2003 Tim Duncan

[Bucs80]

Was Duncan a 1 man team on their way to a championship that year?

[magicfan4life05]

He definitely had a larger role in that team b/c the role players werent as experienced or good as they are now, but i wouldnt call it a "1 man team."


He still had robinson in there anchoring the d with help and manu off the bench, a young tony parker, and stephen jackson was no slouch then either

[Doctor MJ]

He definitely had a larger role in that team b/c the role players werent as experienced or good as they are now, but i wouldnt call it a "1 man team."


He still had robinson in there anchoring the d with help and manu off the bench, a young tony parker, and stephen jackson was no slouch then either

Robinson played only half the game. Parker wouldn't have started on most playoff teams, and he was still the second best player on the team.

So yeah, as close to a one man team as you'll find winning a title.

[HarlemHeat37]

-= original quote snipped =-



Robinson played only half the game. Parker wouldn't have started on most playoff teams, and he was still the second best player on the team.

So yeah, as close to a one man team as you'll find winning a title.

+1..key words being, "as close to a one man team as you'll find winning a title"..

nobody can win a title on their own..you need a good supporting cast, but Duncan won it that year without any player that was even NEAR all-star caliber..Hakeem's 1st one is the only team that rivals Duncan's in 2003 IMO..

[Doctor MJ]

-= original quote snipped =-



+1..key words being, "as close to a one man team as you'll find winning a title"..

nobody can win a title on their own..you need a good supporting cast, but Duncan won it that year without any player that was even NEAR all-star caliber..Hakeem's 1st one is the only team that rivals Duncan's in 2003 IMO..

I don't know about it being the only one. Walton's Blazers and Erving's Nets come to mind.

[HarlemHeat37]

-= original quote snipped =-



I don't know about it being the only one. Walton's Blazers and Erving's Nets come to mind.

too young to know about the 70's, Doc

[shawngoat23]

It's up there:
1. Dennis Johnson (Seattle, 1979)
2. Rick Barry (Golden State, 1975)
3. Hakeem Olajuwon (Houston, 1994)
4. Tim Duncan (San Antonio, 2003)

[Doctor MJ]

It's up there:
1. Dennis Johnson (Seattle, 1979)
2. Rick Barry (Golden State, 1975)
3. Hakeem Olajuwon (Houston, 1994)
4. Tim Duncan (San Antonio, 2003)

Barry's a good inclusion, DJ is not. I love DJ but he was a Billups-like head of ensemble not a one man wrecking crew.

[shawngoat23]

-= original quote snipped =-



Barry's a good inclusion, DJ is not. I love DJ but he was a Billups-like head of ensemble not a one man wrecking crew.

I stand corrected. I was interpreting question of which leader of a championship team had the least support. For some reason, the Sonics jumped to mind, having had no all-stars that year, I believe. But true, that was a solid ensemble.

[Rich Rane]

-= original quote snipped =-



I stand corrected. I was interpreting question of which leader of a championship team had the least support. For some reason, the Sonics jumped to mind, having had no all-stars that year, I believe. But true, that was a solid ensemble.

Hakeem's supporting cast wasn't all too bad (Thorpe, Kenny Smith, Vernon, Horry). Cassell didn't do that bad his rookie year either. I guess I could still see why Hakeem is considered a one-man team since the next year, Clyde came over.

[at87on]

Tony Paker was nowhere near the court in the 4th quarters back 2003. Parker was basically Stephon Marbury without the consistent outside shot in 2003. Speedy Claxton played the point in the 4th quarters.

Alot of people who haven't really followed basketball for than a year or two don't really know Tim Duncan's greatness and impact on Parker or Ginobilli's careers.

They think Duncan is a so-so player with 2 all stars on the team, and that's why he has 4 titles. They also think that David Robinson was the same MVP calibre player he was in the early and mid 90s during the title runs. That's pure basketball ignorance.

[shawngoat23]

-= original quote snipped =-



Hakeem's supporting cast wasn't all too bad (Thorpe, Kenny Smith, Vernon, Horry). Cassell didn't do that bad his rookie year either. I guess I could still see why Hakeem is considered a one-man team since the next year, Clyde came over.

Hakeem's supporting cast wasn't all too bad in the sense that they weren't flat out incompetent. But neither was Duncan's--Robinson still had a bit left, although he wasn't the dominant force he was in the 90s. Parker and Ginobili, while young, were still talented, as was Stephen Jackson, if you want to cite Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, and Robert Horry as a legitimate supporting cast.

Everyone on an NBA roster has made it, in some sense. But in the scheme of championship caliber teams, these casts were awful, and I would contend that Hakeem's was worse in 1994 than Duncan's in 2003.

[UncleIvan]

Tony Paker was nowhere near the court in the 4th quarters back 2003. Parker was basically Stephon Marbury without the consistent outside shot in 2003. Speedy Claxton played the point in the 4th quarters.

Alot of people who haven't really followed basketball for than a year or two don't really know Tim Duncan's greatness and impact on Parker or Ginobilli's careers.

They think Duncan is a so-so player with 2 all stars on the team, and that's why he has 4 titles. They also think that David Robinson was the same MVP calibre player he was in the early and mid 90s during the title runs. That's pure basketball ignorance.

WORD.

[KevinTheWrench]

Aside from Duncan, the rest of the 2003 team shto 41.5% for the whole playoffs. I don't understand how anyone can say tha team was even decent

[CITYOFANGELSX3]

Thats the same spurs team that knocked off the lakers and made kobe and dfish cry on the bench.

Wasnt that against the nets in that brutal finals too?