Breh my point is that you're slightly overrating Duncan's accomplishments, and undervaluing Curry.
I was trying to get that across
Also, dude, if LeBron had that roster, Draymond and Bogut would NOT be a good fit next to him. Curry gives you more flexibility with roster building
I was trying to get that across
Your hypocrisy is incredible. In '99 you completely ignored Duncan leading his team to a #1 seed and sweeping the Lakers and Blazers immediately before their classic '00 WCF matchup. And you bytch about the Knicks missing Ewing, while at the same time you're ignoring the Warriors benefited in '15 from KD hurt on the Warriors, CP3 and Blake hurt on the Clippers, Conley and Tony Allen hurt on the Grizzlies, and Kyrie/Love hurt on the Cavs.
Claiming "those teams were not championship teams on paper" - but the '99-'03 Spurs were title teams on paper? 2015-16 Warriors were good enough to beat the Rockets and Blazers and reach the WCF without Curry even available. 1999-2003 Spurs wouldn't have made the fukking playoffs without Duncan. 2015-16 Warriors even leaving Curry out still had multiple all-stars, multiple all-NBA, multiple All-Defensive...while the 1999 Spurs only had an aging Robinson and the 2003 Spurs had NOTHING but role players outside of TD.
2003 Spurs won 60 games and the title with a 20yo Tony Parker and Stephen Jackson as their #2 and #3.....but you think a Curry-Klay-Draymond-Iggy-Barnes-Livingston-Bogut squad "wasn't a title team on paper".
Come on now.
Not only would '16 Bron-Klay-Draymond-Iggy-Barnes-Livingston-Bogut burn down stadiums and salt the land they lay on, they would have fukking swept the Steph-Kyrie-Love Cavs without even sweating the games.
Also, dude, if LeBron had that roster, Draymond and Bogut would NOT be a good fit next to him. Curry gives you more flexibility with roster building