yeah, i shouldn't have said that. i don't really want to get into any kind of Glenn Robinson/Bucks argument.

That's not a hairpiece. It's a combover.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

he averaged 24.3/14.6/ 5.1 that year in the playoffs
what a loser

Yeah and 65 year old Karl Malone held him in check in Game 1 (16 and 10), where they lost the home court advantage (and for all intensive purposes the series) Garnett craved all those years



Interesting to note:

Minnesota got an early lift from center Michael Olowokandi, who had 10 points and 11 rebounds. He did not play in the last four games against Sacramento but came on in the first quarter for Ervin Johnson and scored eight points.

guess Duncan is a loser too

No he won titles as a number one guy.

He didnt lose for years with his own team then Jet to meet two other titleless players in another city

Reggie Miller is a clutch version of Dale Ellis. If he wasn't clutch we wouldn't have this debate.

_________________

Can we at least agree that Gary Payton was better than Reggie Miller?

He is one of my favorite players ever. Yes, what the hell, put him in the HOF.

_________________

miller hall of fame yes no doubt.........horry ? ... i have had a bet for 2 years now with a friend... i say no..he was pretty much a 6th man most of his career..he did hit some big shots in big games and has 6 rings...but he was not a starter most of the time...steve kerr has what 4 rings? and hit some big shots too

_________________

The idea that Rodman belongs in the Hall of Fame less than Miller or doesn't even belong at all (as Boers or Bernstein implied) is absolutely insane to me.

that's true he did win titles as #1 guy
but your your quote from a not really awful game (16/10) from a series where he averaged pretty great numbers was clearly meant to be embarrassing (the "65 year old Malone held him in check") when it was noted that he did the same to Duncan in the previous series

if you want to debate Garnett vs. Duncan straight up, i'd probably give the edge to Duncan but not by a huge amount
yes, clearly the Spurs (in Duncans prime) had better teams than the Wolves (in Garnetts prime)

i'd invite you to make an argument against any of the following:
Parker > Terell Brandon/Cassell
Ginoboli > Spreewell/Szczerbiak
Robinson (even aging) > Olowokandi/Ervin Johnson/Dean Garrett
Popovich > Saunders
Buford >>>> McHale

At that point I would take Cassell over Parker. Let's not act like it wasn't Avery Johnson and the Sean 1 kidney instead of Parker and Ginobili.

_________________

Scoring is important. Rodman was a specialist player. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall. He was an important component on a bunch of championship teams. But he's more like Horry than he is like Reggie Miller. I don't mean in style of play, but in where he fit on his teams. Teams were built around Reggie Miller. Nobody ever built a team around Rodman. If Rodman is a Hall of Famer, how can Buck Williams not be?

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Cassell was solid that year but injury prone and that really cost them as he didn't play in the conf. finals
the first title the Spurs won yes it was avery and sean 1 kidney but Robinson also was not washed up at that point
Elliot also had a pretty good year that year
that was also the year Marbury threw his tantrum and demanded the trade

I don't think Duncan's '03 and '05 teams were much better than Garnett's teams, if at all. Parker was below average until around '07.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

yes, certainly 18.9/5.8 assist on 55%FG is below average
horrible

in 03 the wolves top scorers after Garnett were Hudson, Nesterovic and Wally World
Spurs were Parker, Jackson, Rose...then Ginoboli and Robinson

Is Dale Ellis a HoFer?

_________________

well if Tony Parker was below average until 2007, no

Rodman was the best rebounder of his era...he made that shit an art...that counts for something...

...name something Buck Williams was the best at...shit, he wasn't even the best Buck (Uncle BUck, fuckers!)

_________________
"There is a high statistical probability of death by gunshot. A punch to the face is also likely."

"Rock n' Roll" Buck Zumhofe FTW.

_________________

True on both accounts.

_________________

You don't remember how hard they pursued Kidd because Pops didn't have faith in Parker early on? Duncan has barely played with any real All Star talent the last three rings.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Nobody in their right mind would take Dennis Rodman over Buck Williams. Rodman simply wasn't a better player. And that's without even discussing the headaches Rodman gave you. Williams was a better scorer and, really, Rodman's equal as a rebounder. Some of those rebounding titles Rodman won, the official scorers were very loose on what constituted a "rebound" with Dennis tipping the ball to himself two or three times on what was really a single rebound. Rodman was a better defender than Williams. That's it. And I'll only give Dennis that because of the annoyance factor. Williams was a tough defender who could handle the best big men in the game. There's nothing else in the game you could even argue that Rodman did better than Buck Williams. And anyone who really follows basketball knows that. There are other guys with games like Rodman's and some of them were better scorers. Bill Bridges was as good or better than Rodman.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

This is the part of the argument where lots of people disagree with you, but you tell them they really don't believe what they are saying.

_________________
"There is a high statistical probability of death by gunshot. A punch to the face is also likely."

No. I'm sure you believe Rodman was better than Buck Williams.

I just know you don't believe that stealing a pack of gum from the store is the same as disregarding copyright. Because I highly doubt you own the right to use that picture you've adopted as your avatar.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Progress.

I'm proud of you JORR.

_________________
"There is a high statistical probability of death by gunshot. A punch to the face is also likely."

Also, I don't think there are going to be many guys in this thread trying to argue that Dennis Rodman was better than Buck Williams. Probably just you and Favre Fan.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Neither Williams nor Russell nor Chamberlain nor anyone in the history of the game was Rodman's equal as a rebounder.
.

This series is required reading in my opinion for anyone who thinks otherwise: http://skepticalsports.com/?page_id=1222

JORR you're watching an entirely different sport than the rest of us if you think Buck Williams was Rodman's rebounding equal. Rodman might be the best rebounder in the history of the league. He was averaging 18 rebounds a game when the pace of play dictated literally less than half the total possessions that guys like Wilt and Russell got to play with. His last season he was averaging 14.3 rebounds at the age of 38 and in only 32 minutes a game, at the same possessions/game mark as the current NBA season shows. That would make him a more efficient rebounder than Kevin Love and Dwight Howard, and this is at least five years past his prime. Anybody who knows anything about the NBA considers Rodman a no doubt HoFer.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul