Author Topic: Bynum full time  (Read 6651 times)

Offline WayOutWest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7411
    • View Profile
Re: Bynum full time
« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2006, 08:11:10 PM »
The Spurs are listening to this trade talk.

Odom and Kwame for TD and Barry.  TD will be happy to play with a quality center and 2 guard again.
"History shouldn't be a mystery"
"Our story is real history"
"Not his story"

"My people's culture was strong, it was pure"
"And if not for that white greed"
"It would've endured"

"Laker hate causes blindness"

Offline Randy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 836
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Bynum full time
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2006, 10:36:45 AM »
Okay, TD learned what from DRob?  TD was one of the best perfected centers to EVER enter the NBA game -- almost ZERO learning curve -- I wouldn't credit DRob with anything when it comes to TD's game.  He would have been this great a player had he gone to the Clips at the time! (oh, had Stern not seen fit to accept the bribe from SA and stack the lottery balls  >:().

As for comparing Bynum and Fabs -- that's a joke (and amazing Reality doesn't seem to get it, either).  Fabs is ABLE to score points and rebound because TD is getting double-teamed leaving Fabs wide open.  Now you DO have to give Fabs credit -- he does have the mental facilities and physical ability to actually catch the ball and dunk it with no one around -- I think Samaki Walker could actually do that!  ::)  Put Fabs on the Wizards and watch his shooting percentage drop to 35% and watch him struggle with Haywood for playing time! 

Offline westkoast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8624
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Bynum full time
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2006, 10:49:30 AM »
Randy,

I believe Lurker, X3, 101, and the rest of the Spurs nation would agree that D-Rob did teach Duncan how to play in the NBA.  Duncan did not join the league and all the sudden know the ins and outs of the game.  I am not saying Duncan would be the Kandi-Man if D-Rob wasn't around but I felt like he really taught him about the NBA very quickly.  Duncan adjusted pretty well and they complimented each other very well.
http://I-Really-Shouldn't-Put-A-Link-To-A-Blog-I-Dont-Even-Update.com

Offline Randy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 836
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Bynum full time
« Reply #18 on: November 28, 2006, 11:29:05 AM »
Sorry, can't agree.  DRob is one of the most complete players that have ever entered the NBA game from college.  He was a high impact player and would have been no matter WHERE he went.  I'm not saying he didn't benefit from playing with DRob (the Twin Tower concept was awesome) but TD would have been this kind of player no matter where he played.  You can argue what kind of success he would have had -- normally a player of this magnitude doesn't go to a team with talent in today's lottery world but I can't agree with anything that would TD would have been anything less than he is today no matter WHERE he went!

Offline Joe Vancil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
    • ICQ Messenger - 236778608
    • MSN Messenger - joev5638@hotmail.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - GenghisThePBear
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - joev5638
    • View Profile
    • http://www.joev.com
    • Email
Re: Bynum full time
« Reply #19 on: November 28, 2006, 11:37:14 AM »
Randy,

     While your logic is sound, I don't agree with you.  Tim Duncan would have definitely been a great player no matter where he went, playing alongside Robinson allowed him to focus on being a defender first, which is what Duncan's skills from college had most prepared him for.  Had Duncan gone to a team where he was forced to carry the scoring load immediately, it is very likely that he would not have gotten off to the start that he did.  Robinson helped Duncan adjust to the NBA form of defense, and allowed Duncan to build his skills offensively at a slower pace.

     Duncan's starting off with Robinson is the difference between Duncan being one of the league's great players and the league's best player.

Joe

-----------
Support your right to keep and arm bears!
Club (baby) seals, not sandwiches!

Offline Randy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 836
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Bynum full time
« Reply #20 on: November 28, 2006, 12:41:53 PM »
Joe,

Quote
Had Duncan gone to a team where he was forced to carry the scoring load immediately, it is very likely that he would not have gotten off to the start that he did.

Nobody could ever argue otherwise, IMO.  The Spurs already had a solid line-up and DRob and Elliott were great players.

Quote
Duncan's starting off with Robinson is the difference between Duncan being one of the league's great players and the league's best player.

I still think that TD would have achieved the same status as a player as he has with the Spurs -- TD is simply one of those players to come along once in a great while.  He might not have earned a championship with another team (depending on the team, coach, and who they assembled to play alongside him) but I still think that TD would be the player he is today.

Offline Skandery

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1710
    • MSN Messenger - skandery27@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Bynum full time
« Reply #21 on: November 28, 2006, 03:07:08 PM »
Quote
He might not have earned a championship with another team (depending on the team, coach, and who they assembled to play alongside him) but I still think that TD would be the player he is today.

When you say the "player he is today", you have to understand the magnitude of that statement when you're talking about Tim Duncan, Randy.  The "player he is today" many NBA followers and historians would argue is the greatest Power Forward the game has ever seen, EVER!  With 3 championships, 8 first-team All-NBA selection his first 8 years, and 8 all-star appearances, the ammunition is their to support the argument. 

Having the chance to learn from another one of the greatest players to play must be accounted for when you're talking about the difference in development of a player between great players of today and great players of all time.

Without a Robinson to play alongside, would Tim Duncan still have been one of the greatest players of his day, without a doubt.  Would he have become possibly the greatest Power Forward of all time....eh...that's harder to say.   
"But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality'. And reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Offline Joe Vancil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
    • ICQ Messenger - 236778608
    • MSN Messenger - joev5638@hotmail.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - GenghisThePBear
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - joev5638
    • View Profile
    • http://www.joev.com
    • Email
Re: Bynum full time
« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2006, 08:08:34 PM »
You know, Skander raised an interesting point in last message that might get skimmed over - that many folks consider Duncan the greatest POWER FORWARD to ever play.  Part of that involves Duncan playing POWER FORWARD rather than CENTER.

Had Duncan gone to, for instance, Boston, he'd have been initially inserted in the line-up as a center rather than a power forward.  He wouldn't have had a year developing his mid-range game.  And he certainly wouldn't be considered the greatest CENTER in the league's history - or possibly even the league's best center during much of his career.  Playing with David Robinson allowed him to escape the role of playing center, and may have possibly made him more effective.

I think it's undeniable that Robinson helped Duncan's career *A* *LOT*.


Joe

-----------
Support your right to keep and arm bears!
Club (baby) seals, not sandwiches!

Offline Reality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8738
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Bynum full time
« Reply #23 on: November 29, 2006, 07:45:37 AM »
As for comparing Bynum and Fabs -- that's a joke (and amazing Reality doesn't seem to get it, either).  Fabs is ABLE to score points and rebound because TD is getting double-teamed leaving Fabs wide open.  Now you DO have to give Fabs credit -- he does have the mental facilities and physical ability to actually catch the ball and dunk it with no one around -- I think Samaki Walker could actually do that!  ::)  Put Fabs on the Wizards and watch his shooting percentage drop to 35% and watch him struggle with Haywood for playing time! 
'Dolph, I will accept a Bynum for Fabs trade.  Pop-a-Cement is currently going far beyond the good role player I predicted Fabs could and should be.  Pop is benching Frank Elson in favor of Bricks Finley, Horry and Oberto.  That is whack.  All Elson has done is perform very well and give the Spurs a return to some tough paint D.
Plus he can run the floor.  Spurs have done very well in the games he is given 20+ minutes.  Small ball cutesy Pop is back to being owned by Avery J.  The last Dallas-Spur game was all on Pop.

Offline Randy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 836
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Bynum full time
« Reply #24 on: November 29, 2006, 10:03:15 AM »
You know, Skander raised an interesting point in last message that might get skimmed over - that many folks consider Duncan the greatest POWER FORWARD to ever play.  Part of that involves Duncan playing POWER FORWARD rather than CENTER.

Had Duncan gone to, for instance, Boston, he'd have been initially inserted in the line-up as a center rather than a power forward.  He wouldn't have had a year developing his mid-range game.  And he certainly wouldn't be considered the greatest CENTER in the league's history - or possibly even the league's best center during much of his career.  Playing with David Robinson allowed him to escape the role of playing center, and may have possibly made him more effective.

I think it's undeniable that Robinson helped Duncan's career *A* *LOT*.

Okay, allowing TD to stay at his PF position definately helped TD's career.  There's no denying that -- however, I think it's not a fair assumption to assume that everyone else would have moved him to center.  Does anyone else here think that Fabs is a great center?  Nope -- just an stiff slotted at center who will get a lot of easy boards and put-backs because teams will double TD.

There are several factors that I can't deny:
  1.  The fact that TD came to a team already loaded with talent -- that talent allowed him to adjust to the NBA without having to be "the man." 
  2.  TD came in and was able to play along one of the best centers in the game at that time.
  3.  TD was able to stay at the PF position.
  4.  TD would have never gone down as one of the best centers to ever play the game.  (see note below)

However, I think you guys are making some assumptions that I think is a little questionable:
  1.  TD would have had to play Center for any other team.
  2.  TD wouldn't have adjusted as easily where he would have been "the man." 

TD came into the league as one of the complete and polished players the NBA has seen -- esp. when it comes to Big Men in the NBA.  Joe, TD already had a great mid-range game when he came into the NBA.  It was one of the things that was touted so highly about him.  His fundamentals were incredible -- one of the things everyone was raving about -- that, as a Big Man, TD used the board (bank shot) like no one currently in the league. 

Did TD benefit from playing alongside DRob?  Absolutely -- that was NEVER the question here -- the question, that I am disputing with Westkoast is that DRob TAUGHT TD the game of basketball.  My point hasn't been that TD benefitted from DRob's presence -- that obviously happened -- but how much of the game did DRob TEACH TD? 

Look at their stats alongside each other during TD's ROOKIE season:
             MPG            PPG          RPG         BPG        FG%
TD          39               21          11.9          2.5         .55
DRob      34              21.6        10.6          2.6         .51

If DRob taught TD, it must have been in training camp.  TD came in playing more minutes, shooting the ball BETTER than DRob (guess he was still perfecting that midrange jumper, huh, Joe?) and hauled in more rebounds (of course, he was playing more minutes). 

TD benefitted from DRob playing with him in the following ways:
  1.  Teams couldn't double and triple-team TD with DRob on the floor.
  2.  TD didn't have to be "the man" on offense or on defense (although by looking at the stats of TD and DRob during TD's rookie season, one couldn't defend the position that DRob was "the man" either -- it looks as if they shared that role).
  3.  TD was allowed to play his more natural position of Power Forward (which, by-the-way, it seems that I inerrantly assigned him as a center in one of my posts -- certainly that wasn't my intention).
  4.  TD also benefitted as much from Elliott (a gifted scorer and defender) and Avery Johnson (a GREAT floor general -- notice that I didn't say he was a great nba player -- and the leader of the Spurs) and Elie and solid veterans on the bench.

However, it's OBVIOUS from TD's stats that he COULD and WOULD have been the man on any other team in the league.  We can play the "what if" games all day long but TD was one of the most complete players to have ever entered the NBA.  That wouldn't have changed no matter where he went. 

Now, back to the original statement:  How did DRob TEACH TD the NBA game?  I sure don't see it!

Offline Randy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 836
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Bynum full time
« Reply #25 on: November 29, 2006, 10:07:37 AM »
As for comparing Bynum and Fabs -- that's a joke (and amazing Reality doesn't seem to get it, either).  Fabs is ABLE to score points and rebound because TD is getting double-teamed leaving Fabs wide open.  Now you DO have to give Fabs credit -- he does have the mental facilities and physical ability to actually catch the ball and dunk it with no one around -- I think Samaki Walker could actually do that!  ::)  Put Fabs on the Wizards and watch his shooting percentage drop to 35% and watch him struggle with Haywood for playing time! 
'Dolph, I will accept a Bynum for Fabs trade.  Pop-a-Cement is currently going far beyond the good role player I predicted Fabs could and should be.  Pop is benching Frank Elson in favor of Bricks Finley, Horry and Oberto.  That is whack.  All Elson has done is perform very well and give the Spurs a return to some tough paint D.
Plus he can run the floor.  Spurs have done very well in the games he is given 20+ minutes.  Small ball cutesy Pop is back to being owned by Avery J.  The last Dallas-Spur game was all on Pop.

I'm sure you would accept the trade -- however, it would never be offered.  As for predicting the good role player that you predicted Fabs could and should be?  Notice what happens to Fabs when TD is played one-on-one and Fabs is guarded as well:
   18 mintes  1-6 fg (16% fg%)  4 rebounds   2 assists   1 steal   1 block shot   1 TO   2 points
Quite impressive, isn't it!  Fabs is in the same NBA category as Haywood and 30 other big men in the league today -- just filler!

Offline Joe Vancil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
    • ICQ Messenger - 236778608
    • MSN Messenger - joev5638@hotmail.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - GenghisThePBear
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - joev5638
    • View Profile
    • http://www.joev.com
    • Email
Re: Bynum full time
« Reply #26 on: November 29, 2006, 12:20:52 PM »
Randy,

      You say you don't think Duncan would have played center for the other teams?  Let's look at that.

      Let's start by arguing that currently, we think of Duncan as a power forward, and mostly for the reason that Duncan started out being officially listed as a power forward.  Despite the fact that he has a midrange game, his offensive game is back-to-the-basket for significant stretches, and many argue that Duncan is really a center playing power forward even to this day.  In fact, he plays more back-to-the-basket basketball than David Robinson did, and we all call David Robinson a center.  So the reason we see Duncan as a power forward is because that's what we started out calling him - mostly due to the fact that David Robinson was the primary back-to-the-basket player for the Spurs in Duncan's first year.

     Vancouver was the worst team in the league the year Duncan was drafted.  Vancouver's team consisted of Shareef Abdur-Rahim at power forward, and Bryant Reeves at center.  Do they move Abdur-Rahim to the starting small forward, bench George Lynch, and start Duncan at the 4, or do they bench Big Country, and play Duncan at the center?  That's a toss-up.

     Boston is next.  Antoine Walker at power forward - at center, you've got Marty Conlon, Dino Radja (his last year), Frank Brickowski, Pervis Ellison, Stacey King, Steve Hamer, Brett Szabo, and Alton Lister.  They acquired Travis Knight, Andrew DeClercq, and Zan Tabak for the next year.  Does anyone believe that they'd have displaced Walker in favor of the other players?  Not me.  Chalk Duncan down as a center in Boston.

     San An - a power forward because of Robinson.

     Denver.  Denver had Laphonso Ellis and Antonio McDyess at the big forward, Ervin Johnson at the Center.  They drafted Tony Battie, a center.  Chalk Duncan down as a center.

     Philadelphia.  They had Derrick Coleman at power forward, Michael Cage and Scott Williams at center.  The next year, mid-season, they traded to get Theo Ratliff.  Mark Duncan down as a center coming in to Philadelphia (they most likely wouldn't have gone after Ratliff if they had Duncan from the start of the year).

     Dallas.  They had nothing:  Shawn Bradley, Chris Gatling, Samaki Walker, A.C. Green, Oliver Miller, and Greg Dreiling.  Did they want a power forward, or a center?  They played A.C. Green heavy minutes the next year, and Shawn Bradley at center.  I think Duncan takes Bradley's spot.  A center for Dallas.

     New Jersey.  Jayson Williams at power forward, moved to center the next year to allow the rookie Keith Van Horn into the line-up.  If you don't have Van Horn (because you picked Duncan instead), do you move an established power forward who is 6-9 to center?  I don't think so.

     Toronto.  They had Marcus Camby, who was projected as a forward at 6-11, 220.  Duncan is 7-0, 248.  Which guy plays center?  Duncan, especially considering that Toronto had Sharone Wright pencilled in at center before he went down with injury.

     Golden State.  Joe Smith at power forward, Andrew DeClerq and Felton Spencer at center.  Duncan's a center - especially considering how desperate Golden State was to find one;  they drafted Adonal Foyle, a center, Marc Jackson, a center, and acquired Erick Dampier, a center, in exchange for Chris Mullin.

     Milwaukee.  Vin Baker at power forward, traded to Seattle, for Kemp to Cleveland, and Tyrone Hill  to Milwaukee (I've got no clue as to who else).  Do you make the trade if you get Duncan?  Do you trade Danny Fortson for Ervin Johnson?  The 1997 Bucks had Armen Gilliam and Tyrone Hill at the big forward, and Ervin Johnson at the center.  I think Duncan replaces the worst scorer and rebounder - Ervin Johnson.  Gilliam's minutes were slated for Tyrone Hill.  But if they have Duncan, I think they keep Baker, and go with Duncan and Baker in the frontcourt - Duncan at center.

     Sacramento.  Olden Polynice is the center, Lawrence Funderburke, Corliss Williamson, Billy Owens, Lawrence Funderburke, and Otis Thorpe are in the front court.  Polynice is 6-11, 220 vs. Duncan's 7-0, 248.  Obviously, Duncan is dealing with a cast of scum, and at the time, Corliss Williamson is seen as a tweener.  Complicating the situation is the fact that Sacramento's pick that year was Olivier St. Jean (Tariq Abdul-Wahad), who was seen as a 3 in Sacramento (since Mitch Richmond was at the 2), which necessitated moving Williamson to more minutes at the 4.  Assuming St. Jean wasn't there, that means Corliss Williamson may stay at small forward.  That leaves an open spot at power forward.  So let's call Duncan a power forward here.



     Indiana.  Rik Smits at center, coming back from injury, at center, and Dale Davis and Antonio Davis at the big forward.  Indiana's draft pick, Erick Dampier, a center, was traded to Golden State for Chris Mullin.  Given no Mullin, you're looking at replacing Smits or Dale Davis.  I say Indiana replaces Smits with Duncan - mostly because of the injury concern, and elevates Jalen Rose to the starting line-up at small forward.  But I could see you going the other way.  Call this one a toss-up.

     Cleveland.  Here's the most interesting one.  They've got incoming center Zydrunas Ilgauskus, who missed his entire rookie year with an injury, and young center Vitaly Potapenko.  They dumped somebody - I'm not exactly sure who, but I know Tyrone Hill, their starting power forward was included - for Shawn Kemp.  What do you do if you get Duncan?  Do you gamble on Ilgauskus, who has yet to play an NBA game?  Do you trade for Kemp?  Assuming the Kemp trade goes through, then it's a no-brainer - you play Duncan at center and Kemp at power forward, which begs the question of what you do with Ilgauskus and Potapenko.  But do you not make the trade for Kemp, and gamble on the two rookies - Ilgauskus and Duncan?  In that case, you've got Tyrone Hill, which, in my mind, makes Hill the power forward, Duncan the center, and bumps Ilgauskus to the bench, even though, in retrospect, the smart move would have been to bump Hill to the bench, start Ilgauskus at center, and Duncan - who was a center in college all four years - at power forward.  Too difficult to call.

     So, for the 13 lottery teams, Duncan ends up as a center for eight of them, a power forward for two (Sacramento and San An), with three of them too difficult to call.
Joe

-----------
Support your right to keep and arm bears!
Club (baby) seals, not sandwiches!

Offline Randy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 836
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Bynum full time
« Reply #27 on: November 29, 2006, 01:44:25 PM »
Joe,

But let's look at this a different way:

The Spurs currently have:
  Butler at 6'10"
  Elson at 7'0"
  Horry at 6'10"
  Oberto at 6'10"

So why wouldn't you move TD to Center now?  Isn't he a better center than anyone else listed?  With the exception of Elson, he's even taller than all the other players that are playing center for Pop (and I think that TD is actually 7'0").

Vancouver was the worst team in the league the year Duncan was drafted.  Vancouver's team consisted of Shareef Abdur-Rahim at power forward, and Bryant Reeves at center.  Do they move Abdur-Rahim to the starting small forward, bench George Lynch, and start Duncan at the 4, or do they bench Big Country, and play Duncan at the center?  That's a toss-up.
   Nope -- Big Country at Center, TD at PF and SAR at SF -- that's a LOT of heighth in the starting line-up.

Boston is next.  Antoine Walker at power forward - at center, you've got Marty Conlon, Dino Radja (his last year), Frank Brickowski, Pervis Ellison, Stacey King, Steve Hamer, Brett Szabo, and Alton Lister.  They acquired Travis Knight, Andrew DeClercq, and Zan Tabak for the next year.  Does anyone believe that they'd have displaced Walker in favor of the other players?  Not me.  Chalk Duncan down as a center in Boston.
I think you are looking at this all wrong -- they were building a team around Walker and Pierce -- and running the ball.  If you draft Duncan, you find a stiff (not unlike what the Spurs are currently doing) to play center and focus on a half-court offense.

Denver.  Denver had Laphonso Ellis and Antonio McDyess at the big forward, Ervin Johnson at the Center.  They drafted Tony Battie, a center.  Chalk Duncan down as a center.
Why not play Johnson/Battie at center?  Again -- you clear out the middle when you let TD work away from the basket.  Why would you put a man who can move and shoot like he does in the paint with Shaq?  Do you see what Utah does with Boozer and Okur?  They leave Boozer in the paint and run Okur out at the three point line.  Putting Okur in the paint isn't playing to his strengths -- I don't see a lot of difference in TD and his game.  I wouldn't play TD in the paint -- I'd put him 18' out and allow him to work -- his commanding a double team frees someone up under the rim for an easy basket!

Philadelphia.  They had Derrick Coleman at power forward, Michael Cage and Scott Williams at center.  The next year, mid-season, they traded to get Theo Ratliff.  Mark Duncan down as a center coming in to Philadelphia (they most likely wouldn't have gone after Ratliff if they had Duncan from the start of the year).
Again, I leave Scott Williams at Center -- is he a great center?  Nope -- but he's not a great power forward either.

Indiana.  Rik Smits at center, coming back from injury, at center, and Dale Davis and Antonio Davis at the big forward.  Indiana's draft pick, Erick Dampier, a center, was traded to Golden State for Chris Mullin.  Given no Mullin, you're looking at replacing Smits or Dale Davis.  I say Indiana replaces Smits with Duncan - mostly because of the injury concern, and elevates Jalen Rose to the starting line-up at small forward.  But I could see you going the other way.  Call this one a toss-up.
I think we see this from way different perspectives, Joe.  I see this as "who can play the Power Forward position best" -- not who can play the center position best.  Dale and/or Antonio Davis are BEST under the basket -- not away from the basket.  Let them play the center position and allow TD to work 18' from the basket. 

I think you are looking at things from: "whose the best at the center position."  But the Jazz are GREAT examples at how best to utilize your players from a strength standpoint rather than shoving them into the position.  The Jazz use Boozer as more of a center than they do Okur.  Boozer plays under the basket -- Okur opens the floor by spreading the opposing big men from the basket all the way to the three point line. 

I think your philosophy for how to use TD is flawed.  I'm not saying that some coaches wouldn't choose to make the same assumption but I still think that thinking is very flawed.




   

Offline Joe Vancil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
    • ICQ Messenger - 236778608
    • MSN Messenger - joev5638@hotmail.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - GenghisThePBear
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - joev5638
    • View Profile
    • http://www.joev.com
    • Email
Re: Bynum full time
« Reply #28 on: November 29, 2006, 02:41:25 PM »
Randy,

Oh, I agree that Duncan should *NOW* be the center for San An, and they should start MATT BONNER at power forward opposite him.

Vancouver - I like your idea of the big line-up.  How has Abdur-Rahim fared as a small forward?  I say it should work;  experience says that I'm wrong.  And while your line-up is a great rebounding line-up, mine isn't bad either:  Lynch, Abdur-Rahim, Duncan.

Boston - you're mistaken in your thinking.  Pierce hadn't arrived yet.  Boston was a team built around Antoine Walker - their power forward.  They'd then become a team built around Duncan plus Walker.  But you're not moving Walker to the 3 and Duncan to the four - you're leaving Walker at the four and leaving Duncan at the 5 - where he had played his entire career up until San An.

Denver - Denver lost Johnson that year to Milwaukee, and they wouldn't have had Battie - that pick would have been Tim Duncan.  Duncan would be the center, Ellis or McDyess the big forward.

Philadelphia - you leave Scott Williams at center, and you bench Derrick Coleman?  While I hate Coleman, I don't think any coach out there would start Scott Williams in front of him.

Indiana - Rik Smits, who wasn't anything close to an "inside guy" played center;  the Davises played power forward.  I replace Smits in that line-up with Duncan.  While I don't quite use Duncan like Smits, I definitely use him on the outside (rather than Dale Davis).  However, Duncan would cover the center spot defensively, just like Smits did *EXCEPT* against Shaquille O'Neal, where the injury factor came into play for Smits.

I agree that the Jazz use Boozer as a center OFFENSIVELY.  They use Okur as the center DEFENSIVELY, though.  And when you look at San An, what defined the difference between Robinson and Duncan as center and power forward after the first year was what was done DEFENSIVELY.  Robinson guarded centers...Duncan guarded power forwards.  But on the offensive end, Duncan was on the block (after his rookie year) and Robinson was on the elbow.



Joe

-----------
Support your right to keep and arm bears!
Club (baby) seals, not sandwiches!

Offline WayOutWest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7411
    • View Profile
Re: Bynum full time
« Reply #29 on: November 30, 2006, 10:44:59 AM »
Joe,

But let's look at this a different way:

The Spurs

Agreed, TD should be the center for the Spurs and should have become the Spurs center after DRob retired.

Nope -- Big Country at Center, TD at PF and SAR at SF -- that's a LOT of heighth in the starting line-up.

Agreed.

I think you are looking at this all wrong -- they were building a team around Walker and Pierce -- and running the ball.  If you draft Duncan, you find a stiff (not unlike what the Spurs are currently doing) to play center and focus on a half-court offense.

I don't get this finding a stiff logic.  TD was a center, is a center, has always been a center playing the PF spot ONLY because he was drafted to a team with a first class center already in place.  IMO nothing would have changed if TD was the starting center for the Spurs and DRob was moved to PF because DRob would take the tougher center assignments when needed.  He was bigger and stronger than TD so it made sense for him to take the bruiser.  Nobody and I mean NOBODY is looking for a stiff to play center alongside TD at PF, nobody even considers TD at PF unless they have a Shaq, DRob, Ewing, Hakeem or the like on the roster already.  They ONLY reason we talk about TD being a PF is because that's where he started for the Spurs, had DRob's injury been career ending you can bet your foggy glasses that TD was the starting 5 for the Spurs.

Why not play Johnson/Battie at center?  Again -- you clear out the middle when you let TD work away from the basket.  Why would you put a man who can move and shoot like he does in the paint with Shaq?  Do you see what Utah does with Boozer and Okur?  They leave Boozer in the paint and run Okur out at the three point line.  Putting Okur in the paint isn't playing to his strengths -- I don't see a lot of difference in TD and his game.  I wouldn't play TD in the paint -- I'd put him 18' out and allow him to work -- his commanding a double team frees someone up under the rim for an easy basket!

Clearly TD would play center for the Nuggets.  If you want to play TD at PF because you're an idiot coach for the Nuggets then just bring TD off the bench so he can win the 6th man award, makes as much sense (btw that would be zero sense).

Again, I leave Scott Williams at Center -- is he a great center?  Nope -- but he's not a great power forward either.

Just as dumb as the Denver idea, or lack there of.  You don't bench Coleman so you can have Williams at center.  Have we all lost our b-ball brains?  TD is a center and was one since college.


I think we see this from way different perspectives, Joe.  I see this as "who can play the Power Forward position best" -- not who can play the center position best.  Dale and/or Antonio Davis are BEST under the basket -- not away from the basket.  Let them play the center position and allow TD to work 18' from the basket.

Another case of brain checked at the door.  You put your best TEAM on the floor.  In the case of Indiana you go with TD at center because of the injury problems Smits had, later on when Smits becomes more consistent you go with the twin towers of Smits at C or PF, anyone remember the mid-80's rockets, and TD at C or PF.

Come one guys, lets stop falling into mediot country, we all know TD is a center playing the PF spot, the reason he's there is because of DRob being there when TD was a rookie.
"History shouldn't be a mystery"
"Our story is real history"
"Not his story"

"My people's culture was strong, it was pure"
"And if not for that white greed"
"It would've endured"

"Laker hate causes blindness"