|
|
Post by don1955 on Jun 13, 2016 12:56:05 GMT
gonna go with yes
|
|
|
|
Post by naterade on Jun 13, 2016 13:48:44 GMT
Dude just wins titles. That's his whole thing. He was an elite scoring machine in his prime and carried countless teams to the finals and beyond. It's hard to vote against him for that reason, since he was a pivotal part of every team he was on. This is an easy yes for me
|
|
|
|
Post by verysilentone on Jun 13, 2016 14:32:03 GMT
I vote yes for GRob. If the A- defensive rating is correct, then I see no reason for him not to be in aside from injury issues, but for someone who won and produced as much as he did, I think he is a shoe in. I did the research, so yes, it's correct. Just to clarify, I was not questioning you. I just was not here at the time and I didn't want to do the research. |
|
|
|
Post by buckeyeballa10 on Jun 13, 2016 14:49:50 GMT
This guy prob has endured the most success of any player in the NBN when you combine his individual accolades with the most important thing of all, winning NBN Championships. HE IS A SHOE IN!
|
|
|
|
Post by A. Silver on Jun 13, 2016 16:32:58 GMT
Obvious yes here - Big Dog was the best player in the league for a few years and has the titles to show for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by josephballin11 on Jun 14, 2016 14:43:57 GMT
Absolute yes for me.....My dad is Scott, who was the Spurs GM for those who don't remember...I told him he was up for HOF voting and he told me to say that he was a complete beast and was the last pick round 1 in the dispersal draft. Had he not have been hurt one season against the nets he would have won another title
|
|
|
|
Post by StayMe7o on Jun 14, 2016 16:33:32 GMT
He looked to be a key reason for the championships he won. 2 playoff MVPs with the stats he put up HOFer!
|
|
Cwaite
Starter
Posts: 626
Likes: 49
|
Post by Cwaite on Jun 14, 2016 18:56:29 GMT
YES
|
|
|
|
Post by bigthunder on Jun 15, 2016 22:46:44 GMT
Yes - before Childress big dog ruled the playoffs. He was the reason I lost a few series early on in the NBN.
|
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Jun 16, 2016 3:26:07 GMT
Because of the Pollard vs Robinson thing I was thinking about how basketball is played. To win basketball games you have to score more points than your opponent. You can have the best defense in the world but if you don't score more points than your opponent you still lose. Now think about this. Would you rather have a guy is consistently great on offense or a guy who is consistently great on defense? I would rather have a guy put up 30 points and have 25 scored on him than a guy who scores 10 and has 10 scored on him.
|
|
|
|
Post by verlasco on Jun 24, 2016 13:06:47 GMT
Yes, he was vital piece to the championships he won
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jun 24, 2016 21:40:46 GMT
I think it's MUCH more likely the Spurs don't win without Robinson than without Pollard. As an apples to apples comparison (since you're comparing Robinson to Pollard)... In 2001 and 2002... Pollard had C+/C- offensive ratings. Robinson had an A- defensive rating. His steals/blocks ratings might not have been high, but that doesn't mean he couldn't defend. In 2003 when the two were teammates, Pollard's ratings were the same, but Robinson slipped to a B+. Still very passable. 2004, Pollard stayed the same. Robinson went back up to an A-. In their primes, Robinson was a MUCH better defender than Pollard was an offensive player. I think Pollard misses, Robinson gets in. Claim the etra $25 for best case, and StayMe7o claim $100 for Glenn Robinson being inducted as a Spur. Glenn Robinson has been inducted into the NBN Hall of Fame |
|
*
*