What's so funny?
rings is a team accomplishment and depends on luck also, not just talent. both of those players are more talented than tim duncan and if you put them in san antonion they'd probably win more than him also. also, mvp is subjective. steve nash got 2 mvps and stockton got none despite putting up many seasons equaling or surpassing nash's mvp years.What's so funny?
Tim got more rings, more MVP's than both of them and his teams never missed the playoffs. How you not start your team with him
And don't give me that prime Shaq BS when Timmy went through him twice to get titles
Neither of them are more talented. More athletic but not more talented. You forget Timmy is the most fundamentally sound big of all time
Weaker than the 99 Spurs or 2003 Spurs?
if tim is top five, then it's off achievement. he is not a top 5 TALENT of all time period. shaq and hakeem are all around better players than tim duncan and i'm a tim duncan fan. plus, it's a bunch of dudes on this site alone who say he is/was a system player and looked better because of the san antonio system. you can put shaq or hakeem anywhere in any time period, and they will at the very least match what they did already.
2 and DRob was old and about to retirehow many hofs was on the 2003 spurs team
2 and DRob was old and about to retire
And a rookie Manu and second year TP were not hall of fame or elite players at the time
in this era?
