Bird: "My era, you always think that’s the greatest era. But I’m not so sure anymore"

[140]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/larry-bird-and-reggie-miller-consider-the-four-pointer

“It’s funny how the game has changed,” Bird continued. “And my thinking about it. I was really worried—back sixteen, seventeen years ago—that the little guy didn’t have a spot in the N.B.A. anymore: it was just going to be the big guards like Magic Johnson. But then players started shooting more threes and spacing the court, and everyone wants small guards now. Watching these kids play now, I’m like everybody else: Wow, man. They can really shoot! They have more freedom to get to the basket. The ball moves a little better. These kids are shooting from farther, with more accuracy. Now some teams shoot up around thirty threes a game. My era, you always think that’s the greatest era. But I’m not so sure anymore.”

[Medvedenko]

Well he's right.

[Arcadian]

My era, you always think that’s the greatest era.

Speak for yourself, Larry...I never thought that.

[Killakobe81]

Well he's right.

Bird always keeps it 100.
He shows respect to the real G's like the retired one ...

[JamStone]

The problem with era comparison is that most people (including present and former players) use only the best teams of each era to make the comparison. "80s" guys scream how it was the Golden Era because of the Lakers and Celtics while dismissing the countless average to shitty teams pervasive in the league at the time.

And the notion now that the three point shot and players getting better from shooting further away makes the game better, well if you use examples like Golden State and San Antonio, sure. But teams like Houston and Philadelphia chucked up a whole bunch of three pointers and that was still ugly basketball. There were 12 teams that averaged at least 25 three point attempts a game in the regular season. Only half of them shot 35% or better from that distance. Only Golden State shot over 40%. Only Golden State and Portland shot over 37%. So while the three point shot can be used to create more floor spacing and better ball movement, it still requires multiple good shooters to make it effective and "beautiful." Otherwise, it looks a lot like a girl's high school game with the occasional slam dunk.

I don't know if the present era is better than any other. It's always a discussion that will never have a winning side. Who knows really? Is the Golden Era of the 1980s overrated? Yeah, most likely. Is the current era the best basketball ever? Eh, likely not. It will always bring out people arguing for one side or another and it will always end in a standstill where neither side convinces the other.

[SpursforSix]

The problem with era comparison is that most people (including present and former players) use only the best teams of each era to make the comparison. "80s" guys scream how it was the Golden Era because of the Lakers and Celtics while dismissing the countless average to shitty teams pervasive in the league at the time.



Not disagreeing with your whole post but there are far more average to shitty teams in the NBA today. While Lakers and Celtics seemed to dominate the Finals, there were some damn good teams spread throughout the league. Way more diluted today. IMO.

[DMC]

In Larry's day no one watched the shitty teams. There weren't 50 NBA channels. There was one or two channels with games. If you took those teams and played those games today no one would watch anything other than Michael, Magic and Larry. Problem is that guys today who never saw those games back then (or did see them and are revisionists mentally) take the entire NBA and condense it into the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls.

Imagine the only televised games now are top 6 teams in the league. It would appear to be a league far and above anything offered 30 years ago.

[Killakobe81]

Not disagreeing with your whole post but there are far more average to shitty teams in the NBA today. While Lakers and Celtics seemed to dominate the Finals, there were some damn good teams spread throughout the league. Way more diluted today. IMO.

Exactly. You can take those 80's Spurs ...with Gervin/Gilmore/Alvin roberston era and they would absolutely destroy almost every team in this Eastern Conference playoffs and probably half the West. You put David robinson in his prime right now in the OKC/GSW series even with the new rules and he is destroying Adams/Kanter/Bogut/Fezeli on both ends and that was a largely disappointing Spurs team with a mediocre supporting cast.

In the 80's it wasnt just about lakers/Celtics
It was that decade contained by 1988 all of these players at or near their prime or just drafted:

Bird, Magic, Nique, Jordan, Malone, Malone, Mullin, Drexler, Isiah, dumars McHale, Worthy, ewing, Hakem, Regggie Miller, Stockton, Barkley, Pippen.

It's just tough to find a better apex of great talent in the NBA then that summer. Go to early in the 80's you miss Jordan. Go to late Bird and Magic are less useful. 87-88. you had those guys along Chambers, Ellis, aguirre, Ro Blackmon, Parish.

Just a truly great decade.
Is it better than now?
No, I agree modern players are better ballhandlers and overall better athletes

But i challege anyone here to find a better confluence of talent than the late 80's.

[baseline bum]

Not disagreeing with your whole post but there are far more average to shitty teams in the NBA today. While Lakers and Celtics seemed to dominate the Finals, there were some damn good teams spread throughout the league. Way more diluted today. IMO.

The western conference was garbage outside of the Lakers in the entire decade of the 80s.

[DMC]

Karl Malone never won shit. He has longevity. Even with Stockton as his PG he never won a ring and is noted for shitting the bed in the playoffs. Ewing was overrated, never won shit. Reggie Miller, great 3pt shooter, never won shit. Barkley, basically Zach Randoph with more hops, never won shit. Dominique, leaper, ball hog, black hole on offense, never won shit. Drexler, great leaper, player, pretty decent but never won shit until he went to Houston and took a lesser role. Chris Bosh in the early to mid 90's would be considered an all time great today. James Worthy had Magic and Kareem. Good player, didn't make first ballot.

Let's not pretend the lack of better players then means the good ones were better than the good ones today. There were some then who were all time greats, but the rest are just best players on their respective teams.

[baseline bum]

Exactly. You can take those 80's Spurs ...with Gervin/Gilmore/Alvin roberston era and they would absolutely destroy almost every team in this Eastern Conference playoffs and probably half the West.


You gotta be kidding me. You can get away with that on another board, but on a Spurs board where people actually watched those teams? They had one decent year with Gervin and Gilmore together in 1983 and then Ice got heavy into coke, the team became garbage, and the Spurs had to draft Robertson to replace Gervin. The Spurs were never a good team at any point when Robertson was on the roster, it was lots of mid 30s win teams in a laughably bad conference.

[SpursforSix]

The western conference was garbage outside of the Lakers in the entire decade of the 80s.

It wasn't as strong as the East for sure. But there were decent teams in the West. It's just that the Lakers were that stacked.

[Kawhitstorm]

In Larry's day no one watched the shitty teams. There weren't 50 NBA channels. There was one or two channels with games. If you took those teams and played those games today no one would watch anything other than Michael, Magic and Larry. Problem is that guys today who never saw those games back then (or did see them and are revisionists mentally) take the entire NBA and condense it into the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls.

Imagine the only televised games now are top 6 teams in the league. It would appear to be a league far and above anything offered 30 years ago.

Basically, muphuckas couldn't name you who the Lakers played in the WCF when they were cakewalking to the Finals like LeBron.:lol

It was essentially, Sixers/Celtics/Lakers before the Pistons came along in the late 80s to overtake the Sixers.

[DMC]

It wasn't as strong as the East for sure. But there were decent teams in the West. It's just that the Lakers were that stacked.

There was the Lakers. Everyone else was shit. Some shit rose above other shit.

[DMC]

You gotta be kidding me. You can get away with that on another board, but on a Spurs board where people actually watched those teams? They had one decent year with Gervin and Gilmore together in 1983 and then Ice got heavy into coke, the team became garbage, and the Spurs had to draft Robertson to replace Gervin. The Spurs were never a good team at any point when Robertson was on the roster, it was lots of mid 30s win teams in a laughably bad conference.

Get'em BB. Don't let that soda cracker rewrite history to suit his Nickelodeon level view of NBA history.

[Kawhitstorm]

But i challege anyone here to find a better confluence of talent than the late 80's.

You are talking about talent not the teams.

Let's just look at the 2011-12 season: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9312_NBA_season#By_conference

The 8th seed in either conference was at least 4 games above .500

[baseline bum]

It wasn't as strong as the East for sure. But there were decent teams in the West. It's just that the Lakers were that stacked.

There was so little talent in the west in the 1980s. Outside of the Lakers there was no one in the conference even as good as the Wilkins/Rivers/Willis/Rollins Hawks, much less anyone who could touch the Bucks teams with Moncrief and Cummings or the stacked Sixers and Pistons teams. Alex English's Nuggets? Walter Davis' Suns? Moses was a beast in Houston, as was Olajuwon, but talk about some shit supporting casts around them (Sampson was such a bust). In the very early 80s the Spurs were decent, but never again title contenders after losing in the ECF to Washington. The Blazers at the tail end of the decade were the first real contenders to the Lakers to emerge.

[Killakobe81]

You gotta be kidding me. You can get away with that on another board, but on a Spurs board where people actually watched those teams? They had one decent year with Gervin and Gilmore together in 1983 and then Ice got heavy into coke, the team became garbage, and the Spurs had to draft Robertson to replace Gervin. The Spurs were never a good team at any point when Robertson was on the roster, it was lots of mid 30s win teams in a laughably bad conference.

Ok so the 83 team is the one I am speaking of who in the current EC is beating that team? outside of the cavs? I also remember a few of the Robertson teams giving the Showtime Lakers the business. Maybe they only played us tough but for some reason when we used to make those trips to texas and even though the Rox and Mavs wre both better we would lose a lot of those games to SA (but would often beat Rox/Mavs) or they would be much closer than they should have been.

But you are right I only watched those teams when the played us or the Clips ...
As DMC said we had no LP and the Spurs werent on National TV.

So maybe It was not true for teh decade but I think that 83 team that played the Lakers in the 2nd round is better than the Heat,Pacers etc. But I could be wrong you are the Spur fan.

[Kawhitstorm]

You put David robinson in his prime right now in the OKC/GSW series even with the new rules and he is destroying Adams/Kanter/Bogut/Fezeli on both ends and that was a largely disappointing Spurs team with a mediocre supporting cast.


Admiral led the league in scoring & couldn't dominate Felton Spencer in the playoffs: :lol(41%):lol http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1994-nba-western-conference-first-round-jazz-vs-spurs.html

[Killakobe81]

There was so little talent in the west in the 1980s. Outside of the Lakers there was no one in the conference even as good as the Wilkins/Rivers/Willis/Rollins Hawks, much less anyone who could touch the Bucks teams with Moncrief and Cummings or the stacked Sixers and Pistons teams. Alex English's Nuggets? Walter Davis' Suns? Moses was a beast in Houston, as was Olajuwon, but talk about some shit supporting casts around them (Sampson was such a bust). In the very early 80s the Spurs were decent, but never again title contenders after losing in the ECF to Washington. The Blazers at the tail end of the decade were the first real contenders to the Lakers to emerge.

Sonics had some good late 80's teams too ...
And so did the Jazz

But I do agree that the east was better: Hawks, bucks, sixers celts Pistons Knicks

[SpursforSix]

There was so little talent in the west in the 1980s. Outside of the Lakers there was no one in the conference even as good as the Wilkins/Rivers/Willis/Rollins Hawks, much less anyone who could touch the Bucks teams with Moncrief and Cummings or the stacked Sixers and Pistons teams. Alex English's Nuggets? Walter Davis' Suns? Moses was a beast in Houston, as was Olajuwon, but talk about some shit supporting casts around them (Sampson was such a bust). In the very early 80s the Spurs were decent, but never again title contenders after losing in the ECF to Washington. The Blazers at the tail end of the decade were the first real contenders to the Lakers to emerge.

my original point was to counter the post saying that the NBA was full of shit teams. Which it wasn't. You've named off a few decent teams in the West. And there were several very strong teams in the East. So compared to today, I don't think it was worse overall. Today there's one strong team in the East and a few in the west.

[Killakobe81]

Admiral led the league in scoring & couldn't dominate Felton Spencer in the playoffs::lol http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1994-nba-western-conference-first-round-jazz-vs-spurs.html

A uptempo series that features Kanter/Green/Ibaka playing center for extended minutes would be a easy work for David.

[JamStone]

In the 80's it wasnt just about lakers/Celtics
It was that decade contained by 1988 all of these players at or near their prime or just drafted:

Bird, Magic, Nique, Jordan, Malone, Malone, Mullin, Drexler, Isiah, dumars McHale, Worthy, ewing, Hakem, Regggie Miller, Stockton, Barkley, Pippen.

It's just tough to find a better apex of great talent in the NBA then that summer. Go to early in the 80's you miss Jordan. Go to late Bird and Magic are less useful. 87-88. you had those guys along Chambers, Ellis, aguirre, Ro Blackmon, Parish.

Just a truly great decade.
Is it better than now?
No, I agree modern players are better ballhandlers and overall better athletes

But i challege anyone here to find a better confluence of talent than the late 80's.


Take those 18 players in 1988.

Compare to these 18 players in 2004, all at or near their prime or just drafted:

Shaq, Duncan, KG, Dirk, Pau, JO, Kobe, LeBron, AI, Nash, T-Mac, Vince, Kidd, Pierce, Wade, Melo, Ray Allen, Peja

I'd be more than happy to take the odds on the top talent of 2004 NBA over 1988 NBA. I mean, I'm not saying either is bad or one group is much better than the other. But it's not like the late 80s is the only era to have a lot of top end talent.

Ever since the 80s, talent has never been in deficiency in the NBA. It's been the proliferation of Michael Jordan one-on-one wannabes, the de-emphasis and near dissolution of the big man, and lack of team fundamental play. It's the AAU / and-one style that has hurt the game, not the lack of talent.

[Kawhitstorm]

A uptempo series that features Kanter/Green/Ibaka playing center for extended minutes would be a easy work for David.

Adams would have had his soft ass on all 4s.:lol (OKC's bigs killed the Spurs in halfcourt sets not transition)

[Killakobe81]

Take those 18 players in 1988.

Compare to these 18 players in 2004, all at or near their prime or just drafted:

Shaq, Duncan, KG, Dirk, Pau, JO, Kobe, LeBron, AI, Nash, T-Mac, Vince, Kidd, Pierce, Wade, Melo, Ray Allen, Peja

I'd be more than happy to take the odds on the top talent of 2004 NBA over 1988 NBA. I mean, I'm not saying either is bad or one group is much better than the other. But it's not like the late 80s is the only era to have a lot of top end talent.

Ever since the 80s, talent has never been in deficiency in the NBA. It's been the proliferation of Michael Jordan one-on-one wannabes, the de-emphasis and near dissolution of the big man, and lack of team fundamental play. It's the AAU / and-one style that has hurt the game, not the lack of talent.

Still leaning 88 Even if we stick with just the guys we named ... that is a very strong year 2004 and it has some of my all time favorite players ... even if both lists are full of HOF'ers
I think the 80's list is higher up in general on a all-time rank list.

[Killakobe81]

Adams would have had his soft ass on all 4s.:lol (OKC's bigs killed the Spurs in halfcourt sets not transition)

Disagree.
Robinson had his faults.
But the disrespect of his greatness is alarming even on a Spurs site ...

[Arcadian]

And the notion now that the three point shot and players getting better from shooting further away makes the game better, well if you use examples like Golden State and San Antonio, sure. But teams like Houston and Philadelphia chucked up a whole bunch of three pointers and that was still ugly basketball. There were 12 teams that averaged at least 25 three point attempts a game in the regular season. Only half of them shot 35% or better from that distance. Only Golden State shot over 40%. Only Golden State and Portland shot over 37%. So while the three point shot can be used to create more floor spacing and better ball movement, it still requires multiple good shooters to make it effective and "beautiful." Otherwise, it looks a lot like a girl's high school game with the occasional slam dunk.

True, but did the league average improve from 1980 to now? I think it has.


Is the current era the best basketball ever? Eh, likely not.

Not necessarily, but it's more likely to be than the 80s.

[baseline bum]

Disagree.
Robinson had his faults.
But the disrespect of his greatness is alarming even on a Spurs site ...

Robinson had some awful supporting casts once Cummings blew his knee out and Red McCombs let Strickland walk for nothing. It's too bad the Spurs didn't have an owner like Holt in the early 90s when the Spurs had built up a team of Robinson, Cummings, Elliott, Strickland, and Willie Anderson that should have contended for years. McCombs refused to pay to make the team competitive though, that faggot even turned down a trade of Barkley when the Sixers were giving him away for pennies on the dollar and almost salary dumped Robinson to New York for Ewing (who would have obviously walked).

[JamStone]

Still leaning 88 Even if we stick with just the guys we named ... that is a very strong year 2004 and it has some of my all time favorite players ... even if both lists are full of HOF'ers
I think the 80's list is higher up in general on a all-time rank list.

It's mere speculative opinion for either side of the argument. My point being that an argument CAN be made. There is always nostalgic romance with things of the past. My argument for the 2004 group would be simple. For hypothetical argument sake, if we assume the two groups of 1988 and 2004 as combined groups have similar skill and talent, whether one group has a little more or not, overall, the athleticism and length advantage surely weighs in significant favor of 2004. Guys like Larry Bird at SF and Charles Barkley CANNOT defend guys like LeBron at SF and Tim Duncan at PF. They simply cannot. I think similarly of guys like Chris Mullin and John Stockton defending their positions. And then you add to the fact that 2004 has not one, not two, but three guys that are completely unguardable in Shaquille, LeBron, and Iverson, the scales begin to tip.

All that said, I'm just pointing out that while the late 80s had a great deal of top end talent in the league at the time, they are NOT unmatched in league history.

The "Golden Era" of the 1980s might be justifiable in this regard. Magic and Bird brought the game to a new level in terms of interest. And because of Magic and Bird, and then subsequently because of Michael Jordan and the 1992 Dream Team, as the NBA and basketball became global, basketball started to get better athletes. Kids growing up in the 80s and early 90s who may have played baseball or football or may have run track and field started to become basketball players. That's what the Golden Era gave basketball more to the game rather than simply having the best talent in history.

[JamStone]

True, but did the league average improve from 1980 to now? I think it has.


Of course it has. In the last couple of decades, players started to focus more on three point shooting. More and more teams started to draft and develop three point shooting as it became more part of the game. More players and more teams began to shoot it more, and of course, players became better at shooting the three pointer. But even with shooting specialists now on every single team in the league, there are players and teams that shoot the three pointer too much. There are still teams that use the three pointer recklessly, take early shotclock, contested three pointers (that includes Golden State at times, although as well as they shoot it, bad shots sometimes become good shots particularly for guys like Curry and Thompson). But not every team has a Curry or Thompson. But when players think they are like Curry or Thompson, you have the three point shot hurting the game more than helping.

And Josh Smith, it can get ugly out there when that happens.

[Killakobe81]

Robinson had some awful supporting casts once Cummings blew his knee out and Red McCombs let Strickland walk for nothing. It's too bad the Spurs didn't have an owner like Holt in the early 90s when the Spurs had built up a team of Robinson, Cummings, Elliott, Strickland, and Willie Anderson that should have contended for years. McCombs refused to pay to make the team competitive though, that faggot even turned down a trade of Barkley when the Sixers were giving him away for pennies on the dollar and almost salary dumped Robinson to New York for Ewing (who would have obviously walked).

I love steven Adams ...
David would have to drop 5 levels to be in Adam's class.
Sure Adams is tough, a beast.
But dont let the Christian demeanor fool you ... Robinson was chiseled muscle.
and I dont remember lots of dudes punking him ...but I did not watch them a bunch.

[Killakobe81]

It's mere speculative opinion for either side of the argument. My point being that an argument CAN be made. There is always nostalgic romance with things of the past. My argument for the 2004 group would be simple. For hypothetical argument sake, if we assume the two groups of 1988 and 2004 as combined groups have similar skill and talent, whether one group has a little more or not, overall, the athleticism and length advantage surely weighs in significant favor of 2004. Guys like Larry Bird at SF and Charles Barkley CANNOT defend guys like LeBron at SF and Tim Duncan at PF. They simply cannot. I think similarly of guys like Chris Mullin and John Stockton defending their positions. And then you add to the fact that 2004 has not one, not two, but three guys that are completely unguardable in Shaquille, LeBron, and Iverson, the scales begin to tip.

All that said, I'm just pointing out that while the late 80s had a great deal of top end talent in the league at the time, they are NOT unmatched in league history.

The "Golden Era" of the 1980s might be justifiable in this regard. Magic and Bird brought the game to a new level in terms of interest. And because of Magic and Bird, and then subsequently because of Michael Jordan and the 1992 Dream Team, as the NBA and basketball became global, basketball started to get better athletes. Kids growing up in the 80s and early 90s who may have played baseball or football or may have run track and field started to become basketball players. That's what the Golden Era gave basketball more to the game rather than simply having the best talent in history.

We arguing different things. I would agree that the 2004 squad would beat the 1988 squad in a game because of the reasons you mentioned. My argument was that the 18 players I mentioned as a whole are greater or are considered greater players or accomplished more in the overall ranks of great players. Sure Barkley could not defend Lebron or duncan heck not sure he could defend many great players of any era tbh ... but chuck was a greater player than most of the guys you mentioned in 2004 ... Save the obvious ones you mentioned like Kobe, Shaq and maybe Dirk.

[JamStone]

Fair enough. But that's the problem with these era comparisons. What measures exactly do you compare? Can you just go by statistics or championships or number of all star games or all NBA selections? All of those are skewed because each of them are accomplishments and awards in a vacuum that is their particular era. Barkley put up monster numbers over his career, even won an MVP. As much of a freak as he was, does he do it in the 2000s where the average power forward is 6'10 and not athletic stiffs some PFs in the 80s were? In today's NBA of freakish point guards, does John Stockton even play 10 minutes a game, much less have the HOF career he did? And subsequently, how would that affect how high they would rank in most people's perception of greatest players in the league. It's so hard to judge something like that.

So how are we comparing the greatness of each group of elite talent? That's the crux of the dilemma of comparing them at all. And that's why I ended up making some player comparisons in the process because at some point, you do inherently go to how would a player match up to another particular player or how great would a player be in another era. There is no exact AND fair quantifiable measure to compare the two. That's why no one wins these discussions.

I will just say that this started when I responded to your "challenge" to find an era with a better confluence of talent. While you may not agree, I think I provided a pretty strong example with which at least some, perhaps many would agree.

[Kawhitstorm]

Disagree.
Robinson had his faults.
But the disrespect of his greatness is alarming even on a Spurs site ...

Admiral was to centers as to what Anthony Davis is currently to PFs. Most talented player but a face up, jump shooting bitch.:wakeup

[Thread]

Admiral was to center as to what Anthony Davis is currently to PFs. Most talented player but a face up, jump shooting bitch.:wakeup

With emphasis on bitch.

[Stalin]

Fair enough. But that's the problem with these era comparisons. What measures exactly do you compare? Can you just go by statistics or championships or number of all star games or all NBA selections? All of those are skewed because each of them are accomplishments and awards in a vacuum that is their particular era. Barkley put up monster numbers over his career, even won an MVP. As much of a freak as he was, does he do it in the 2000s where the average power forward is 6'10 and not athletic stiffs some PFs in the 80s were? In today's NBA of freakish point guards, does John Stockton even play 10 minutes a game, much less have the HOF career he did? And subsequently, how would that affect how high they would rank in most people's perception of greatest players in the league. It's so hard to judge something like that.

So how are we comparing the greatness of each group of elite talent? That's the crux of the dilemma of comparing them at all. And that's why I ended up making some player comparisons in the process because at some point, you do inherently go to how would a player match up to another particular player or how great would a player be in another era. There is no exact AND fair quantifiable measure to compare the two. That's why no one wins these discussions.

I will just say that this started when I responded to your "challenge" to find an era with a better confluence of talent. While you may not agree, I think I provided a pretty strong example with which at least some, perhaps many would agree.



:lol

[lefty]

lol he said today's NBA

[DMC]

With emphasis on bitch.
That bitch shut down your Forum, yes he did. What you did to AZ Central, he did to you.

[TheGreatYacht]

Well, that just dropped this ostrich looking faggot out of the Top 20

Kobe 11

:lmao :wow

[Killakobe81]

Fair enough. But that's the problem with these era comparisons. What measures exactly do you compare? Can you just go by statistics or championships or number of all star games or all NBA selections? All of those are skewed because each of them are accomplishments and awards in a vacuum that is their particular era. Barkley put up monster numbers over his career, even won an MVP. As much of a freak as he was, does he do it in the 2000s where the average power forward is 6'10 and not athletic stiffs some PFs in the 80s were? In today's NBA of freakish point guards, does John Stockton even play 10 minutes a game, much less have the HOF career he did? And subsequently, how would that affect how high they would rank in most people's perception of greatest players in the league. It's so hard to judge something like that.

So how are we comparing the greatness of each group of elite talent? That's the crux of the dilemma of comparing them at all. And that's why I ended up making some player comparisons in the process because at some point, you do inherently go to how would a player match up to another particular player or how great would a player be in another era. There is no exact AND fair quantifiable measure to compare the two. That's why no one wins these discussions.

I will just say that this started when I responded to your "challenge" to find an era with a better confluence of talent. While you may not agree, I think I provided a pretty strong example with which at least some, perhaps many would agree.

Tough to gauge who would agree when many here never saw these guys play. I wasnt the biggest stockton fan but to say he would not be able to play at all is probably disrespectful to him ...is steve nash a much better athlete? Is Steph? CP3? The only two PGs other than magic to win back2back mvps neither are known for great athleticism. I think the thing to keep in mind is great plyers the truly great players are the ones whi would find a way to be great in any era. Westbrook would bust his ass but even with his, recent improvements Russ cannot run a team like Stockton and there is still value in that in any era.

What kind of fucking world is it when i am defending David freaking Robinson and John Stockton?! I hated both players.
Only @ Spurstalk ...smh

[Spurtacular]

Speak for yourself, Larry...I never thought that.

Skills and toughness were at their peak in the 80's. But today's player is stronger and more athletic. I disagree with Larry on the more accurate shooting from farther (and I'm not sure the numbers even show that either). I just think the refs are opening up more space by not allowing players to body one another like they did.

[lefty]

If Price played today with the softer officiating and new rules he would be averaging 45 ppg 18 apg and shoot 60 percent from 3 tbh :lol

:lol Gerald Wilkins would be today's MJ

[Thread]

That bitch shut down your Forum, yes he did. What you did to AZ Central, he did to you.

Chicken of the Sea.

[JamStone]

Tough to gauge who would agree when many here never saw these guys play. I wasnt the biggest stockton fan but to say he would not be able to play at all is probably disrespectful to him ...is steve nash a much better athlete? Is Steph? CP3? The only two PGs other than magic to win back2back mvps neither are known for great athleticism. I think the thing to keep in mind is great plyers the truly great players are the ones whi would find a way to be great in any era. Westbrook would bust his ass but even with his, recent improvements Russ cannot run a team like Stockton and there is still value in that in any era.


Completely honest here, I don't think John Stockton would be a starting point guard in the league if he were drafted over the past 5 seasons. Now, part of it also depends on what team he was on, if they were a shit show like Philadelphia or the Lakers. Maybe he would start on one of those really bad teams for a while. Or maybe if he played for a team like Phoenix that doesn't give a shit about anyone playing defense.

But look at the rules now. Part of Stockton's ability to defend relied greatly on him bending the rules with clutching and grabbing and hand checking. Now, defenders can't even blow on a guy without getting a whistle. I can't imagine Stockton trying to stay in front of guys like Westbrook or John Wall without being able to hand check. Nowhere near quick enough. Not athletic enough. Too small.

On offense, his ridiculous assist numbers have a direct correlation to the pick-and-roll system Sloan employed. Could he find another NBA team now where he'd be as effective on offense? Maybe. But he'd still have to be able to get minutes. I'm not sure he does today. I think he's a back-up PG if he were playing now. And because of that, he wouldn't be on his way to a Hall of Fame career.

So I guess I just disagree with Stockton being one of those truly great players who would find a way to be great in any era. I think the same way of a guy like Bill Russell. Bill Russell in the 2000s would be a skinny PF version of Ben Wallace. I mean, still a great defender, but we wouldn't be talking about him being a top 25 player much less top 10. And I can't see Charles Barkley putting up a HoF career in the 2000s either. I just can't. Is he putting up 25 and 13 as a 6'4 PF in the 2000s? I say no way.


Oh and yes, I think Nash and CP3 are much better athletes than Stockton was. Curry might not be a great athlete, but his jumpshot and how lightning quick his release is, how deep his range is, and his ability to dribble and create space for his shot with his dribble make him a nightmare to defend in a way that maximizes the athleticism he does have because defenders have to play him so close. Stockton wasn't a stiff, but he'd have a tough time defending starting PGs now.

[Caltex2]

Basically, muphuckas couldn't name you who the Lakers played in the WCF when they were cakewalking to the Finals like LeBron.:lol

It was essentially, Sixers/Celtics/Lakers before the Pistons came along in the late 80s to overtake the Sixers.

The Bucks were really good. They were a Don Nelson team though, so they were a regular season team like Lenny Wilkins' teams over the years. The Cavs also came on in the late 80's, though they quickly started becoming Jordan fodder. The Hawks were also present with 'Nique.

[Caltex2]

Completely honest here, I don't think John Stockton would be a starting point guard in the league if he were drafted over the past 5 seasons. Now, part of it also depends on what team he was on, if they were a shit show like Philadelphia or the Lakers. Maybe he would start on one of those really bad teams for a while. Or maybe if he played for a team like Phoenix that doesn't give a shit about anyone playing defense.

But look at the rules now. Part of Stockton's ability to defend relied greatly on him bending the rules with clutching and grabbing and hand checking. Now, defenders can't even blow on a guy without getting a whistle. I can't imagine Stockton trying to stay in front of guys like Westbrook or John Wall without being able to hand check. Nowhere near quick enough. Not athletic enough. Too small.

On offense, his ridiculous assist numbers have a direct correlation to the pick-and-roll system Sloan employed. Could he find another NBA team now where he'd be as effective on offense? Maybe. But he'd still have to be able to get minutes. I'm not sure he does today. I think he's a back-up PG if he were playing now. And because of that, he wouldn't be on his way to a Hall of Fame career.

So I guess I just disagree with Stockton being one of those truly great players who would find a way to be great in any era. I think the same way of a guy like Bill Russell. Bill Russell in the 2000s would be a skinny PF version of Ben Wallace. I mean, still a great defender, but we wouldn't be talking about him being a top 25 player much less top 10. And I can't see Charles Barkley putting up a HoF career in the 2000s either. I just can't. Is he putting up 25 and 13 as a 6'4 PF in the 2000s? I say no way.


Oh and yes, I think Nash and CP3 are much better athletes than Stockton was. Curry might not be a great athlete, but his jumpshot and how lightning quick his release is, how deep his range is, and his ability to dribble and create space for his shot with his dribble make him a nightmare to defend in a way that maximizes the athleticism he does have because defenders have to play him so close. Stockton wasn't a stiff, but he'd have a tough time defending starting PGs now.

Stockton and Malone resembled inflatable windpuppets in their flopability back in the 90's.

[Kawhitstorm]

The Bucks were really good. They were a Don Nelson team though, so they were a regular season team like Lenny Wilkins' teams over the years. The Cavs also came on in the late 80's, though they quickly started becoming Jordan fodder. The Hawks were also present with 'Nique.

I was talking about teams that were considered TRUE contenders. Bucks/Hawks were like last season's Grizzlies/Rockets. While the Cavs were the equivalent of the Pacers that kept losing in the ECF to the Heatles.

[Caltex2]

Please, the Bucks were legit. They also had the misfortune of facing one of the best teams in NBA history in 1986 in their best chance to make the Finals during that era. They won 59+ games twice and 49+ every year but once.

[Spurtacular]

They had to change the rules to accommodate all these little guys.

[lefty]

They had to change the rules to accommodate all these little guys.
Starting with Jordan

[Spurtacular]

Starting with Jordan

Even that wasn't enough. Refs had to cheat their asses off.

[lefty]

Even that wasn't enough. Refs had to cheat their asses off.

true true

[phxspurfan]

No one thinks the 80s was the best era (maybe best for cocaine usage and shitty outfits). And Bird may be the most overrated player ever. Possibly in any pro sport

[lefty]

No one thinks the 80s was the best era (maybe best for cocaine usage and shitty outfits). And Bird may be the most overrated player ever. Possibly in any pro sport

Spurtacular

[Spurtacular]

Spurtacular (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49615)

Lilly white cuckolds hate Larry Bird. They hate that he's better than them.

[tmtcsc]

You gotta be kidding me. You can get away with that on another board, but on a Spurs board where people actually watched those teams? They had one decent year with Gervin and Gilmore together in 1983 and then Ice got heavy into coke, the team became garbage, and the Spurs had to draft Robertson to replace Gervin. The Spurs were never a good team at any point when Robertson was on the roster, it was lots of mid 30s win teams in a laughably bad conference.

They were off to a great start in 1985 with Johnny Moore and Alvin Robertson in the back court but Moore's meningitis put an end to that. I can't recall if Johnny Dawkins was on that team yet. As good as they could have been that year, they were still no match for the upper echelon of the conference.

[baseline bum]

They were off to a great start in 1985 with Johnny Moore and Alvin Robertson in the back court but Moore's meningitis put an end to that. I can't recall if Johnny Dawkins was on that team yet. As good as they could have been that year, they were still no match for the upper echelon of the conference.

Yeah you're right, I forgot how promising that season started. Man I remember that everyone at the games was scared for a while Johnny was going to die from that desert fever and he got an enormous standing ovation the first time I guess he was ok to come watch a game, looked like he had been through hell and back. Ugh that's a bitter memory as a Spurs fan seeing Moore basically lose his career that season. They drafted Dawkins that following offseason. I remember it not only as the Len Bias draft, but also because I was a kid at the draft party with my dad that year and when my dad was talking to Bob Weiss I told coach 'why did you bring back MIKE BRITTAIN!?!?!' Coach Weiss gave me this aw fuck I don't know look in response. :lol

[tmtcsc]

Yeah you're right, I forgot how promising that season started. Man I remember that everyone at the games was scared for a while Johnny was going to die from that desert fever and he got an enormous standing ovation the first time I guess he was ok to come watch a game, looked like he had been through hell and back. Ugh that's a bitter memory as a Spurs fan seeing Moore basically lose his career that season. They drafted Dawkins that following offseason. I remember it not only as the Len Bias draft, but also because I was a kid at the draft party with my dad that year and when my dad was talking to Bob Weiss I told coach 'why did you bring back MIKE BRITTAIN!?!?!' Coach Weiss gave me this aw fuck I don't know look in response. :lol

I remember listening to the Spurs vs Nuggets game on WOAI in December or January of 1985. We were driving / moving to the Washington DC area & got the signal way out of state. Georgia, I think. Anyhoo, Johnny Moore threw Alvin Robertson an alley oop from half court. It was an incredible play. Ironically, moving to DC gave me a whole new and up close appreciation for Len Bias while living in the area. His death was a huge news - especially there.

[Spurtacular]

I remember listening to the Spurs vs Nuggets game on WOAI in December or January of 1985. We were driving / moving to the Washington DC area & got the signal way out of state. Georgia, I think. Anyhoo, Johnny Moore threw Alvin Robertson an alley oop from half court. It was an incredible play. Ironically, moving to DC gave me a whole new and up close appreciation for Len Bias while living in the area. His death was a huge news - especially there.

Don't get me started. That f'd up basketball forever.

[lefty]

Don't get me started. That f'd up basketball forever.

Fuck David Stern tbh