San Antonio Fans. What if?

[westsideozzie]

If Pop ran the same offense schematics that he runs now, and implemented them back in 2003, are we talking about potentially a run of maybe 9 or ten rings... I don't see how the Big 3 in their prime with the subsequent supporting cast could lose to anyone 4 times in a series, and that includes the police informant himself, Kobe Bryant.

[navy]

If Pop ran the same offense schematics that he runs now, and implemented them back in 2003, are we talking about potentially a run of maybe 9 or ten rings... I don't see how the Big 3 in their prime with the subsequent supporting cast could lose to anyone 4 times in a series, and that includes the police informant himself, Kobe Bryant.
:roll:

[bballnoob1192]

kobe historically shitted on the Spurs. Might be the top player vs a team performances of all time.

[T_L_P]

kobe historically shitted on the Spurs. Might be the top player vs a team performances of all time.

Kobe vs Spurs (in 30 games): 28/6/5/.473 FG%/.352 3P%/.733 FT%

Jordan vs Knicks (in 28 games): 33/6/6/.470 FG%/.342 3P%/.841 FT%

Seems unlikely, since that was just a random 'Jordan vs. team' series that popped up in my head. :confusedshrug:

[nosfan773]

kobe historically shitted on the Spurs. Might be the top player vs a team performances of all time.

How is this an accepted fact on ISH :facepalm

vs Spurs
24.0 / 4.2 ast / 5.4 reb

vs Mavs
24.3 / 4.6 / 6.2

vs Suns
26.1 / 5.0 / 5.8

vs Celtics
25.1 / 4.5 / 4.9

vs Cavs
23.6 / 4.7 / 5.6


And those were just teams that were somewhat competitive during his time. For those categories the spurs are 5th in Points, 3rd in assists, and 17th in rebounds.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01/splits/

[JohnMax]

Last time the Lakers faced an elite offense, they got swept (Dallas), lost in the 1st round (Phoenix) or needed ref help (Sacramento).

Spurs are all those teams combined + elite defense.

[ArbitraryWater]

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... acting like the 2001-2003 Spurs were deep.. Duncan carried them.

[mehyaM24]

well first of all, that sounds like a HUGE what if.

of course - i am of the opinion, that the spurs OVERALL underachieved with ALL the talent they had in the early 2000s part of that was popovich putting too much trust in tim duncan, who by nature, isn't what you call a go-to star and someone you can rely on heavily for long periods of a game - the other was his development of the young, international talent he drafted, traded for and again, developed. of course - these guys turned into great nba players, and to most intelligent basketball fans, the actual heart of the spurs.

if pop somehow were to instill more trust into these guys, and they were to develop at an earlier age (back then, euro players weren't nurtured and given opportunities as they are today) - i do contend that they win more.

[mehyaM24]

:biggums:


2003 was arguably the most stacked Spurs team of All-Time.

Bruce Bowen - peak, one of the greatest perimeter defenders of his time
Manu Ginobili - athletic prime
Tony Parker - athletic prime
Tim Duncan - athletic prime/overall prime
David Robinson - still a solid contributor
Stephen Jackson - athletic prime and was hot during the playoffs
Steve Smith - solid vet
Steve Kerr - still an elite sniper
Kevin Willis - solid big
Malik Rose - solid overall big that did the dirty work ala draymond green

Team was loaded/stacked on the low.. only idiotic posters/glory tim duncan fornicators still continue to disrespect this squad. 03 Spurs would give 2014 Spurs major problems IMO.

i dont agree with you on much, but i am glad we see EYE TO EYE here. very well said - and something i have been preaching here for months. :applause:

shaq was my favorite player at the time - i remember watching that spurs series, seeing not just duncan, but the whole spurs lineup REAM shaq's lakers, who never had an answer for tony parker.

[ArbitraryWater]

:biggums:


2003 was arguably the most stacked Spurs team of All-Time.

Bruce Bowen - peak, one of the greatest perimeter defenders of his time
Manu Ginobili - athletic prime
Tony Parker - athletic prime
Tim Duncan - athletic prime/overall prime
David Robinson - still a solid contributor
Stephen Jackson - athletic prime and was hot during the playoffs
Steve Smith - solid vet
Steve Kerr - still an elite sniper
Kevin Willis - solid big
Malik Rose - solid overall big that did the dirty work ala draymond green

Team was loaded/stacked on the low.. only idiotic posters/glory tim duncan fornicators still continue to disrespect this squad. 03 Spurs would give 2014 Spurs major problems IMO.


:roll: :roll:

Duncan's 2nd best player was Stephen Jackson..

Robinson was one leg into retirement, Ginobili was a rookie, Parker sophomore..

[T_L_P]

:biggums:


2003 was arguably the most stacked Spurs team of All-Time.

Bruce Bowen - peak, one of the greatest perimeter defenders of his time
Manu Ginobili - athletic prime
Tony Parker - athletic prime
Tim Duncan - athletic prime/overall prime
David Robinson - still a solid contributor
Stephen Jackson - athletic prime and was hot during the playoffs
Steve Smith - solid vet
Steve Kerr - still an elite sniper
Kevin Willis - solid big
Malik Rose - solid overall big that did the dirty work ala draymond green

Team was loaded/stacked on the low.. only idiotic posters/glory tim duncan fornicators still continue to disrespect this squad. 03 Spurs would give 2014 Spurs major problems IMO.

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

[T_L_P]

well first of all, that sounds like a HUGE what if.

of course - i am of the opinion, that the spurs OVERALL underachieved with ALL the talent they had in the early 2000s part of that was popovich putting too much trust in tim duncan, who by nature, isn't what you call a go-to star and someone you can rely on heavily for long periods of a game - the other was his development of the young, international talent he drafted, traded for and again, developed. of course - these guys turned into great nba players, and to most intelligent basketball fans, the actual heart of the spurs.

if pop somehow were to instill more trust into these guys, and they were to develop at an earlier age (back then, euro players weren't nurtured and given opportunities as they are today) - i do contend that they win more.

Your knowledge of organs. :facepalm

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

Go back to school, chump.

[ArbitraryWater]

Typical Tim Duncan stan trying to discredit everyone and anyone on the Spurs outside of Timmy. A few hours ago you were discrediting Manu Ginobili and his Argentinian squad that thoroughly defeated a Tim Duncan led team USA (who was at his peak at the time). Now you're taking shots at Tony Parker.. hop off Tim's nuts bro.. srsly.

But yes Claxton was another quality player.. was going off the top. Like I said, Spurs top to bottom were loaded.

He also JUST called Ginobili the Spurs' best player in 2005...... Seriously.. That's an extremely rare opinion.

[mehyaM24]

Your knowledge of organs. :facepalm

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

Go back to school, chump.

if we want to use anatomy references - the spurs had multiple heart transplants. gino, kawhi and pop all have had their share - but they were taken care of promptly.

if i had to compare duncan to a human organ, it would be your appendix. you can live with or without one - they're negligible.

[mehyaM24]

He also JUST called Ginobili the Spurs' best player in 2005...... Seriously.. That's an extremely rare opinion.
i convinced him of that. prior to me posting about the spurs here, everyone, including TLP, thought it was ridiculous 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....

[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....

:oldlol:

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'. :oldlol:

Just in case 'you don't remember'

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.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. :facepalm
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. :facepalm

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/showthread.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/showthread.php?t=363763
great thread. its nice seeing objective spurs fans here for once, not duncan-only fans. :applause:

[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.

[ninephive]

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?
I've answered this in lots of different threads. Pop has an unhealthy level of disrespect for Parker, at least when it comes to sitting him late in games. Parker has made game winning shots in the regular season and in the playoffs and Finals. He's almost always solid down the stretch, especially in the biggest moments (his close out sequence in G6 in Miami was '98-Jordanesque). But where was he for the last possession in overtime? On the bench while Manu literally didn't even get a shot up and we lost by 1. Manu has missed so many game-winners I can't even keep up with them anymore (often times multiple in the same game). The way he completey threw the 3 OT Portland game away was unreal. Yet Pop has full confidence in him like no other. Look, I can see putting in players you think will be better for the possession (he even benched Duncan at the end of regulation in G6), but to me it doesn't make sense because those are your most experienced players. All this playoff experience to be on the bench at the end of games, and in my opinion, it's cost us some big big games.

[Artillery]

I've answered this in lots of different threads. Pop has an unhealthy level of disrespect for Parker, at least when it comes to sitting him late in games. Parker has made game winning shots in the regular season and in the playoffs and Finals. He's almost always solid down the stretch, especially in the biggest moments (his close out sequence in G6 in Miami was '98-Jordanesque). But where was he for the last possession in overtime? On the bench while Manu literally didn't even get a shot up and we lost by 1. Manu has missed so many game-winners I can't even keep up with them anymore (often times multiple in the same game). The way he completey threw the 3 OT Portland game away was unreal. Yet Pop has full confidence in him like no other. Look, I can see putting in players you think will be better for the possession (he even benched Duncan at the end of regulation in G6), but to me it doesn't make sense because those are your most experienced players. All this playoff experience to be on the bench at the end of games, and in my opinion, it's cost us some big big games.

Parker has never been the best OR second best player on any Spurs title team. Manu's 2005 season(and post-season) takes a fat dump over anything Tony Parker has ever done in the NBA. Tony had his shot for a similar chance to shine in 2013 but he completely blew it in the Finals with his chokejob against the Heat.

[ninephive]

great thread. its nice seeing objective spurs fans here for once, not duncan-only fans. :applause:
The Duncan agenda has gotten out of control and here's the sad thing: it's just a reaction to some of the ridiculous posters on this thread that say that Duncan was the product of a system or that he had too much help or that he's behind Kobe all-time or some other dumb crap. Then, Sours fans overreact and try to say that Duncan has been the best player every year (or especially every champiobship year). i don't care what source you go to...the Spurs themselves (Pop, Duncan, Manu, etc. have all called this Tony's team the past few seasons). The other coaches in the NBA and the organization itself has recognized Parker as the Spurs best player (only All-Star, All-NBA Spur). The media recognizes is (Barkley, Reggie, Simmons, etc.). And almost every Spurs fan I know (that is around my age, so have been fans since the 80's says the same thing. But here on ISH a few Spurs posters (and I'm wondering if they're more like the Lebron fans who would change teams if Duncan did) try to discount Parker in every way possible. We just need to use stats and other objective evidence to show them how silly their claims are:

Yah, Speedy Claxton, a 5 PPG guard was better than Parker. Evidence: because he played a lot in one quarter of a game. But what about the dozens of other playoff games? Those don't matter...only the one I'm cherry-picking.)

Yah, the Spurs are better without Parker because they managed to win a game (in overtime) when Parker didn't play in one half. But what about all the other games we won where our best players scored less than Parker did in that game and we still won? Those don't matter...only the one where Parker sat out matters. But what about our only elimination game where Parker went for 32? That game doesn't matter...we would have done better without his 32. Mills would have probably scored 55.

[ninephive]

Parker has never been the best OR second best player on any Spurs title team. Manu's 2005 season(and post-season) takes a fat dump over anything Tony Parker has ever done in the NBA. Tony had his shot for a similar chance to shine in 2013 but he completely blew it in the Finals with his chokejob against the Heat.
Hahahahahhahahahaha
2014: All-Star, All-NBA, leads the Spurs in scoring and assists throughout the regular season and playoffs, leads the team in scoring in the Finals.

And yah, Tony's the one who choked in 2013...not only because he led the Spurs in scoring in Game 5 to get to a closeout Game 6, but because all he did in Game 6 was take a team that was down 3 points with 2 minutes left and hit a 3 over Lebron to tie the game. Oh, wait, that's not all. Then he stole the ball from Lebron the next play and came down and hit a go-ahead floater over Chalmers to put the Spurs up 2. But you're right, he should have been a man and not let Manu or Kawhi get fouled so he could actually go down and make free throws and seal the game. Or he should have been a man and checked himself in at the end of overtime so the Spurs could have at least had someone on the court who could get a shot up, instead of 8-turnover Ginobili trying to be an NFL running back. The great thing for us about Ginobili is he saved the only 8-turnover game of his career for Game 6 of the Finals.

[rmt]

(his close out sequence in G6 in Miami was '98-Jordanesque).


because all he did in Game 6 was take a team that was down 3 points with 2 minutes left and hit a 3 over Lebron to tie the game. Oh, wait, that's not all. Then he stole the ball from Lebron the next play and came down and hit a go-ahead floater over Chalmers to put the Spurs up 2. But you're right, he should have been a man and not let Manu or Kawhi get fouled so he could actually go down and make free throws and seal the game. Or he should have been a man and checked himself in at the end of overtime so the Spurs could have at least had someone on the court who could get a shot up, instead of 8-turnover Ginobili trying to be an NFL running back. The great thing for us about Ginobili is he saved the only 8-turnover game of his career for Game 6 of the Finals.

Jordanesque? So the way he ended game 6 makes up for his crappy performance the whole rest of the game? Now you're sounding like Kobe stans. He shot 6 of 23 (26.1%) while Duncan was 13 of 21 (61.9%) and Leonard was 9 of 14 (64.3%). Why didn't he pass the ball to one of them instead of forcing up 23 shots when he was shooting so horribly?



Yah, Speedy Claxton, a 5 PPG guard was better than Parker. Evidence: because he played a lot in one quarter of a game. But what about the dozens of other playoff games? Those don't matter...only the one I'm cherry-picking.)

Yah, the Spurs are better without Parker because they managed to win a game (in overtime) when Parker didn't play in one half.

One quarter of a game? A game? That game wasn't just any other playoff game - it was the 4th quarter of the last game of the NBA FINALS. Let's see Popovich sit Duncan for a 4th quarter of any game in the NBA FINALS.

Yes, they won without Parker vs OKC - they're only the biggest obstacle/worst matchup for the Spurs in recent years. And you forgot to mention is his 0-10 start in 14 Finals game 5 because he scored x pts in the 4th quarter when Spurs already had a comfortable lead.

In case you haven't noticed, you're the only Spur fan in this thread pumping Parker so much - the others doing similar are Kobe and Lebron fans, who have their own agenda vs Duncan.

[riseagainst]

Typical Tim Duncan stan trying to discredit everyone and anyone on the Spurs outside of Timmy. A few hours ago you were discrediting Manu Ginobili and his Argentinian squad that thoroughly defeated a Tim Duncan led team USA (who was at his peak at the time). Now you're taking shots at Tony Parker.. hop off Tim's nuts bro.. srsly.

But yes Claxton was another quality player.. was going off the top. Like I said, Spurs top to bottom were loaded.

lol dam....

[longhornfan1234]

Didn't Buford and Pop try to trade Parker after Memphis playoff loss?

[tpols]

Parker has never been the best OR second best player on any Spurs title team. Manu's 2005 season(and post-season) takes a fat dump over anything Tony Parker has ever done in the NBA. Tony had his shot for a similar chance to shine in 2013 but he completely blew it in the Finals with his chokejob against the Heat.

Parker hit all the clutch shots in that series.. Sick swivel bank shot to close game one.. Then it was back and forth blowouts til game six, when Parker hit a two and long three consecutively to give the spurs a lead under a minute left after being down due to Lebron going 'no head band mode'.

It was Manu and kawhis who choked the championship away at the line.

And aside from that it was Manu who was choking and turning the ball over all series long and Duncan whose second half production fell off while he bricked in layups that would've tied in closing seconds.

Damn Duncan stans:oldlol: trying to revise history.

[longhornfan1234]

Parker hit all the clutch shots in that series.. Sick swivel bank shot to close game one.. Then it was back and forth blowouts til game six, when Parker hit a two and long three consecutively to give the spurs a lead under a minute left after being down due to Lebron going 'no head band mode'.

It was Manu and kawhis who choked the championship away at the line.

And aside from that it was Manu who was choking and turning the ball over all series long and Duncan whose second half production fell off while he bricked in layups that would've tied in closing seconds.

Damn Duncan stans:oldlol: trying to revise history.

:roll: :roll:

Parker was horrible in that series. He got out played by worst starting PG in game 5 and 6. Pop end up benching his sorry ass.

[tpols]

:roll: :roll:

Parker was horrible in that series. He got out played by worst starting PG in game 5 and 6. Pop end up benching his sorry ass.

Parker was the only guy on the spurs who could dribble against Miami pressing perimeter defense . manu was turning the ball over literally dribbling the ball off his own foot.. And Danny green went cold after his historic first 4 games because the defense started give him extra attention. Duncan offensively was a clean up man who feasted on a poor Frontline early in games and couldn't buy a bucket down the stretch when it counted.

If manu and kawhis can just not clank one FT parkers sitting on his second fmvp trophy because he had the narrative at the time with hitting the closeout shots in both of the close swing games in the series.. While being the team's only real creator and initiatior.

[mehyaM24]

Jordanesque? So the way he ended game 6 makes up for his crappy performance the whole rest of the game? Now you're sounding like Kobe stans. He shot 6 of 23 (26.1%) while Duncan was 13 of 21 (61.9%) and Leonard was 9 of 14 (64.3%). Why didn't he pass the ball to one of them instead of forcing up 23 shots when he was shooting so horribly?



One quarter of a game? A game? That game wasn't just any other playoff game - it was the 4th quarter of the last game of the NBA FINALS. Let's see Popovich sit Duncan for a 4th quarter of any game in the NBA FINALS.

Yes, they won without Parker vs OKC - they're only the biggest obstacle/worst matchup for the Spurs in recent years. And you forgot to mention is his 0-10 start in 14 Finals game 5 because he scored x pts in the 4th quarter when Spurs already had a comfortable lead.

In case you haven't noticed, you're the only Spur fan in this thread pumping Parker so much - the others doing similar are Kobe and Lebron fans, who have their own agenda vs Duncan.
except, its the exact opposite. you, tlp, and artilery are known duncan fellators who just cant accept reality. the fact you guys think that duncan is still a better player than tony parker and STILL more important to the spurs' success is a freaking joke.

[rmt]

Parker was the only guy on the spurs who could dribble against Miami pressing perimeter defense . manu was turning the ball over literally dribbling the ball off his own foot.. And Danny green went cold after his historic first 4 games because the defense started give him extra attention. Duncan offensively was a clean up man who feasted on a poor Frontline early in games and couldn't buy a bucket down the stretch when it counted.

If manu and kawhis can just not clank one FT parkers sitting on his second fmvp trophy because he had the narrative at the time with hitting the closeout shots in both of the close swing games in the series.. While being the team's only real creator and initiatior.

2013 Finals game 6
Duncan 30 pts / 17 rebs 61.9%FG +16 130 ORtg 106 DRtg
Parker 19 pts / 8 asst 26.1%FG +8 100 ORtg 112 DRtg
Leonard 22 pts / 11 rebs / 3 stl 64.3%FG +11 151 ORtg 104 DRtg

2013 Finals game 7
Duncan 24 pts / 12 rebs / 4 stl 44.4%FG +2 113 ORtg 97 DRtg
Parker 10 pts / 4 assts 25%FG -4 82 ORtg 107 DRtg
Leonard 19 pts / 16 rebs 47.1%FG -8 103 ORtg 103 DRtg

2013 Playoffs
Duncan 18.9 pts / 12.1 rebs 49% 112 ORtg 105 DRtg
Parker 15.7 pts / 6.4 asst 41.2% 103 ORtg 113 DRtg
Leonard 14.6 pts / 11.1 rebs / 2 stl 51.3%FG 120 ORtg 103 DRtg

2014 Playoffs
Duncan 15.4 pts / 10 reb / 2 asst 56.9% 114 ORtg 105 DRtg
Parker 18 pts / 4.6 asst 47.9% 110 ORtg 110 DRtg
Leonard 17.8 pts 6.4 rebs / 2 asst 61.2% 136 ORtg 101 DRtg

Is Parker the best Spur when it really counts? The numbers don't lie - no matter what late game scenario you come up with.

[rmt]

except, its the exact opposite. you, tlp, and artilery are known duncan fellators who just cant accept reality. the fact you guys think that duncan is still a better player than tony parker and STILL more important to the spurs' success is a freaking joke.

IMO, Duncan has always been more important (except 2011 when Duncan had a poor year) to the spurs' success than Parker. You might like to conveniently forget the other half of the floor - defense where Parker is 15th on the Spurs in Defensive Rating (109) and Duncan is 1st (97) this year and has been holding up the defense with Splitter and Leonard missing significant number of games. Oh and Parker's vaunted offense - a mere 0.1 pts per game more than Duncan - tied in ORtg with TD. And who's the one that's 38 years old and who's the supposed best player on the Spurs - still in his prime?

Ask yourself if Spurs would go farther in the playoffs without Parker or without Duncan. I'll answer for you - Joseph has been doing a fine job, Mills is back and Manu is de facto PG of the second unit. If Duncan goes down, Splitter cannot play more than 25 minutes on good nights (and is still injury-prone), Diaw is worn down from playing all summer, and then you're left with Bonner, Baynes, Ayres and Daye - good luck with them.

[tpols]

2013 Finals game 6
Duncan 30 pts / 17 rebs 61.9%FG +16 130 ORtg 106 DRtg
Parker 19 pts / 8 asst 26.1%FG +8 100 ORtg 112 DRtg
Leonard 22 pts / 11 rebs / 3 stl 64.3%FG +11 151 ORtg 104 DRtg

2013 Finals game 7
Duncan 24 pts / 12 rebs / 4 stl 44.4%FG +2 113 ORtg 97 DRtg
Parker 10 pts / 4 assts 25%FG -4 82 ORtg 107 DRtg
Leonard 19 pts / 16 rebs 47.1%FG -8 103 ORtg 103 DRtg

2013 Playoffs
Duncan 18.9 pts / 12.1 rebs 49% 112 ORtg 105 DRtg
Parker 15.7 pts / 6.4 asst 41.2% 103 ORtg 113 DRtg
Leonard 14.6 pts / 11.1 rebs / 2 stl 51.3%FG 120 ORtg 103 DRtg

2014 Playoffs
Duncan 15.4 pts / 10 reb / 2 asst 56.9% 114 ORtg 105 DRtg
Parker 18 pts / 4.6 asst 47.9% 110 ORtg 110 DRtg
Leonard 17.8 pts 6.4 rebs / 2 asst 61.2% 136 ORtg 101 DRtg

Is Parker the best Spur when it really counts? The numbers don't lie - no matter what late game scenario you come up with.
The guy I replied to said Parker was horrible/choked.

I don't even think Parker had as big an overall impact as Duncan in 2013 playoffs.. But in the finals he would've won fmvp had FTs been made down the stretch. He was leading them in scoring at that point and had pretty much closed the game out on offense singlehandedly.

You list the whole stats for games six and seven.. When the championship was essentially won with the spurs up five, and under 30 seconds to play. That was their by far best chance at winning and Parker put them in that position. He was completely worn out life sucked out of him(as most spurs were) after rays shot and in that OT and looked done afterwards. But he really put them in a huge position to win. Your stats blur that. You know it though..

[SCdac]

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.

Pretty much all this, especially the bold.

The whole premise of this thread is dumb because it just presupposes everything into ten years ago... without any context or realism at all.

Duncan was the first back-to-back MVP since Jordan

[ninephive]

Jordanesque? So the way he ended game 6 makes up for his crappy performance the whole rest of the game? Now you're sounding like Kobe stans. He shot 6 of 23 (26.1%) while Duncan was 13 of 21 (61.9%) and Leonard was 9 of 14 (64.3%). Why didn't he pass the ball to one of them instead of forcing up 23 shots when he was shooting so horribly?



One quarter of a game? A game? That game wasn't just any other playoff game - it was the 4th quarter of the last game of the NBA FINALS. Let's see Popovich sit Duncan for a 4th quarter of any game in the NBA FINALS.

Yes, they won without Parker vs OKC - they're only the biggest obstacle/worst matchup for the Spurs in recent years. And you forgot to mention is his 0-10 start in 14 Finals game 5 because he scored x pts in the 4th quarter when Spurs already had a comfortable lead.

In case you haven't noticed, you're the only Spur fan in this thread pumping Parker so much - the others doing similar are Kobe and Lebron fans, who have their own agenda vs Duncan.
Make up your mind. Would you rather Parker play good at the beginning of games or at the end?

And would someone on this thread please respond to Parker being the only All-Star and only All-NBA player on the Spurs and leading them in scoring and assists throughout the season and playoffs on great shooting? And what about him leading the team yet again in the Finals in scoring? And what about all the people in the media who say he's the best PG in the game? Will someone please respond to these things?

[ninephive]

Hey everyone! Listen to this theory! Tony Parker didn't play the second half of a game we won against OKC! Even though he played in 3 games before that the Spurs won, there's NO WAY the Spurs would have won that one! Even though the Spurs won 14 other games in the playoffs with Parker playing the whole game, there's no way they would have won! I'm a special thinker!

[Genaro]

Answering the OP's question, I think you have to look at the change of rules and the Duncan's aging process as to way Pop decided to go with a new offense. Rules nowadays doesn't allow offenses to have a lot of post ups and Duncan at this age can't have the same workload he had in 2003. That Spurs squads were focus on great defense and feeding off of Duncan offensively.

About the Parker thing, I would like to add that Phil Jackson wrote on his book (Last Season) that the Lakers went after Payton because Paker torched them in 2003. He gave a lot of props to his performance, so I can't bear guys trying to make Parker look like a scrub to prop up Duncan. Duncan was a great player, a legend, everyone knows his place in history, he doesn't need this low ethical tactics to promote himself.

[T_L_P]

About the Parker thing, I would like to add that Phil Jackson wrote on his book (Last Season) that the Lakers went after Payton because Paker torched them in 2003. He gave a lot of props to his performance, so I can't bear guys trying to make Parker look like a scrub to prop up Duncan. Duncan was a great player, a legend, everyone knows his place in history, he doesn't need this low ethical tactics to promote himself.

Surprised by that, because Parker tore Payton a new asshole in 02 (though the Lakers did make Tony look like a chump in that 04 series).

[rmt]

Make up your mind. Would you rather Parker play good at the beginning of games or at the end?

And would someone on this thread please respond to Parker being the only All-Star and only All-NBA player on the Spurs and leading them in scoring and assists throughout the season and playoffs on great shooting? And what about him leading the team yet again in the Finals in scoring? And what about all the people in the media who say he's the best PG in the game? Will someone please respond to these things?

Who's the one who's putting so MUCH emphasis on end of game play? Does playing well at the end of the game negate laying an egg the whole rest of the game? And in reverse, should Duncan not scoring much in the second half of game 6 lay him open to criticism despite his 30/17 TOTAL game contribution?

As far as all-NBA and all-star player, you know well that when a team has the best record in the NBA, there must a requisite representative from said team. Not taking anything away from some of Parker's fine seasons and his contributions to the team - after all, his addition makes Spurs an elite contender, but there is the whole half of the floor, called defense, in which Parker is a putrid #15 (at the bottom of the team) in DRtg that you seem to be forgetting.

Parker is exactly who he is - blessed with tremendous quickness and excellent body control which allows him to score around the rim/among the trees - one who does exactly what Pop tells him to and makes few mistakes - but who, other than Belli and Bonner, is the worst defensive Spur who plays significant minutes. He is a mediocre passer, a workhorse (well, not this season), excellent on the fast break, works hard on his game - steadily improving his mid-range jumper and now his 3 pt shot. But he is not the best PG in the league.

Can we please stop arguing and agree that Spurs need everyone to repeat?

[ninephive]

Who's the one who's putting so MUCH emphasis on end of game play? Does playing well at the end of the game negate laying an egg the whole rest of the game? And in reverse, should Duncan not scoring much in the second half of game 6 lay him open to criticism despite his 30/17 TOTAL game contribution?

As far as all-NBA and all-star player, you know well that when a team has the best record in the NBA, there must a requisite representative from said team. Not taking anything away from some of Parker's fine seasons and his contributions to the team - after all, his addition makes Spurs an elite contender, but there is the whole half of the floor, called defense, in which Parker is a putrid #15 (at the bottom of the team) in DRtg that you seem to be forgetting.

Parker is exactly who he is - blessed with tremendous quickness and excellent body control which allows him to score around the rim/among the trees - one who does exactly what Pop tells him to and makes few mistakes - but who, other than Belli and Bonner, is the worst defensive Spur who plays significant minutes. He is a mediocre passer, a workhorse (well, not this season), excellent on the fast break, works hard on his game - steadily improving his mid-range jumper and now his 3 pt shot. But he is not the best PG in the league.

Can we please stop arguing and agree that Spurs need everyone to repeat?
I feel you, agreed.