CoolBreeze44 wrote:I can't believe anybody would take Garnett over Duncan on an all time team. He did everything Garnett could do and more. I wonder what a Spurs message board would think reading some of this.
There were a couple of years where it seemed like a worthwhile debate for us delusional wolves fans but it is clear now that their careers are winding down that it is no contest. Garnett was a unique, gifted, all around player, but Duncan is the best 4 of all time. It is not even worth thinking about.
I'm not sure anybody here has made a claim that Garnett is better than Duncan.
I don't remember anyone here saying that either. It would have been in like 2002 when you would have heard people engaging in that conversation.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:I can't believe anybody would take Garnett over Duncan on an all time team. He did everything Garnett could do and more. I wonder what a Spurs message board would think reading some of this.
There were a couple of years where it seemed like a worthwhile debate for us delusional wolves fans but it is clear now that their careers are winding down that it is no contest. Garnett was a unique, gifted, all around player, but Duncan is the best 4 of all time. It is not even worth thinking about.
I'm not sure anybody here has made a claim that Garnett is better than Duncan.
I don't remember anyone here saying that either. It would have been in like 2002 when you would have heard people engaging in that conversation.
If you read the posts above, 2 people would place Garnett on their all time team ahead of Duncan. I may be an idiot, but doesn't that indicate a preference for one over the other?
CoolBreeze44 wrote:I can't believe anybody would take Garnett over Duncan on an all time team. He did everything Garnett could do and more. I wonder what a Spurs message board would think reading some of this.
There were a couple of years where it seemed like a worthwhile debate for us delusional wolves fans but it is clear now that their careers are winding down that it is no contest. Garnett was a unique, gifted, all around player, but Duncan is the best 4 of all time. It is not even worth thinking about.
I'm not sure anybody here has made a claim that Garnett is better than Duncan.
I don't remember anyone here saying that either. It would have been in like 2002 when you would have heard people engaging in that conversation.
If you read the posts above, 2 people would place Garnett on their all time team ahead of Duncan. I may be an idiot, but doesn't that indicate a preference for one over the other?
Oh Sorry cool I didn't bother to read their posts. I was just reading your post in isolation. I realized it had a context but I was more just speaking to what you were saying rather than trying to get into a debate about all time teams.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:I can't believe anybody would take Garnett over Duncan on an all time team. He did everything Garnett could do and more. I wonder what a Spurs message board would think reading some of this.
There were a couple of years where it seemed like a worthwhile debate for us delusional wolves fans but it is clear now that their careers are winding down that it is no contest. Garnett was a unique, gifted, all around player, but Duncan is the best 4 of all time. It is not even worth thinking about.
I'm not sure anybody here has made a claim that Garnett is better than Duncan.
I don't remember anyone here saying that either. It would have been in like 2002 when you would have heard people engaging in that conversation.
If you read the posts above, 2 people would place Garnett on their all time team ahead of Duncan. I may be an idiot, but doesn't that indicate a preference for one over the other?
No. Read everything again starting with Q's post when he picks Rodman and maybe Nash...
"I always go back to my hypothetical example of trying to assemble the best possible team from players that have been around since, say, 1980. I'd probably have Jordan, LeBron, and Hakeem at the 2, 3, and 5. But I might put Rodman at the 4 because the guy doesn't need shots to be effective. And the 1 might be someone like Nash because I need a shooter out there. That's not the best 5 players from the past 35 years, but it might make for the best team."
If you read the ensuing posts, it's pretty clear that some others followed suit with the same criteria. Heck, one of the guys you're ripping even called Garnett a "second fiddle" which would indicate that he doesn't think of Garnett as one of the all-time very best players.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:I can't believe anybody would take Garnett over Duncan on an all time team. He did everything Garnett could do and more. I wonder what a Spurs message board would think reading some of this.
There were a couple of years where it seemed like a worthwhile debate for us delusional wolves fans but it is clear now that their careers are winding down that it is no contest. Garnett was a unique, gifted, all around player, but Duncan is the best 4 of all time. It is not even worth thinking about.
I'm not sure anybody here has made a claim that Garnett is better than Duncan.
I don't remember anyone here saying that either. It would have been in like 2002 when you would have heard people engaging in that conversation.
If you read the posts above, 2 people would place Garnett on their all time team ahead of Duncan. I may be an idiot, but doesn't that indicate a preference for one over the other?
No. Read everything again starting with Q's post when he picks Rodman and maybe Nash...
"I always go back to my hypothetical example of trying to assemble the best possible team from players that have been around since, say, 1980. I'd probably have Jordan, LeBron, and Hakeem at the 2, 3, and 5. But I might put Rodman at the 4 because the guy doesn't need shots to be effective. And the 1 might be someone like Nash because I need a shooter out there. That's not the best 5 players from the past 35 years, but it might make for the best team."
If you read the ensuing posts, it's pretty clear that some others followed suit with the same criteria. Heck, one of the guys you're ripping even called Garnett a "second fiddle" which would indicate that he doesn't think of Garnett as one of the all-time best players.
But Abe my point was that Duncan could do everything that Garnett could, only better in some areas. Maybe I'm just lost in this argument. I understand the Rodman inclusion. If you are building a team to compete in the Olympics he would make a lot of sense. But what I can't agree with is that Garnett would make any TEAM better than Duncan.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:I can't believe anybody would take Garnett over Duncan on an all time team. He did everything Garnett could do and more. I wonder what a Spurs message board would think reading some of this.
There were a couple of years where it seemed like a worthwhile debate for us delusional wolves fans but it is clear now that their careers are winding down that it is no contest. Garnett was a unique, gifted, all around player, but Duncan is the best 4 of all time. It is not even worth thinking about.
I'm not sure anybody here has made a claim that Garnett is better than Duncan.
I don't remember anyone here saying that either. It would have been in like 2002 when you would have heard people engaging in that conversation.
If you read the posts above, 2 people would place Garnett on their all time team ahead of Duncan. I may be an idiot, but doesn't that indicate a preference for one over the other?
No. Read everything again starting with Q's post when he picks Rodman and maybe Nash...
"I always go back to my hypothetical example of trying to assemble the best possible team from players that have been around since, say, 1980. I'd probably have Jordan, LeBron, and Hakeem at the 2, 3, and 5. But I might put Rodman at the 4 because the guy doesn't need shots to be effective. And the 1 might be someone like Nash because I need a shooter out there. That's not the best 5 players from the past 35 years, but it might make for the best team."
If you read the ensuing posts, it's pretty clear that some others followed suit with the same criteria. Heck, one of the guys you're ripping even called Garnett a "second fiddle" which would indicate that he doesn't think of Garnett as one of the all-time best players.
But Abe my point was that Duncan could do everything that Garnett could, only better in some areas. Maybe I'm just lost in this argument. I understand the Rodman inclusion. If you are building a team to compete in the Olympics he would make a lot of sense. But what I can't agree with is that Garnett would make any TEAM better than Duncan.
Maybe. Others might prefer Garnett for his defensive versatility (more capable of switching onto wings on occasion), passing and mid-range shooting from the 4 spot if they have a rim protecting center behind him.
Their skills overlapped a lot... and Duncan was better at many things. But not everything.
I think I would go The Big O/Jordan/Bird/Duncan/Russell. I don't think Jordan and Lebron can co-exist on a team. Neither were great shooters and they both are ball dominant players and since I think Jordan was better I'm taking him. Oscar is the best stat stuffing PG ever. Bird is a great shooter and all-around player to go next to Jordan. Duncan is the post scorer and PnR defender and Russell is probably the best cleanup guy of all time. It was a tough call between Russell and Hakeem for me, but Russell getting 20+ boards and 5 assists gave him the edge for me. It'd be nice if Russell had some defensive stats to know how much impact he had on that end, but at least I know I'm getting a guy who ended possessions with his rebounding and he knew how to win. I don't know how you stop this team and I think they have enough defense to make stops.
Reggie would get 10 wide open 3s a game. He would prolly be the leading scorer on that team lol
LeBron would poll avg 12 points a game just on the alley oops from Magic!
If you want to do all time teams not from the perspective of best players at each position, but best team, this is the team I would choose.
C- Olajuwon
PF- Rodman
SF- Pippen
SG- Jordan
PG- Stockton
Rodman, Jordan, and Pippen did win 72 games in one season together, so I want to keep them together. Olajuwon does everything well, would be the second option offensively and is outstanding defensively. Stockton is the assist artist, was great stealing the ball, and can knock down that three.
