2011-2012 OFFICIAL NBA LOCKOUT thread

[RockRaines]

Russell was built like Chris Sale. That was ok in the 60's. Now even if you added 20-25 pounds of muscle to his physique with modern training, he still wouldn't stand out in the modern game like he did back then. Those 11 rings have blinded just about everybody.

And Babe Ruth was a fat drunk f***. You cant compare old school players to today's players. There is a reason that old houses have tiny doorways, people have changed quite a bit.

[Jordan4life_2007]

And Babe Ruth was a fat drunk f***. You cant compare old school players to today's players. There is a reason that old houses have tiny doorways, people have changed quite a bit.

 

Old school is like the 80's. The 50's and 60's were when dinosaurs were still roaming the earth. Babe Ruth? Another bi-product of his time. I'd think he'd be great in any era. But that era? Entire teams hit like 60 HRs. If that.

[RockRaines]

Old school is like the 80's. The 50's and 60's were when dinosaurs were still roaming the earth. Babe Ruth? Another bi-product of his time. I'd think he'd be great in any era. But that era? Entire teams hit like 60 HRs. If that.

The only way to judge historical players is in the context of their generation, and in his, Bill Russell was a stud.

[Rowand44]

Old school is like the 80's. The 50's and 60's were when dinosaurs were still roaming the earth. Babe Ruth? Another bi-product of his time. I'd think he'd be great in any era. But that era? Entire teams hit like 60 HRs. If that.

You can't compare eras like that though, it's not fair as every player back than would have sucked now a days...I mean, Bob Cousy couldn't dribble the ball with his left hand.

[Rowand44]

The only way to judge historical players is in the context of their generation, and in his, Bill Russell was a stud.

Yup.

[Jordan4life_2007]

The only way to judge historical players is in the context of their generation, and in his, Bill Russell was a stud.

 

He was great for his time. A time when the league was in its infancy. But I still can't find anybody that can tell me the difference between he and somebody like prime Ben Wallace. Other than the 11 rings. Which is dumb.

[ZoomSlowik]

Zoom knows his hoops. Anyway, I said this last year and I'll say it again: LeBron is still the best overall player in the game. Dirk > Bird. And Bill Russell = Ben Wallace or Dikembe Mutombo.

 

I only endorse the first part of this post.

 

Bird and Dirk are highly similar players. They're basically the same as scorers and neither is a stellar athlete. Bird was a way better passer and slightly better rebounder, Dirk commits a lot less turnovers because he doesn't handle the ball. I'd happily take my chances with Bird.

 

Russell doesn't have nearly the bulk of Mutombo and though he wasn't great at that end had way more of an offensive game than Wallace. I'd say he's more like Josh Smith with exponentially higher basketball IQ.

 

I really don't want to turn this into a 4-page debate (we might have done that before), so I'll leave it at that.

[southsider2k5]

The only way to judge historical players is in the context of their generation, and in his, Bill Russell was a stud.

 

Bingo.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Yup.

 

Sorry. When I see Russell > Shaq or Hakeem I want to throw up. That literally makes me sick. Yes, I get the generation gaps. I'm lookin' at skillset. There's nothing Russell did back then that stands out to me. Back then it was 8 teams, two rounds of playoffs and lame competition. Some guys (Wilt) would be dominant in any era. Not Russell, though.

[southsider2k5]

Sorry. When I see Russell > Shaq or Hakeem I want to throw up. That literally makes me sick. Yes, I get the generation gaps. I'm lookin' at skillset. There's nothing Russell did back then that stands out to me. Back then it was 8 teams, two rounds of playoffs and lame competition. Some guys (Wilt) would be dominant in any era. Not Russell, though.

 

You could say the same thing for any sport. Guys in the 20's couldn't throw a slider, curve, splitter, or cutter. Football didn't use the forward pass way back when and yet QB's from the old days are still considered amongst the greats.

[ZoomSlowik]

Russell was built like Chris Sale. That was ok in the 60's. Now even if you added 20-25 pounds of muscle to his physique with modern training, he still wouldn't stand out in the modern game like he did back then. Those 11 rings have blinded just about everybody.

 

Kevin Garnett and Chris Bosh are skinny as a rail too. Guys like LaMarcus Aldridge, Joakim Noah and Tyson Chandler aren't exactly super bulked up either. It's not like he'd only be facing guys that are 7-foot 270 (which is roughly what Wilt was by the way) every game. He'd probably be more of a PF, though who knows what his weight would actually be in the modern era.

 

Crap, you're dragging me into this.

[RockRaines]

You could say the same thing for any sport. Guys in the 20's couldn't throw a slider, curve, splitter, or cutter. Football didn't use the forward pass way back when and yet QB's from the old days are still considered amongst the greats.

Most of the good early NFL players wouldnt translate to todays game based on size, speed and even rules. You simply cant discount a player because he was dominant in an era that wasnt as good as today. Every year the talent in sports gets better and more specialized, it always will.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I only endorse the first part of this post.

 

Bird and Dirk are highly similar players. They're basically the same as scorers and neither is a stellar athlete. Bird was a way better passer and slightly better rebounder, Dirk commits a lot less turnovers because he doesn't handle the ball. I'd happily take my chances with Bird.

 

Russell doesn't have nearly the bulk of Mutombo and though he wasn't great at that end had way more of an offensive game than Wallace. I'd say he's more like Josh Smith with exponentially higher basketball IQ.

 

I really don't want to turn this into a 4-page debate (we might have done that before), so I'll leave it at that.

 

Zoom:

 

Dirk is a better shooter, had a better post-game, better ball-handler and better at getting to the basket. Rebounding comparison is miniscule at best. Yes, Bird was a better passer. Can't deny that. But when you get over the whole, "Bird and Magic saved the NBA" made for TV movie. It's easy to see that Dirk is the better player.

[Steve9347]

Russell was built like Chris Sale. That was ok in the 60's. Now even if you added 20-25 pounds of muscle to his physique with modern training, he still wouldn't stand out in the modern game like he did back then. Those 11 rings have blinded just about everybody.

We've already discussed this ad-nauseum in the past, but you have to assume if Russell came around nowadays, he'd be able to train around the clock and have modern facilities and nutrition available. You can't compare the eras, only how players played compared to their direct competition.

 

Eddy Curry could probably be time warped back to the 60s and skull-f*** everyone, but that's not fair to the eras.

[Jordan4life_2007]

You could say the same thing for any sport. Guys in the 20's couldn't throw a slider, curve, splitter, or cutter. Football didn't use the forward pass way back when and yet QB's from the old days are still considered amongst the greats.

 

Can't have it both ways. I understand what you're saying. But apply that when doing all-time rankings (not saying you're doing that). Bill Russell, for some reason, is viewed as a top 6 player of all-time. I don't think so. Players unequivocally better/greater than Bill Russell: MJ, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Kareem, Moses, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, Erving, West, Robertson and a few others I'm probably forgetting about.

[Jordan4life_2007]

We've already discussed this ad-nauseum in the past, but you have to assume if Russell came around nowadays, he'd be able to train around the clock and have modern facilities and nutrition available. You can't compare the eras, only how players played compared to their direct competition.

 

Eddy Curry could probably be time warped back to the 60s and skull-f*** everyone, but that's not fair to the eras.

 

And I gave Russell an extra 25 pounds with modern training. His individual offensive game sucked even back then. So it's not getting any better today. And I fail to see how even a souped up Russell would stand-out in the 21st century. Would he be a scrub? No. He'd be Mutombo.

[southsider2k5]

We've already discussed this ad-nauseum in the past, but you have to assume if Russell came around nowadays, he'd be able to train around the clock and have modern facilities and nutrition available. You can't compare the eras, only how players played compared to their direct competition.

 

Eddy Curry could probably be time warped back to the 60s and skull-f*** everyone, but that's not fair to the eras.

 

 

This too. The mediocre and sorry players of today would own the old days.

[RockRaines]

And I gave Russell an extra 25 pounds with modern training. His individual offensive game sucked even back then. So it's not getting any better today. And I fail to see how even a souped up Russell would stand-out in the 21st century. Would he be a scrub? No. He'd be Mutombo.

Who knows, he'd have the same talent level that dominated his generation with the added benefit of knowing and growing up with today's games where he could have expanded his talent. You have no idea, so you have to look at his accomplishments during his own era when he was an absolute stud. When you look at best players ever you will always have to look at who they were during their particular time in the league. Eventually someone is going to surpass Jordan's numbers but we (old timers) will always point to his particular dominance in his era.

[southsider2k5]

Chris_Broussard Chris Broussard

by espnchijon

Kobe, DWade, LeBron, Bosh, Blake Griffin, Rondo, Pierce, DRose, Melo, KLove, Westbrook, Amare, CP3, boozer, planning overseas world tour

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

This too. The mediocre and sorry players of today would own the old days.

 

And this is where you guys aren't feelin' me. I get the differences between 60's nutrition and training and today's. It's nature. Not nurture. But I believe even with modern advantages, Bill Russell wouldn't be that great in today's game. Wilt? s***. They might have to change some rules for his ass. But Russell is unquestionably overrated, IMO.

[southsider2k5]

Who knows, he'd have the same talent level that dominated his generation with the added benefit of knowing and growing up with today's games where he could have expanded his talent. You have no idea, so you have to look at his accomplishments during his own era when he was an absolute stud. When you look at best players ever you will always have to look at who they were during their particular time in the league. Eventually someone is going to surpass Jordan's numbers but we (old timers) will always point to his particular dominance in his era.

 

This is the absolute key to me. All you can compare a guy to is his peers of his era.

[Steve9347]

Chris_Broussard Chris Broussard

by espnchijon

Kobe, DWade, LeBron, Bosh, Blake Griffin, Rondo, Pierce, DRose, Melo, KLove, Westbrook, Amare, CP3, boozer, planning overseas world tour

One of these is not like the other. One of these does not fit.

[Jordan4life_2007]

One of these is not like the other. One of these does not fit.

 

Boozer? Has to be. I know you don't like Rondo. But Rondo >>> Boozer.

 

Edit: I truly don't know which guy you're referring to. If it's Boozer then disregard this post.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Jordan4life

[Steve9347]

Boozer? Has to be. I know you don't like Rondo. But Rondo >>> Boozer.

Of course it's Boozer.

[ZoomSlowik]

Zoom:

 

Dirk is a better shooter, had a better post-game, better ball-handler and better at getting to the basket. Rebounding comparison is miniscule at best. Yes, Bird was a better passer. Can't deny that. But when you get over the whole, "Bird and Magic saved the NBA" made for TV movie. It's easy to see that Dirk is the better player.

 

Just no. Dirk only got 13% of his shots in the basket area this year. He thrives on mid-range jumpers and in the high/mid-post.

 

I don't have the same data for Bird, but at nearly 50% from the field his whole career while averaged 24 PPG, I'd imagine he got quite a few easy shots and could shoot a bit. He also played SF and frequently ran the break/offense, so I'll go out on a limb and say he could handle it a bit too. You also had to deal with a lot more contact in the 80's, and the 3 wasn't nearly as big a part of offenses (Bird could hit them frequently, pretty sure he won two 3-point contests).

 

I'll just leave it at that, this probably isn't going anywhere productive.

Edited October 19, 2011 by ZoomSlowik