RealGM

Dirk Nowitzki is as much a power forward as Tim Duncan is.

Archerbro wrote:there's something to be said winning it as "the guy." the thing abuot the 08 run, simmons even attests to-he realized Garnett could never be a #1 guy on a championship team.

garnett was the #1 guy on that team as much as bill russell was the #1 guy on those old celtic title teams. not the guy you want with the ball in his hands, but the heart of the team

Ron Harper wrote:

Jay10 wrote:isn't duncan better than garnett?

all day every day

just 'cause of the rings

at people in here are trying to put dirk down on defense and not saying anything about Barkley

when Barkley played it was obvious he never cared much about defense and thought going after rebounds made him a good defender, constantly letting his man take jumpers to try and collect a rebound.

Barkley is a hypocrite for calling players for damaging the level of play in the nba, when all he cared about was getting a new contract

Funny, since even during Dirk's time he wasn't even superior to his supposed elite peers: Duncan, KG, and Webber at their peak, but we are supposed to believe he's #2 all time?

Dirk is one of the best all time SHOOTERS in league history. But outside of that, he rarely helps his team by dominating other areas of the game, and doesn't really make his teammates better. How is he better than Pettit, let alone a guy like Jerry Lucas? Dirk is great for what he does, and while that happens to be an important area of the game (scoring), his lack of elite play in most other areas of the game is enough to limit his all-time rankings IMO. Top 10 at his position? Sure. #2? lol

dice wrote:

Ron Harper wrote:

Jay10 wrote:isn't duncan better than garnett?

all day every day

just 'cause of the rings

2003...

lazfa199 wrote::roll: at people in here are trying to put dirk down on defense and not saying anything about Barkley

when Barkley played it was obvious he never cared much about defense and thought going after rebounds made him a good defender, constantly letting his man take jumpers to try and collect a rebound.

Barkley is a hypocrite for calling players for damaging the level of play in the nba, when all he cared about was getting a new contract

The argument though, is that Barkley also impacted the game in more areas on the offensive end, so even if both lacked a high level of play on defense, Barkley was also a much better rebounder and playmaker, helping his team in more areas.

C-izMe wrote:

dice wrote:

Ron Harper wrote:just 'cause of the rings

2003...

You keep saying 2003. What did Duncan do in 2003? He had a nice playoffs, but the rest was nothing special (for TD). Dirk had a nice playoffs in 2006 and last year.

gold_leader64 wrote:Funny, since even during Dirk's time he wasn't even superior than his supposed elite peers: Duncan, KG, and Webber at their peak.

Dirk is one of the best all time SHOOTERS in league history. But outside of that, he rarely helps his team by dominating other areas of the game, and doesn't really make his teammates better. How is he better than Pettit, let alone a guy like Jerry Lucas? Dirk is great for what he does, and while that happens to be an important area of the game (scoring), his lack of elite play in most other areas of the game is enough to limit his all-time rankings IMO.

Why do people comment that have no idea what they are talking about?

Dirk crushed Garnetts Wolves in the PlayOffs, when Garnett was in his prime and Dirk a couple of years before his peak. The Dirk-Duncan duells were pretty epic over the years and Dirk had some great seires against the Spurs. Webber was never really that good, so he doesn't belong in this discussion.

In advanced metrics Dirk beats Garnett by far and even Duncan in terms of longevity. The amount of rediculousness of people saying he didn't do much beside shooting, when he averages 25/10 in the playoffs over his career.

Maybe 4th.

Garnett, Duncan and Malone were all better.

gold_leader64 wrote:

lazfa199 wrote::roll: at people in here are trying to put dirk down on defense and not saying anything about Barkley

when Barkley played it was obvious he never cared much about defense and thought going after rebounds made him a good defender, constantly letting his man take jumpers to try and collect a rebound.

Barkley is a hypocrite for calling players for damaging the level of play in the nba, when all he cared about was getting a new contract

The argument though, is that Barkley also impacted the game in more areas on the offensive end, so even if both lacked a high level of play on defense, Barkley was also a much better rebounder and playmaker, helping his team in more areas.

What are you taling about? You don't make any sense at all. You mean a guy that draws double and tripple teams over decade now is not supposed to effect his teams offense? And being a 7fter shooting threes and stretching the floor means nothinh rigth?

Come on. If you want to say something like, at least try a bit harder.

questionmark wrote:

gold_leader64 wrote:

lazfa199 wrote::roll: at people in here are trying to put dirk down on defense and not saying anything about Barkley

when Barkley played it was obvious he never cared much about defense and thought going after rebounds made him a good defender, constantly letting his man take jumpers to try and collect a rebound.

Barkley is a hypocrite for calling players for damaging the level of play in the nba, when all he cared about was getting a new contract

The argument though, is that Barkley also impacted the game in more areas on the offensive end, so even if both lacked a high level of play on defense, Barkley was also a much better rebounder and playmaker, helping his team in more areas.

What are you taling about? You don't make any sense at all. You mean a guy that draws double and tripple teams over decade now is not supposed to effect his teams offense? And being a 7fter shooting threes and stretching the floor means nothinh rigth?

Come on. If you want to say something like, at least try a bit harder.

He's saying Dirk is an average rebounder, passer, and defender.

Tubal wrote:

C-izMe wrote:2003...

You keep saying 2003. What did Duncan do in 2003? He had a nice playoffs, but the rest was nothing special (for TD). Dirk had a nice playoffs in 2006 and last year.

In 06 Dirk led a team 10 times better than the 03 Spurs to the Finals and choked once he got there. Duncan without 03 would be subject to the "he always had good teams" argument. He dragged a bottom 5 team to the third bet record and a championship. This is Duncan's finest work by far.

narmerguy wrote:Gosh everyone is on Dirk's nuts after he wins one championship. Suddenly his fadeaway is God's gift to basketball but he's had that shot for years and somehow teams seemed just fine beating him. The dude had a good run, I agree, awesome job, phenomenal player.

Better than Duncan? Wtf. Better than KG? Let's consider offense and defense here. Dirk has been historically great on only one side of the ball. But whatever, I know in three years no one will be mentioning Dirk in this conversation because everyone's going to be on to whoever else the last championship winner was.

This.

Tubal wrote:
He's saying Dirk is an average rebounder, passer, and defender.

Dirk is a better defender than Barkley ever was since 06 and his rebounding numbers in the playoffs are looking very good. And passing ability doesn't equal good assist numbers. Or do want to tell me that Nash was mediocre passing PG with Mavs and suddenly transcended after signing with Phoenix to the best passer in the league?

Dirk was consistently underrated, apparently by Simmons too, till a few months ago. Pettit? And even Baylor...

Now he won a ring and he became overrated. Had Tyson Chandler got injured in the game 2 of the finals, Dirk would be the exact same player he is today and Simmons would still rank him below those guys - probably even lower because he'd be "the ultimate choker" or something.

Players rankings of guys like Bill Simmons are complete garbage. They're about accomplishments and reputation; not talent.

C-izMe wrote:

Tubal wrote:

C-izMe wrote:2003...

You keep saying 2003. What did Duncan do in 2003? He had a nice playoffs, but the rest was nothing special (for TD). Dirk had a nice playoffs in 2006 and last year.

In 06 Dirk led a team 10 times better than the 03 Spurs to the Finals and choked once he got there. Duncan without 03 would be subject to the "he always had good teams" argument. He dragged a bottom 5 team to the third bet record and a championship. This is Duncan's finest work by far.

Wow, so i am really looking forward to the HOF introductions of Terry, Harris, Howard, Stackhouse and last but not least the great Erik Dampier.
Thats 06 Mavs team was nothing special. Just a bunch of role players with one Superstar.

And of course the 03 Spurs roster was far from great, but at least it featured talents like Parker and Ginobili. It was a team similar to last years Mavs, making it an epic performance as well.

There is good reason for Duncan to be No.1 among PFs, but to call 06 Mavs 10x better than 03 Spurs is rediculous. If you want to see a failed team look at the 04 Lakers.

questionmark wrote:

C-izMe wrote:

Tubal wrote:You keep saying 2003. What did Duncan do in 2003? He had a nice playoffs, but the rest was nothing special (for TD). Dirk had a nice playoffs in 2006 and last year.

In 06 Dirk led a team 10 times better than the 03 Spurs to the Finals and choked once he got there. Duncan without 03 would be subject to the "he always had good teams" argument. He dragged a bottom 5 team to the third bet record and a championship. This is Duncan's finest work by far.

Wow, so i am really looking forward to the HOF introductions of Terry, Harris, Howard, Stackhouse and last but not least the great Erik Dampier.
Thats 06 Mavs team was nothing special. Just a bunch of role players with one Superstar.

And of course the 03 Spurs roster was far from great, but at least it featured talents like Parker and Ginobili. It was a team similar to last years Mavs, making it an epic performance as well.

There is good reason for Duncan to be No.1 among PFs, but to call 06 Mavs 10x better than 03 Spurs is rediculous. If you want to see a failed team look at the 04 Lakers.

Parker before he was any good and Manu before he was Manu. That 06 Mavs team is a playoff team. In the east that year. That Spurs team is bottom 5. There only good offensive player was Tim at the time. Stacked with defenders (but the only anchor other than Tim couldn't play more than 24 minutes a night). Worst offense in the league without Tim.

Malone disrespect

I can see why people put Dirk over Malone because of the championship, and I know I'm biased, but I just don't see him being better than Malone. I don't see Dirk winning any championships in the era Malone played in, but again, I don't fault people for making their list how they do.