures in 6 games.

20+ games
Duncan- 12
Robinson- 3
Johnson- 2
Jackson- 2
Elliott- 1

20/10 games
Duncan- 9
Robinson- 3
Johnson- 1

Double/doubles
Duncan- 10
Robinson- 9
Johnson- 3

The team had a great cast of veterans, a superstar big man in Duncan, another great big man in Robinson and every one on the team played like winners stepping up in crucial times whether it be Avery Johnson's jumper from the corner in Madison Square Garden or Sean Elliott's miracle 3 vs Portland. Elie and Kerr had already won multiple championship teams which can't hurt. With that type of size, experience, depth and talent you'll always have a chance to win. However, when you have one of the best coaches of all-time like Gregg Popovich, those odds become even greater.

Here are the numbers for each key player in the 4 series.

1st round vs Minnesota (Spurs won 3-1)
Avery Johnson- 19.5 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 6.3 apg, 1 spg, 2.3 TO, 59.3 FG%, 73.7 FT%
Tim Duncan- 18.8 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 3.3 apg, 3 bpg, 1.8 TO, 46 FG%, 77.3 FT%
David Robinson- 14.8 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3 apg, 2 bpg, 2 spg, 1.8 TO, 50 FG%, 65.4 FT%
Sean Elliott- 12 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 2 apg, 1.3 TO, 43.6 FG%, 50 3P% (4/8), 83.3 FT%

Semi-finals vs the Lakers (Spurs won 4-0)
Tim Duncan- 29 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 3.3 apg, 2 bpg, 1 spg, 4.5 TO, 51.3 FG%, 80.9 FT%
Sean Elliott- 13.5 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 4 apg, 1.5 TO, 44.4 FG%, 40 3P% (4/10), 76 FT%
David Robinson- 13.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.8 apg, 1 bpg, 1.5 spg, 2 TO, 50 FG%, 73.1 FT%
Jaren Jackson- 12.3 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 0.5 apg, 51.4 FG%, 43.5 3P% (10/23), 60 FT%
Avery Johnson- 10.8 ppg, 3 rpg, 8.8 apg, 2.3 spg, 3.3 TO, 43.6 FG%, 61.5 FT%

Conference Finals vs Portland (Spurs won 4-0)
David Robinson- 17.5 ppg, 9 rpg, 3 apg, 3.3 bpg, 2.3 spg, 4.3 TO, 53.3 FG%, 84.6 FT%
Tim Duncan- 16.5 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 2.5 apg, 3.5 bpg, 2.5 TO, 52.1 FG%, 56.7 FT%
Sean Elliott- 15 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 1.5 apg, 1 TO, 58.3 FG%, 47.4 3P% (9/19), 81.8 FT%
Avery Johnson- 12 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 7.5 apg, 1 spg, 2 TO, 40.7 FG%, 80 FT%

Finals vs New York (Spurs won 4-1)
Tim Duncan- 27.4 ppg, 14 rpg, 2.4 apg, 2.2 bpg, 1 spg, 3.4 TO, 53.7 FG%, 79.5 FT%
David Robinson- 16.6 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 2.4 apg, 3 bpg, 1 spg, 1.6 TO, 42.4 FG%, 68.8 FT%
Mario Elie- 11.6 ppg, 4 rpg, 2.6 apg, 1.2 spg, 1.6 TO, 44.7 FG%, 30.8 3P%, 87 FT%
Avery Johnson- 9.2 ppg, 2.6 rpg 7.2 apg, 4 TO, 50 FG%, 60 FT%

I hope I'm not the only one who appreciates this team. While they weren't the greatest team of all-time, I'm not sure you'll see another team like this ever again. A very unique team that won in a way that wasn't appealing to the casual fan.

This is the best team since 1999.

[dbugz]

I remember Avery shooting clutch jump shots during the Finals, I think it's the last game :applause:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Another point worth mentioning is that the Knicks made the Finals as an 8th seed and without Ewing (the latter point being beaten to death). I think that just shows how wacky a year the 99 season was for the NBA.

The Knick didn't really make the finals without Ewing. They had him until game 3 of the ECF. They upset Miami with him and swept Atlanta with him. They did win 3 out of the 4 ECF games they needed without him, though.

Ewing's gutty performance in the deciding game 5 vs Miami really set the tone for that run, IMO. He was so visibly injured that I thought he was going to come out at any minute throughout the game, yet he managed to outscore and outrebound a much younger Alonzo Mourning to lead the Knicks to the clinching victory in Miami. He actually outrebounded ZO by 2.6 boards per game that series, too.

Though, that season and 2004 are odd seasons as far as scoring. In '99 there were only 2 players who averaged over 25 ppg(Iverson and Shaq) and there was only one in 2004(T-Mac).

[DatWasNashty]

The 1999 Spurs are one of the teams that could give the second three-peat Bulls some trouble.

The Bulls alleged weakness was their post defense and lack of a true center. They were able to hide that with their terrific help defenders, perimeter defense and Rodman's exceptional post-defense and mental tactics.

I don't think they would be able to hold their own against two elite big men, though. Robinson was still a top ten player in the league contrary to what his stats imply and Duncan was the best player in the league.

The Bulls wouldn't generate a lot of points in the paint and will have to heavily rely on Jordan for offense. I find it hard to believe that Rodman would lock up Duncan when Kemp was having his way with him and Chuck also had a huge game against him. Add Robinson and the Bulls would struggle finding an answer for him. The Bulls help defense will trouble SAS, though.

The 1999 Spurs were also a historically terrific defense team and very well-built around two dominant big men. A veteran floor general in Avery Johnson who lacked outside shooting but did a good job of hitting clutch and timely jumpers and feeding the post. Outside threats such as Steve Kerr, Jaren Jackson, Mario Elie and Sean Elliott to space the floor for Duncan to work down low. Admiral operating at the elbow area hitting face up jumpers and cutting to the rim with Duncan being doubled. Their games weren't redundant either and complemented each other more than anything.

[SinJackal]

I wish it were possible to open a thread about the Spurs without half the posts being hater posts.

In any case, good thread ShaqAttack. It's nice to see some of the more overlooked teams get some props for a change. ^_^



Joakim Noah and Tyrus Thomas would smash all over a prime Robinson/Duncan, and Rasheed/Ben Wallace.

IMO they're the best defensive tandem this game has ever seen. Hands down, bar-none.

Are you just trying to troll? You must be. Noah and Thomas would get obliterated by Duncan and Robinson. Noah's not even close to as good defensively as Robinson (you clearly have never seen DRob play even once if you think that, and shit, you must've never even seen a basketball card of him, a statsheet of him, or know any history about him whatsoever.

And you even went so far as to claim they'd smash a PRIME Robinson and Duncan. Dude, prime Robinson alone is better than both Noah and Thomas. He was being called the best player in the NBA at times during his prime. He won the MVP, and DPOY, while always putting up great record with an otherwise average team, and always being high in the voting for both awards the years he didn't win them. If anybody in the current league put up the numbers and won the game totals he did back in the 90's now, they would be the MVP every season, or at WORST #2 in the voting. Imagine LeBron's current stats, only better FG%, double the rebounds (at the cost of half the assists), but more steals, and 3x the blocks with less turnovers and much better defense that would likely earn him DPOY awards over Howard every season. That's David Robinson. Get a clue dude.

As for Rasheed and Ben Wallace, Duncan already beat those two without DRob in '05. -_- So clearly they couldn't do shit against just Duncan, much less Duncan AND DRob. Meanwhile, this was right after they just beat the great LA Lakers the year before. Can they beat Shaq and Kobe? Sure. Just Duncan? Fail.



Although I don't agree with everything this poster has to say there is a degree of truth to this post. The league was watered down due to expansion and this was the first "post-jordan" season in the NBA, which also happened to be a shortened season due to a lockout.

As far as star players and hall of famers, the Spurs don't match up to the 80s Celtics/Lakers/Pistons, the 90s Bulls or even the 00 Lakers or this current Laker/Celtic squads. Sure Duncan/Robinson is a fearsome twin tower force, even with Robinson in the twilight years of his career, but I believe that the reason why they went 15-2 in the playoffs was because of the quality of the playoff teams at that point (bunch of new teams out west, beat a Knicks team in the finals without Ewing) due to over-expansion.

Of course you agree with him, every thread I've seen you post in having to do with S.A. or it's players has been negative. You obviously hate the Spurs and have an agenda against them, so it isn't surprising at all that you're "agreeing" with the worst posts in the thread that are completely devoid of logic, and instead are full of ignorant bias.

Plus, how was the league magically "watered down" just because one guy retired? Almost the exact same players who were in the league the year before were in it that year again. Especially compared to the current league, where we have some of the lowest leaders for stats in NBA history (rebounds, blocks, etc, over the last half a decade have been way down).

Oh, but of course, according to you, the Lakers squad of the very next year (who had almost the EXACT same players on it), were MUCH better, and played in a MUCH better league, right? Even though it was just the next year and the exact same league. Lemme guess, the league remained strong and excellent and the best it's been in a long time every year they won their titles, right? :facepalm But as soon as they didn't win and SA did, the league was watered down again, right? Amiright!? :hammerhead:

Oh, and they were only 15-2 in the playoffs since they were playing the brand new teams out west, right? Even though they were 15-2 against the brand new teams of: Minnesota Timberwolves, Portland Trail Blazers, Los Angelos Lakers, and New York Knicks. -_-



all these Spurs teams were just that, the epitome of "team". It's made it very easy to be a fan. there were solid veterans (easiest part to underrate) and there were hungry player in Antonio Daniels and Malik Rose. but certainly the teams were lead by Duncan. In the third quarter of the last finals game (game 5) he carried the team, don't remember the exact numbers but I remember Robinson didn't score a point and Tim was the definition of "reliable" hitting turnaround jumpers and doing everything to start the second half.

as a 14-15 year old in 1999, it was Mario Elie and Avery Johnson who were my favorite Spurs players at that time. Both defensive, both tough, and both could hit a clutch shot.... I remember when we finally won a/that championship, my father who is more of a diehard spurs fan than anybody (he grew up in Dallas, listening to SA games back when they were the "Dallas Chaparrals" in the early 70's, then moved to SA in early 80's - he watched Gervin fall flat in the 80's, Robinson be labeled soft in the 90's, a slew of head coaches come and go, and the Spurs play in multiple arenas ), after knocking out the Knicks, it was probably the happiest I had ever seen him, it's hard to explain but it almost felt like he had another child! lol. And maybe the happiest I had ever seen SA, it was great for the city, you'd go outside and just hear people honking their car horns every where you go. I still got one of the original championship t shirts they wore after the game (well, a replica), though it's like 3 sizes too small now.... Spurs not only won, but they won in all the right ways, with teamwork, relentless/focused defense, resiliency, and sparked by playing a 22 year old Tim Duncan 43.1 minutes per playoff game... somebody who wasn't then, but went on to become the best power forward ever.

After 26 years of franchise disappointment ... and the first of the ABA teams to go all the way
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/adrumaddict/91247922.jpg

Going 15-2 in the playoffs is dominant.... as is sweeping a team in the Finals almost 10 years later.... Spurs definitely deserve a good amount of credit, whether the team is filled with popular "names" or not.

Great post dude, repped.



While I agree that the 99 Spurs were one of the top defensive teams these past 2 decades, it's just hard to compare them to other great defensive teams because of the shortened season as well as the sleuth of younger teams that the Spurs saw during the playoffs.


The playoffs weren't shortened, and yet their numbers were retained, clearly indicating that they were a good team, regardless of 30 less regular season games having been played.

But oh, the "current Lakers" were better, right? Even though they give up over 10 more PPG than that Spurs team did, and rarely hold teams to under 90, much less low 80s or even the 70s. :facepalm But they're better defensively. . .since they're the Lakers, and not Spurs, right?

And you're AGAIN making excuses for their title. They won FOUR titles. . .but they didn't deserve to win the first one? Who did then? Nobody else beat them. They were crushing the league which was comprised of almost all the players who were in the league the year before, and would be in it the next year too.

Reading all your posts, at this point it's obvious you care about the brand name of teams/players more than the actual product.

The epitome of bias.

[jlip]

Great thread. People tend to foolishly underrate them because of the shortened season. They act as if the Spurs somehow played 75 games while everyone else played 50. The Spurs played the same amount of games as everyone else and destroyed everyone on their road to their 1st title.

[Scott Baker]

I really think the Knicks would've won if not for injuries.

That Spurs team was a lot of fun to watch though.

[Wakko]

I really think the Knicks would've won if not for injuries.

That Spurs team was a lot of fun to watch though.
:hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead:

[Gotterdammerung]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ShaqAttack3234 again.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SinJackal again.
:facepalm

Solid posts, y'all. :bowdown:

[rmt]

The 1999 Spurs are one of the teams that could give the second three-peat Bulls some trouble.

The Bulls alleged weakness was their post defense and lack of a true center. They were able to hide that with their terrific help defenders, perimeter defense and Rodman's exceptional post-defense and mental tactics.

I don't think they would be able to hold their own against two elite big men, though. Robinson was still a top ten player in the league contrary to what his stats imply and Duncan was the best player in the league.

The Bulls wouldn't generate a lot of points in the paint and will have to heavily rely on Jordan for offense. I find it hard to believe that Rodman would lock up Duncan when Kemp was having his way with him and Chuck also had a huge game against him. Add Robinson and the Bulls would struggle finding an answer for him. The Bulls help defense will trouble SAS, though.

The 1999 Spurs were also a historically terrific defense team and very well-built around two dominant big men. A veteran floor general in Avery Johnson who lacked outside shooting but did a good job of hitting clutch and timely jumpers and feeding the post. Outside threats such as Steve Kerr, Jaren Jackson, Mario Elie and Sean Elliott to space the floor for Duncan to work down low. Admiral operating at the elbow area hitting face up jumpers and cutting to the rim with Duncan being doubled. Their games weren't redundant either and complemented each other more than anything.

Didn't MJ once say that he was glad that the Bulls didn't have to play Hakeem in the Finals because they just had no answer for him? Just goes to show how important match ups are. The 99 Spurs were the "opposite" (strength- and weakness-wise) to the Bulls.

Almost every offensive possession for the Spurs would have had to be 4-down or 2-man game between Duncan and Robinson. Fun to speculate though. Even though the Spurs were tough, seasoned veterans (except for Duncan), they didn't go up against any team anywhere as mentally tough with great chemistry as the Bulls.

[97 bulls]

The 1999 Spurs are one of the teams that could give the second three-peat Bulls some trouble.

The Bulls alleged weakness was their post defense and lack of a true center. They were able to hide that with their terrific help defenders, perimeter defense and Rodman's exceptional post-defense and mental tactics.

I don't think they would be able to hold their own against two elite big men, though. Robinson was still a top ten player in the league contrary to what his stats imply and Duncan was the best player in the league.

The Bulls wouldn't generate a lot of points in the paint and will have to heavily rely on Jordan for offense. I find it hard to believe that Rodman would lock up Duncan when Kemp was having his way with him and Chuck also had a huge game against him. Add Robinson and the Bulls would struggle finding an answer for him. The Bulls help defense will trouble SAS, though.

The 1999 Spurs were also a historically terrific defense team and very well-built around two dominant big men. A veteran floor general in Avery Johnson who lacked outside shooting but did a good job of hitting clutch and timely jumpers and feeding the post. Outside threats such as Steve Kerr, Jaren Jackson, Mario Elie and Sean Elliott to space the floor for Duncan to work down low. Admiral operating at the elbow area hitting face up jumpers and cutting to the rim with Duncan being doubled. Their games weren't redundant either and complemented each other more than anything.the bulls weakness was not low post defense. Luc longley and rodman were very good low post defenders. Im just sick of hearing this. How many teams with quality bigs or even great bigs did the bull loose to in any of their runs? You could say 94 when they lost to the knicks without jordan. Or 95 when they had toni kukoc, larry krystowaik, and bill cartwright as their main bigmen. Now offensively the bulls lacked a quality low post big. But they never lost to a team with a great or quality big. And im convinced that they would've beat the 99 spurs. In fact, the 99 season would've been perfect for an aging bulls team. Only playing half the season? They would've been very rested for a seventh title run.

[97 bulls]

I for one don't think the 99 spurs were their best team. And I never understood how anyone could say that as a spurs fan, out of their four championships, you'd enter the 99 version in an all-time tournament over the others. The spurs had one great player in duncan, david robinson was returning one year emoved from major surgery. They had three guys that got big minutes that were career cba player up to that point in johnson, jackson, and elie. And they had a guy in elliot who played with a bad kidney.

[Big#50]

I for one don't think the 99 spurs were their best team. And I never understood how any :lol could say that as a spurs fan, out of their four championships, you'd enter the 99 version in an all-time tournament over the others. The spurs had one great player in duncan, david robinson was returning one year emoved from major surgery. They had three guys that got big minutes that were career cba player up to that point in johnson, jackson, and elie. And they had a guy in elliot who played with a bad kidney.
05 Spurs are the best team. 99 Spurs were basically impossible to score on but lacked the scoring punch.

[rmt]

the bulls weakness was not low post defense. Luc longley and rodman were very good low post defenders. Im just sick of hearing this. How many teams with quality bigs or even great bigs did the bull loose to in any of their runs? You could say 94 when they lost to the knicks without jordan. Or 95 when they had toni kukoc, larry krystowaik, and bill cartwright as their main bigmen. Now offensively the bulls lacked a quality low post big. But they never lost to a team with a great or quality big. And im convinced that they would've beat the 99 spurs. In fact, the 99 season would've been perfect for an aging bulls team. Only playing half the season? They would've been very rested for a seventh title run.

I agree that they would beat the 99 spurs - mostly because of intangibles like mental toughness/competitive fire (MJ), team chemistry and the aura/intimidation surrounding a 6-time champion. Only Elie (of the starters) had been on a championship team and Duncan, even though he played very well, was still only a 2nd year player (and a shortened year at that).

The (fun) speculation is how they would have handled a prime Hakeem or Duncan/Robinson combo. The Bulls never played a team with bigs the caliber of Hakeem and Duncan/Robinson.

I also think that the 05 spurs were better than the 99 spurs - more versatile, deeper, talented.

[niko]

Good post, would rep if I could. Do you think the Knicks would have had a chance to win that year had Ewing been healthy? That was something that I was always curious about.

If the Knicks as a whole were healthy, yes. But by the finals not only was Ewing out but a bunch of other Knicks were hurt. Too many to give teh benefit of the doubt. If Ewing, didn't get hurt and Camby's back didn't start hurting him and LJ's back didn't give out and everyone was at 100% and still everyone else contributed the same...

Well you get the idea. It's the same as IF Ginibili played 40 minutes a game he'd be Kobe. He can't.

[97 bulls]

I agree that they would beat the 99 spurs - mostly because of intangibles like mental toughness/competitive fire (MJ), team chemistry and the aura/intimidation surrounding a 6-time champion. Only Elie (of the starters) had been on a championship team and Duncan, even though he played very well, was still only a 2nd year player (and a shortened year at that).

The (fun) speculation is how they would have handled a prime Hakeem or Duncan/Robinson combo. The Bulls never played a team with bigs the caliber of Hakeem and Duncan/Robinson.

I also think that the 05 spurs were better than the 99 spurs - more versatile, deeper, talented.
I think shaq, ewing, mutombo, and mourning are top flight centers.

[rmt]

I think shaq, ewing, mutombo, and mourning are top flight centers.
I wouldn't say Ewing, Mutombo or Mourning are the same caliber player as Hakeem or Duncan/Robinson combo. Shaq, yes, hence the 1-1 against the Bulls in the playoffs.

[97 bulls]

I wouldn't say Ewing, Mutombo or Mourning are the same caliber player as Hakeem or Duncan/Robinson combo. Shaq, yes, hence the 1-1 against the Bulls in the playoffs.
I thought we were talking defensively. And sure they're 1-1, but one of those losses were without the bulls bigmen in question rodman and longley. Not to mention I didn't even list the pfs. I mean, if I were gonna rate their defense id give longley a c+ or even a b-. And id give rodman an A when he was healthy.

[catch24]

Fantastic post, Shaqattack. IMO, this and the 2005 team would duke it out and probably go the full 7.

[Yung D-Will]

Fantastic post, Shaqattack. IMO, this and the 2005 team would duke it out and probably go the full 7.
And then Duncan would hit the gamewinner :pimp:

[DatWasNashty]

the bulls weakness was not low post defense.
You severely lack reading comprehension. I said low post defense was their "alleged weakness." Go look up the definition of that and come back to me.

Luc longley and rodman were very good low post defenders.
lol. He was average at best. Their rotation of Wennignton/Perdue/Longley wasn't great defensively, either. Fouled hard, understood the triangle well, passed out of the high block, hit elbow and baseline jumpers and all that but they weren't elite at any aspect of the game. You think Longley can handle Robinson's face up game? You think he's mobile enough to keep up with him and not get in foul trouble? The answer is no. Admiral absolutely feasted on the Bulls in their four season match ups in 1996 and 1998 (granted he wasn't as good in 1999 due to taking a backseat to Duncan and the injury he suffered in 1997). Add the fact that he would have Duncan taking pressure off of him and it's not hard to imagine him being dominant.
[QUOTE] How many teams with quality bigs or even great bigs did the bull loose to in any of their runs?
Another sign of your inability to read. The Bulls never faced a team with two elite bigs which is what I was referring to.


But they never lost to a team with a great or quality big.
They never faced a team built like San Antonio.

In fact, the 99 season would've been perfect for an aging bulls team. Only playing half the season? They would've been very rested for a seventh title run.
This is just more proof of your ignorance. The 1999 season hurt the older teams because of the tight schedule. It's a big reason why the Utah Jazz couldn't make it to the finals. Back to backs, no major breaks etc came back to haunt them in the playoffs.

[nycelt84]

I thought we were talking defensively. And sure they're 1-1, but one of those losses were without the bulls bigmen in question rodman and longley. Not to mention I didn't even list the pfs. I mean, if I were gonna rate their defense id give longley a c+ or even a b-. And id give rodman an A when he was healthy.

Luc Longley was traded to the Bulls during the 93-94 season.

[97 bulls]

You severely lack reading comprehension. I said low post defense was their "alleged weakness." Go look up the definition of that and come back to me.
[QUOTE]Luc longley and rodman were very good low post defenders.
lol. He was average at best. Their rotation of Wennignton/Perdue/Longley wasn't great defensively, either. Fouled hard, understood the triangle well, passed out of the high block, hit elbow and baseline jumpers and all that but they weren't elite at any aspect of the game. You think Longley can handle Robinson's face up game? You think he's mobile enough to keep up with him and not get in foul trouble? The answer is no. Admiral absolutely feasted on the Bulls in their four season match ups in 1996 and 1998 (granted he wasn't as good in 1999 due to taking a backseat to Duncan and the injury he suffered in 1997). Add the fact that he would have Duncan taking pressure off of him and it's not hard to imagine him being dominant.

Another sign of your inability to read. The Bulls never faced a team with two elite bigs which is what I was referring to.


They never faced a team built like San Antonio.

This is just more proof of your ignorance. The 1999 season hurt the older teams because of the tight schedule. It's a big reason why the Utah Jazz couldn't make it to the finals. Back to backs, no major breaks etc came back to haunt them in the playoffs.
Wow my post mustve really pissed you off lol. When you said alleged I took it that you were using it in the form an accusation. And to be honest, the way you used it made no sense. Ive never heard that the bulls weakness was their low post defense until you brought it up. And i disputed it cuz the bulls bigs were weak, or considered weak on offense. But they were solid defensively. Im sick of people alluding to their bigs as a weakness cuz they didnt need longley or rodman to try to outscore their opponant. They were there to play defense and rebound. Which they both did well. Honestly, you dont know what your talking about.

And like I said,they've faced quality bigs before. How bout ewing and oakley? How bout webber, howard, and muresan? How bout zo and pj brown? A second year duncan and an older coming off injury david robinson aren't that much better than the guys I mentioned.

And sure its true that they never played a team like the spurs, but its also true that the spurs never beat a team even remotely close to the caliber of the bulls. Or the teams the bulls beat. In fact, the spurs have beaten some of the worse teams I've ever seen reprensent a conference in an nba final. Other than the knicks and they didn't have ewing.

As far as the 99 season, I guess its just preference. Sure there were more back to backs but the season was still shorter. It didn't really effect utahs record cuz their winning percentage was the same. They just lost. Not to mention their starters were all in their mid 30s. It had passed them by.

Id also like to make one last point. I've noticed on this forum that sure tell tale signs that a guy is getting owned in a debate is when they resort to insults, calling said debaters young, correcting a posters grammer, leaving negative reps, and questioning a posters intelligence. Youve played a few of these cards.you've done a few of these things whole responding to my post. Which shows me that you know you're not in my league when it comes to basketball. I suggest you bow out now and let a better poster take your place.

[97 bulls]

Luc Longley was traded to the Bulls during the 93-94 season.
Yeah but he played sparringly

[OnceInADECADE]

great post Shaq

[DatWasNashty]

And to be honest, the way you used it made no sense.
It made perfect sense to anyone who understands English.

Ive never heard that the bulls weakness was their low post defense until you brought it up.
I see you were in a coma during the second three-peat. People always used to talk about their inept big men and how they'd struggle going up against dominant centers. Check these quotes out. "But but but it wasn't considered a weakness":facepalm

the Jazz did go at the Bulls' supposed defensive weakness: their big men
Philadelphia Inquirer - Jun 11, 1998


No longer unproven and unsure, Jason Caffey is solid and confident Just over a week ago, the Chicago Bulls were worried about rebounding, low-post defense
Fort Worth Star-Telegram - May 18, 1997


a ``great team'' but said they have trouble with their low-post defense
Philadelphia Inquirer - Jan 13, 1996

Do you need any more quotes especially when the team itself is admitting its weakness?


And i disputed it cuz the bulls bigs were weak, or considered weak on offense. But they were solid defensively. Im sick of people alluding to their bigs as a weakness cuz they didnt need longley or rodman to try to outscore their opponant. They were there to play defense and rebound. Which they both did well.
I see you still don't understand that they won't be able to counter TWO ELITE BIG MEN. Rodman would have his hands full guarding a young Duncan and wouldn't be able to help out Longley against Robinson. It's not like Duncan hindered Robinson's game, either since Duncan operated at the low block while Admiral worked around the elbow area cutting to the rim and using his face up game. Longley would have no chance of keeping Admiral from getting his.



And like I said,they've faced quality bigs before. How bout ewing and oakley? How bout webber, howard, and muresan? How bout zo and pj brown? A second year duncan and an older coming off injury david robinson aren't that much better than the guys I mentioned.
None of the frontlines you mentioned provide a mismatch inside like the Spurs would. Love how you play off a second year Duncan when he was nearly a finished product. He came late out of college and was considered a matured, elite player from the get-go. He was the best player in the league in 1999. While it's true that this is the older, declined David Robinson, he would still feast on the Bulls frontline like he did in the season match ups. He's also better than what his statistics imply. Look at his minutes per game and his shot attempts which had significantly decrease due to the Spurs running the offense through Duncan.


And sure its true that they never played a team like the spurs, but its also true that the spurs never beat a team even remotely close to the caliber of the bulls. Or the teams the bulls beat. In fact, the spurs have beaten some of the worse teams I've ever seen reprensent a conference in an nba final. Other than the knicks and they didn't have ewing.
They swept the Shaq-led Lakers. That help you any?

As far as the 99 season, I guess its just preference. Sure there were more back to backs but the season was still shorter. It didn't really effect utahs record cuz their winning percentage was the same. They just lost. Not to mention their starters were all in their mid 30s. It had passed them by.
The Bulls starters would be in their mid 30s as well or will they drink from the fountain of youth?


Id also like to make one last point. I've noticed on this forum that sure tell tale signs that a guy is getting owned in a debate is when they resort to insults, calling said debaters young, correcting a posters grammer, leaving negative reps, and questioning a posters intelligence. Youve played a few of these cards.you've done a few of these things whole responding to my post. Which shows me that you know you're not in my league when it comes to basketball. I suggest you bow out now and let a better poster take your place.
Kid, you're the one who's severly misinformed and unable to properly analyze basketball. I suggest you go jump off a cliff.

[nycelt84]

It made perfect sense to anyone who understands English.

I see you were in a coma during the second three-peat. People always used to talk about their inept big men and how they'd struggle going up against dominant centers. Check these quotes out. "But but but it wasn't considered a weakness":facepalm

Philadelphia Inquirer - Jun 11, 1998


Fort Worth Star-Telegram - May 18, 1997


Philadelphia Inquirer - Jan 13, 1996

Do you need any more quotes especially when the team itself is admitting its weakness?


I see you still don't understand that they won't be able to counter TWO ELITE BIG MEN. Rodman would have his hands full guarding a young Duncan and wouldn't be able to help out Longley against Robinson. It's not like Duncan hindered Robinson's game, either since Duncan operated at the low block while Admiral worked around the elbow area cutting to the rim and using his face up game. Longley would have no chance of keeping Admiral from getting his.



None of the frontlines you mentioned provide a mismatch inside like the Spurs would. Love how you play off a second year Duncan when he was nearly a finished product. He came late out of college and was considered a matured, elite player from the get-go. He was the best player in the league in 1999. While it's true that this is the older, declined David Robinson, he would still feast on the Bulls frontline like he did in the season match ups. He's also better than what his statistics imply. Look at his minutes per game and his shot attempts which had significantly decrease due to the Spurs running the offense through Duncan.


They swept the Shaq-led Lakers. That help you any?

The Bulls starters would be in their mid 30s as well or will they drink from the fountain of youth?


Kid, you're the one who's severly misinformed and unable to properly analyze basketball. I suggest you go jump off a cliff.

Tim Duncan and David Robinson were better than all of those duos mentioned by Bulls even in the 97-98 season. By the way Tim Duncan was a top 5 player in the league as a rookie and should have won MVP in '99. I have no idea what him being a 2nd year player had anything to do with how he played in '99. David Robinson was also an all-star in '98. His back injury was well behind him.

[97 bulls]

It made perfect sense to anyone who understands English.

I see you were in a coma during the second three-peat. People always used to talk about their inept big men and how they'd struggle going up against dominant centers. Check these quotes out. "But but but it wasn't considered a weakness":facepalm

Philadelphia Inquirer - Jun 11, 1998


Fort Worth Star-Telegram - May 18, 1997


Philadelphia Inquirer - Jan 13, 1996

Do you need any more quotes especially when the team itself is admitting its weakness?


I see you still don't understand that they won't be able to counter TWO ELITE BIG MEN. Rodman would have his hands full guarding a young Duncan and wouldn't be able to help out Longley against Robinson. It's not like Duncan hindered Robinson's game, either since Duncan operated at the low block while Admiral worked around the elbow area cutting to the rim and using his face up game. Longley would have no chance of keeping Admiral from getting his.



None of the frontlines you mentioned provide a mismatch inside like the Spurs would. Love how you play off a second year Duncan when he was nearly a finished product. He came late out of college and was considered a matured, elite player from the get-go. He was the best player in the league in 1999. While it's true that this is the older, declined David Robinson, he would still feast on the Bulls frontline like he did in the season match ups. He's also better than what his statistics imply. Look at his minutes per game and his shot attempts which had significantly decrease due to the Spurs running the offense through Duncan.


They swept the Shaq-led Lakers. That help you any?

The Bulls starters would be in their mid 30s as well or will they drink from the fountain of youth?


Kid, you're the one who's severly misinformed and unable to properly analyze basketball. I suggest you go jump off a cliff.
I need better quotes than the ones you've referred to. Since when do the 3 newspaper clippings (probably taken out of context) show that the bulls bigs were weak defensively? And one of the clips you used shows their depth. It was showing that caffey, who took rodmans place when he kicked that cameraman filled in for rodman and did a good job. It in no way shows that the bulls were weak defensively at the PF and C position.

Now if you wanna say that it was their weakest position in that you weren't gonna go at jordan pippen and harper then I guess your right. But it wasn't a weakness defensively. The bulls were great or solid at every position when it came to defense.

I think we misundersand each other. I agree that in a spurs/bulls matchup, the spurs have the advantage at PF and C. But that's it. The bulls are better at every other position, even point guard and they have a better coach and bench. And I don't know why you'd bring up the lakers. A shaq led team had been swept out of the playoffs every year when it was their time to go up to that point. 99 was no different. But the teams they played in the championship were relatively terrible.

And you can't bring up the bulls cuz they were the reigning champs. If they had lost in 98, id agree with you.

Oh and calling a poster a "kid" another sign that you're getting your ass whooped and are frusrtated.

[97 bulls]

Tim Duncan and David Robinson were better than all of those duos mentioned by Bulls even in the 97-98 season. By the way Tim Duncan was a top 5 player in the league as a rookie and should have won MVP in '99. I have no idea what him being a 2nd year player had anything to do with how he played in '99. David Robinson was also an all-star in '98. His back injury was well behind him.
I never said the players I mentioned were better. But they were damn good bigs. And not that far off talent-wise from duncan and robinson. And its funny how you say robinsons back injury was well behind him, but then in another thread, was knocking the bulls cuz thomas got injured in 91. Even though he was well passed an injury that didn't require him to miss a whole season like robinson and was alot younger. I sense a hater

[magnax1]

Probably one the five best defensive teams of the past 20 or so years. Great team, and the best defensive duo in Robinson and Duncan I can think of in recent memory. I don't understand how Duncan was better then Malone, Zo or Shaq at this point, but he had a great playoffs.

[nycelt84]

I never said the players I mentioned were better. But they were damn good bigs. And not that far off talent-wise from duncan and robinson. And its funny how you say robinsons back injury was well behind him, but then in another thread, was knocking the bulls cuz thomas got injured in 91. Even though he was well passed an injury that didn't require him to miss a whole season like robinson and was alot younger. I sense a hater

I think you're confused. I've never made any posts concerning any Thomas or the '91 Bulls. If you have any such evidence post it.

[Alhazred]

If you would have asked the young version of me at the time, I would have said yes, but in hindsight, I doubt it. Then again, it's hard to say what a healthy Ewing was at the time, he was always playing through injuries and he was closer to 40 than 30 at the time.

But it would've made the series more competitive. LJ was getting abused in the post, Duncan was schooling him with moves and when he had to guard Robinson, David would just turn and shoot over him. Kurt Thomas is only about 6'8" and Marcus Camby was in constant foul trouble. Oddly, in short stretches, Chris Dudley seemed to do the best job on Duncan out of any New York big man.


If the Knicks as a whole were healthy, yes. But by the finals not only was Ewing out but a bunch of other Knicks were hurt. Too many to give teh benefit of the doubt. If Ewing, didn't get hurt and Camby's back didn't start hurting him and LJ's back didn't give out and everyone was at 100% and still everyone else contributed the same...

Well you get the idea. It's the same as IF Ginibili played 40 minutes a game he'd be Kobe. He can't.

I agree with you both that San Antonio was going to win regardless. I do think that if Patrick had played the Knicks could have stretched that series out to six games, though. Good points about New York's other injuries too, niko. I forgot about Larry Johnson' injuries back then, they started around 1996, right? Just before he was traded from Charlotte?

Sorry for the long response time, by the way. I've been busy with classes.

[Rake2204]

My 2K12 interpretation of the events that unfolded in the 1999 WCF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UBprPp5uck

[rmt]

The 1999 Spurs are one of the teams that could give the second three-peat Bulls some trouble.

The Bulls alleged weakness was their post defense and lack of a true center. They were able to hide that with their terrific help defenders, perimeter defense and Rodman's exceptional post-defense and mental tactics.

I don't think they would be able to hold their own against two elite big men, though. Robinson was still a top ten player in the league contrary to what his stats imply and Duncan was the best player in the league.

The Bulls wouldn't generate a lot of points in the paint and will have to heavily rely on Jordan for offense. I find it hard to believe that Rodman would lock up Duncan when Kemp was having his way with him and Chuck also had a huge game against him. Add Robinson and the Bulls would struggle finding an answer for him. The Bulls help defense will trouble SAS, though.

The 1999 Spurs were also a historically terrific defense team and very well-built around two dominant big men. A veteran floor general in Avery Johnson who lacked outside shooting but did a good job of hitting clutch and timely jumpers and feeding the post. Outside threats such as Steve Kerr, Jaren Jackson, Mario Elie and Sean Elliott to space the floor for Duncan to work down low. Admiral operating at the elbow area hitting face up jumpers and cutting to the rim with Duncan being doubled. Their games weren't redundant either and complemented each other more than anything.

Below is a report on a 97-98 Bulls/Spurs game - 3rd game of Duncan's ROOKIE season.

In a game against Michael Jordan's championship Chicago Bulls, Tim and David fought the championship team every step of the way, forcing the game into not one but two over time periods before eventually losing by just four points. Tim matched Bulls' top-notch defender Dennis Rodman rebound for rebound for a total of twenty-two, and whenever he wasn't there, David Robinson was. "We had to shoot jump shots," Jordan said after the game, explaining the challenge he and his team mates had faced. "And believe me, I tried to get to the basket. But with those two Twin Towers sitting in the middle, it was tough."

http://books.google.com/books?id=Egjhj41LEt8C&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=tim+duncan+overtime+robinson+jordan+rodman&source=bl&ots=Ctw1S5kiA_&sig=n_HvLuMHalqyTI6nyxgRbnR9scU&hl=en&ei=APilTeXnGYLG0QGJ6an4CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false