RealGM

Imagining David Robinsons career lining up with Manu and Parker and they all hit their prime together. How many titles if they are in their prime in the 90's, how many if they are in their prime in the 2000's?

I assume we're leaving Duncan out of the equation altogether right?

I think the fit of Parker/Ginobili with Robinson is as good as fit gets. Robinson was put on this earth to enhance perimeter scorers/ball handlers, while also covering them defensively. He had the shooting to leave the paint, he was a willing/able passer, the athleticism to pair. It's easy to picture Parker and Manu's favorite sets with Robinson setting screens and passing out of the high post. Even though Robinson isn't as good as Duncan, the theoretical fit here is even nicer. Once Manu (and later Parker) hit their primes, the Spurs de-emphasized Duncan's post-ups in favor of Manu's perimeter creation and Parker's slashing game. With Robinson they'd be able to do this immediately.

I'm not sure how many titles they're winning against Jordan's Bulls/Hakeem's Rockets or Shaqkobe Lakers, but they're a contender in any of those years.

cupcakesnake wrote:I assume we're leaving Duncan out of the equation altogether right?

I think the fit of Parker/Ginobili with Robinson is as good as fit gets. Robinson was put on this earth to enhance perimeter scorers/ball handlers, while also covering them defensively. He had the shooting to leave the paint, he was a willing/able passer, the athleticism to pair. It's easy to picture Parker and Manu's favorite sets with Robinson setting screens and passing out of the high post. Even though Robinson isn't as good as Duncan, the theoretical fit here is even nicer. Once Manu (and later Parker) hit their primes, the Spurs de-emphasized Duncan's post-ups in favor of Manu's perimeter creation and Parker's slashing game. With Robinson they'd be able to do this immediately.

I'm not sure how many titles they're winning against Jordan's Bulls/Hakeem's Rockets or Shaqkobe Lakers, but they're a contender in any of those years.

Thank you. And yes, leaving Duncan out and filling out the roster with decent role guys.

cupcakesnake wrote:I assume we're leaving Duncan out of the equation altogether right?

I think the fit of Parker/Ginobili with Robinson is as good as fit gets. Robinson was put on this earth to enhance perimeter scorers/ball handlers, while also covering them defensively. He had the shooting to leave the paint, he was a willing/able passer, the athleticism to pair. It's easy to picture Parker and Manu's favorite sets with Robinson setting screens and passing out of the high post. Even though Robinson isn't as good as Duncan, the theoretical fit here is even nicer. Once Manu (and later Parker) hit their primes, the Spurs de-emphasized Duncan's post-ups in favor of Manu's perimeter creation and Parker's slashing game. With Robinson they'd be able to do this immediately.

I'm not sure how many titles they're winning against Jordan's Bulls/Hakeem's Rockets or Shaqkobe Lakers, but they're a contender in any of those years.

Definitely a great fit. Robinson in his prime with some talent is almost certain championship most years. In the 2000s especially they'd win big.

We saw what Admiral did in the 90s with his best perimeter players being Avery Johnson, Vinnie Del Negro, and Sean Elliot. Spent most of that time putting up 55+ win seasons on the back of an elite Larry Brown designed defense (and bad defense), then later a much more balanced 2-way team, all before Duncan was drafted. It's hard not to see Manu/Tony as an upgrade, especially in the playoffs. Parker gives an offense serious punch in the form of rim pressure/penetration, where Manu gives unpredictability, all-around brilliance, and an elite crunch time playmaker

what ages? remember that duncan, ginobili and parler primes all came at different times

if we get robinson, parket and manu all peaking at the same time it would be a strong advantage that duncan didnt have