Andrew Bynum > Tim Duncan

Those of you saying Bynum would get the best of Duncan in his prime obviously never watched him back then. He was the only guy Ive ever seen who could effectively guard Shaq one on one. And I'm talking prime MVP Shaq. And no way is Bynum near or will ever be on Shaq's level. We are better off comparing Bynum to Ewing. Even then Drew would still lose. But at least its a discussion.

revgen wrote:

nthydro wrote:Those of you saying Bynum would get the best of Duncan in his prime obviously never watched him back then. He was the only guy Ive ever seen who could effectively guard Shaq one on one. And I'm talking prime MVP Shaq. And no way is Bynum near or will ever be on Shaq's level. We are better off comparing Bynum to Ewing. Even then Drew would still lose. But at least its a discussion.

Almost everytime Duncan guarded Shaq, the Spurs sent a double-team, so I think you're being a bit disingenuous there.

Duncan didnt guard Shaq often. Pops was worried it would wear him out. But when he did, a lot of it was individual coverage (Pops if I remembered correctly, didnt like to double team back then). Trust me I paid attention to this. Why? Well a coworker of mine who was a fellow Lakers fan first brought it to my attention. He was saying something along the lines of Duncan being a Shaq stopper. Of course I dismissed his claims as bogus. But then I started noticing it too. Which really annoyed me honestly cuz I hated Duncan and the Spurs. I even recalled one play where he blocked Shaq's dunk attempt. But with that said, I dont think he guarded Shaq enough to claim he could shut him down. But I was rather impressed by how well he did when they matched up.

revgen wrote:I agree with the OP that Bynum can impose himself physically in ways Duncan never could even in his prime, but that's to be expected since Drew is 7'1 and 285lbs. He should be more physically imposing. That's why Duncan is a PF and Bynum is a center.

Duncan is the best PF/C that's ever played this game. I think Drew can end up being a great player if he's stays healthy, but it will be awhile before we can talk about him and Duncan in the same breath.

^^ Great post. +1.

^^ Not all the time. Only when Shaq got deep post position. Which Duncan was surprising good at denying him.

Its just mind boggling how a guy has ONE dominant season and people can proclaim he's > than other players who dominated almost their entire careers. So if the Clippers win 70 games next season and sweep the playoffs to become champs will anyone say they are the greater franchise? Lakers never won 70 games. Lakers never swept the playoffs....

nthydro wrote:Its just mind boggling how a guy has ONE dominant season and people can proclaim he's > than other players who dominated almost their entire careers. So if the Clippers win 70 games next season and sweep the playoffs to become champs will anyone say they are the greater franchise? Lakers never won 70 games. Lakers never swept the playoffs....

Don't give Doberman any ideas.

Doc Brown wrote:

nthydro wrote:Its just mind boggling how a guy has ONE dominant season and people can proclaim he's > than other players who dominated almost their entire careers. So if the Clippers win 70 games next season and sweep the playoffs to become champs will anyone say they are the greater franchise? Lakers never won 70 games. Lakers never swept the playoffs....

Don't give Doberman any ideas.

Its okay he doesnt need me to help him. Im sure he has a long list of ludicrous and absurd topics to post...

The fact that he's using stats and the "he never did this in a game" arguement to prove his point fails miserably. So what if Duncan never did this or that in a game. He dominated for 10+ seasons and led his team to 4 NBA championships. Fact .

revgen wrote:

nthydro wrote:Those of you saying Bynum would get the best of Duncan in his prime obviously never watched him back then. He was the only guy Ive ever seen who could effectively guard Shaq one on one. And I'm talking prime MVP Shaq. And no way is Bynum near or will ever be on Shaq's level. We are better off comparing Bynum to Ewing. Even then Drew would still lose. But at least its a discussion.

Almost everytime Duncan guarded Shaq, the Spurs sent a double-team, so I think you're being a bit disingenuous there.

I've never seen Duncan do a great job on Shaq either.

I don't really compare Duncan and Bynum..

nthydro wrote:

Doc Brown wrote:

nthydro wrote:Its just mind boggling how a guy has ONE dominant season and people can proclaim he's > than other players who dominated almost their entire careers. So if the Clippers win 70 games next season and sweep the playoffs to become champs will anyone say they are the greater franchise? Lakers never won 70 games. Lakers never swept the playoffs....

Don't give Doberman any ideas.

Its okay he doesnt need me to help him. Im sure he has a long list of ludicrous and absurd topics to post...

The fact that he's using stats and the "he never did this in a game" arguement to prove his point fails miserably. So what if Duncan never did this or that in a game. He dominated for 10+ seasons and led his team to 4 NBA championships. Fact .

Duncan and the Spurs were never dominant. They won in years where everyone else sucked. Fact. They wouldn't be able to compete with most of the better champions.

^^ People who use the word fact to describe an opinion that they dont back up with any actual information are ridiculous.

FACT.

TIM DUNCAN WAS NEVER DOMINANT?? The blinders are strong with this one.

phoenixrisingla wrote:^^ People who use the word fact to describe an opinion that they dont back up with any actual information are ridiculous.

FACT.

TIM DUNCAN WAS NEVER DOMINANT?? The blinders are strong with this one.

So its ok to say Duncan was dominant without info to back it up, but its not ok to say he wasn't dominant?

tttppp wrote:

phoenixrisingla wrote:^^ People who use the word fact to describe an opinion that they dont back up with any actual information are ridiculous.

FACT.

TIM DUNCAN WAS NEVER DOMINANT?? The blinders are strong with this one.

So its ok to say Duncan was dominant without info to back it up, but its not ok to say he wasn't dominant?

Finals MVP 99, 03, 05. Averaged a double double over his career while shooting 51%. Named to all defensive team 13 years. 4 rings.

But I guess the league "sucked" those years right? Even though we had basically the same roster that won the 3peat (except shaq for 05)?

Just because he's on a different team than we cheer for doesnt mean he sucks, or his achievements dont count.

phoenixrisingla wrote:

tttppp wrote:

phoenixrisingla wrote:^^ People who use the word fact to describe an opinion that they dont back up with any actual information are ridiculous.

FACT.

TIM DUNCAN WAS NEVER DOMINANT?? The blinders are strong with this one.

So its ok to say Duncan was dominant without info to back it up, but its not ok to say he wasn't dominant?

Finals MVP 99, 03, 05. Averaged a double double over his career while shooting 51%. Named to all defensive team 13 years. 4 rings.

But I guess the league "sucked" those years right? Even though we had basically the same roster that won the 3peat (except shaq for 05)?

Just because he's on a different team than we cheer for doesnt mean he sucks, or his achievements dont count.

There are very few championship teams that those Spurs teams could have beaten.

tttppp wrote:

phoenixrisingla wrote:Finals MVP 99, 03, 05. Averaged a double double over his career while shooting 51%. Named to all defensive team 13 years. 4 rings.

But I guess the league "sucked" those years right? Even though we had basically the same roster that won the 3peat (except shaq for 05)?

Just because he's on a different team than we cheer for doesnt mean he sucks, or his achievements dont count.

There are very few championship teams that those Spurs teams could have beaten.

So when they beat the Lakers in the WCSF in '03, they didn't beat a championship caliber team? When they beat the Pistons in 7 in '05 they didn't beat a championship caliber team?

tttppp wrote:

phoenixrisingla wrote:

tttppp wrote:
So its ok to say Duncan was dominant without info to back it up, but its not ok to say he wasn't dominant?

Finals MVP 99, 03, 05. Averaged a double double over his career while shooting 51%. Named to all defensive team 13 years. 4 rings.

But I guess the league "sucked" those years right? Even though we had basically the same roster that won the 3peat (except shaq for 05)?

Just because he's on a different team than we cheer for doesnt mean he sucks, or his achievements dont count.

There are very few championship teams that those Spurs teams could have beaten.

Again you try to respond to facts/info with opinion only. Please stop.

phoenixrisingla wrote:
Again you try to respond to facts/info with opinion only. Please stop.

Stats don't tell the whole story. Please list the championship team the Spurs could have beaten.

bruddahmanmatt wrote:

tttppp wrote:

phoenixrisingla wrote:Finals MVP 99, 03, 05. Averaged a double double over his career while shooting 51%. Named to all defensive team 13 years. 4 rings.

But I guess the league "sucked" those years right? Even though we had basically the same roster that won the 3peat (except shaq for 05)?

Just because he's on a different team than we cheer for doesnt mean he sucks, or his achievements dont count.

There are very few championship teams that those Spurs teams could have beaten.

So when they beat the Lakers in the WCSF in '03, they didn't beat a championship caliber team? When they beat the Pistons in 7 in '05 they didn't beat a championship caliber team?

The Pistons were one of the all time worst championship teams. They won because the Lakers just collapsed. Almost anyone could have beaten the Lakers the way they finished.

The Lakers barely had enough to win their third championship, let alone a 4th. The team they beat was not the same Lakers team that almost swept the playoffs two years before that.

tttppp wrote:

phoenixrisingla wrote:
Again you try to respond to facts/info with opinion only. Please stop.

Stats don't tell the whole story. Please list the championship team the Spurs could have beaten.

I got a better idea, how about you back up your claims before you ask others to do the same. You're like Glenn Beck. You believe in A and oppose those who believe in B, but because neither A nor B can be proven conclusively you maintain that A is definitively correct. Ridiculous.

tttppp wrote:

phoenixrisingla wrote:
Again you try to respond to facts/info with opinion only. Please stop.

Stats don't tell the whole story. Please list the championship team the Spurs could have beaten.

They tell most of it, and baseless opinions tell NONE of it.

They've won 4 chips in the last 13 years. Almost as many as us.

They've already won man. If you want to make that argument, you have to SHOW us why you think the leagues sucked those particular years, and why all our championships count but theirs dont.

Lets see some creativity! Right now you sound like nothing but hate and excuses.

phoenixrisingla wrote:

tttppp wrote:

phoenixrisingla wrote:
Again you try to respond to facts/info with opinion only. Please stop.

Stats don't tell the whole story. Please list the championship team the Spurs could have beaten.

They tell most of it. They've won 4 chips in the last 13 years. Almost as many as us.

They've already won man. If you want to make that argument, you have to SHOW us why you think the leagues sucked those particular years, and why all our championships count but theirs dont.

Lets see some creativity! Right now you sound like nothing but hate and excuses.

The Spurs never one two championships in a row. You can't compare them to teams like the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, the Kobe/Gasol Lakers, Bulls, or even the Rockets. Teams that repeat as champions tend to face a lot more adversity than someone who just lucked into one.

I never said the Spurs championships don't count. But you can't compare them to a Lakers team that won 3 in a row, and did so without playing their best all the time. The 3rd championship the Lakers got, they were really struggling, but still found a way to win again. The only time the Spurs win is when everything is clicking for them, and they get some luck with not having to face someone great.

^^^ They didnt "Luck into one".

They won 4 chips in a decade.

Dude, we're BEGGING you to come up with something to support what your saying and you just keep spraying the board with more nonsense.

Show us something. ANYTHING!!!