Bob Cousy or Tim Duncan?

Here in NY one of the local sportstalk guys that hates the Spurs and Duncan said today that nomatter how many titles Duncan wins he will never put him in his top 10 because the league is so awful compared to years ago. He said he has Duncan in the top 20 but names Cousy as the 10th player in his top 10. Some of these people are insane. So you are going to win more titles building around Cousy then Duncan. How many GM's would start their team with Cousy over Duncan. I am guessing if they are sober at the time the answer would be zero. Cousy was a great PG on a team that had an all time great big man already on it. He is not on Duncan's level at all as a player.

When Cousy was playing there were all of two teams in the league.

Umm...is he retarded? There is much more talent in the NBA nowadays than in years past.

Ask him how many titles Cousy won before Bill Russell showed up.

Cousy? Yeah, he'd get owned by Beno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CubanMustGo

Cousy? Yeah, he'd get owned by Beno.

---

Thats really no lie...

So who is in his top 10?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PM5K

So who is in his top 10?

---

Many of who you would expect he had Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Oscar, Russell, Wilt. He stopped there and that is where he went on his rant about Cousy being in his top 10 and not Duncan, he also said that maybe Shaq and Duncan are equal which means he does not have Shaq in the top 10 either. I think he smoked crack before he went to work today.

Cousy was the top playmaker and highlights guy back in the 50s and 60s. All the kids wanted to dribble like Cousy. Cousy and Duncan cannot be compared very easily because they played different positions, had different roles, etc. With that said...I've seen basketball in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s...the Sports-talk guy is probably just myopic.

Duncan should be considered among the greats in the pivot. Cousy among the greats as a lead guard.

Northeast and white v Southwest and black. Who is going to win the media lovefest?

"more talent in the NBA nowadays than in years past"

more talent, but it's very diluted over 30 teams vs 8, at the player AND coaching level.

Cousy was an incredible player, and would be the best shooter in the NBA if he played today. He was an unbelievable dribbler too. Immense talent.

However, just to compare how "awful" the NBA is today, Cousy played on a team that had as many as seven hall of famers on it during a given season playing in their prime, and he was replaced by another hall of famer. Duncan might surpass seven hall of fame teammates for his entire career if you count guys that are way past their prime sitting on the bench.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_

"more talent in the NBA nowadays than in years past"

more talent, but it's very diluted over 30 teams vs 8, at the player AND coaching level.

---

Maybe diluted, but there are a lot more players to pick from these days including more colleges, high schools, and international players. You also have to admit it is a LOT harder to win a title when 30 other teams are gunning for you rather than 6 or 7. That's just logic. It makes four titles in nine years very impressive. Also, 0.4 seconds and one bad Ginobli foul away from six titles in nine years....... not to get ahead of myself though, Spurs still need ONE MORE WIN!

Timmy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Cousy was an incredible player, and would be the best shooter in the NBA if he played today.

---

:wtf

Cousy was a 37% lifetime shooter. He never once shot 40% from the floor for a season.

Great scorer, ballhandler and passer but shooting was his main weakness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

:wtf

Cousy was a 37% lifetime shooter. He never once shot 40% from the floor for a season.

Great scorer, ballhandler and passer but shooting was his main weakness.

---

Fuck. I knew that. :bang

I forgot it before I remembered it. :dizzy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

:wtf

Cousy was a 37% lifetime shooter. He never once shot 40% from the floor for a season.

Great scorer, ballhandler and passer but shooting was his main weakness.

---

He was the AJ of the 50s early 60s.

Guys, let's not disrespect the players of the past. Comparing players and teams of different eras is moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Body

When Cousy was playing there were all of two teams in the league.

---

Um, there were 8 teams in the league, and that makes it even tougher to dominate your position and opponents, because the talent is not watered down so much that there are horrible teams with horrible players...yes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

:wtf

Cousy was a 37% lifetime shooter. He never once shot 40% from the floor for a season.

Great scorer, ballhandler and passer but shooting was his main weakness.

---

Hardly anyone ever shot more than 44%(maybe 1 in 7), and most shot around 33-39% back then. The defenders could practically gang rape the players with the ball...there were no hand check rules, no bent one arm in the back only rules...it was much tougher to score back then because of the liberal defense rules.

I am not saying that I would want Cousy over TD, but I am just telling you why his FG% was in the 30%-40% range

I think you had to win about 4 playoff games to win the NBA title when Cousy played. Now it's 16.

This reminds me of Pop's modesty rap about only the Celtics and UCLA being "dynasties." Perhaps, but times were way different in the 60's when those two were happening. During UCLA's run, there were only 16 teams in the NCAA tournament (vs 64 now).

UCLA only had to win 4 tournament games to win the NCAA.

But Cousy was great, no doubt. Arguably the best French point guard of all time. (Well, maybe.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

Ask him how many titles Cousy won before Bill Russell showed up.

---

Excactly

Boston was not great even with Sharman Cousy McCauley and Auerbach on the bench. Bill changed Celtics into dynasty

Has anybody...ANYBODY seen Cousy play???? Just watch a 10 second clip of him dribbling and you'll say "Shit I dribbled better with both hands when I was NINE!!!!" It's sooooooooooooo funny how the old farts think they could have played this game. How pathetic...a FAN of such a pathetic era is more PATHETIC.

The 8-teams-in-the-league and better-competition-allround excuses don not apply for any Celtic, as they had more HOFs than any team in history.

Cousy might have played good teams 10 times a year, but he had Russell, Sam Jones, Sharman, KC Jones, Heinsohn. It's not so bad playing the Syracuse Nationals a dozen times a year when you have 7 players averaging double digits a game.

Winning 4 titles as the centerpiece of 4 different teams, and being a perennial contender over the course of a decade in the salary cap era is far more impressive IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrChug

Has anybody...ANYBODY seen Cousy play???? Just watch a 10 second clip of him dribbling and you'll say "S*** I dribbled better with both hands when I was NINE!!!!" It's sooooooooooooo funny how the old farts think they could have played this game. How pathetic...a FAN of such a pathetic era is more PATHETIC.

---

Yes. I did see him play. Yes, it is a different era. MrChug, when you were 9 and dribbling, it was a different era than it is now. When you are old and the big event of your day is getting out to go to the Dr., you will probably be the guy that looks back on the Tim Duncan era with fondness while some young fella tries to tell you that you are pathetic and from a pathetic era. :)

Is Cousy really any better than Steve Nash is? From all the old footage i have seen i seriously doubt it. I don't care what ERA you are playing in no way you would take Cousy over Duncan to build your team around, not a chance in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbreiden83080

Is Cousy really any better than Steve Nash is? From all the old footage i have seen i seriously doubt it. I don't care what ERA you are playing in no way you would take Cousy over Duncan to build your team around, not a chance in the world.

---

I agree. :tu

NY sportstalk guy is just bitter because his Knicks suck an undercooked bratwurst. If Duncan played for the Knicks and were on their way to championship number 4 since 1999, he'd claim Duncan to be the best player in the history of the game.

He's a hack. No more, no less.

30 or so years from now, fans of that time will be calling Tim Duncan and his peers pathetic just like current fans are calling Cousy and his peers pathetic.

And still some ask how can we take the past players seriously. Different eras, different context, different styles of play. Even Bill Russell has said we should just enjoy how well they played instead of comparing the greats -> http://www.nba.com/playoffs2007/news...ostseason.html

"Most of the people that use my name in comparisons with other players never saw me play in the first place or if they did see me play, it was at the end of my career. When I look at a guy and watch him play, I see what his assets are and what his liabilities are, but I don’t compare players to other players...

For me, I watched George Mikan play as a high school kid. I felt privileged to watch these great guys play. Every one of them is unique and none of them plays like anyone else. Instead of trying to figure out how good they are, I think you should just enjoy watching them play. Wilt and I played center completely different. Oscar, Magic and Michael Jordan played guard completely different. Larry and Elgin Baylor and Bob Pettit played forward completely different."

But hey, let the foolish fruitless comparisons continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solid D

I agree. :tu

---

I mean some of these old farts just have their heads up their asses about the players from their era. I do think Jordan is the best ever but i will tell you this if his Bulls had to play Magic's Lakers and Bird's Celtics all through the 80's not a chance in hell he has 6 rings.

This guy wants a cookie for knowing who Bob Cousy was, but he's flat wrong. Cousy was great in an era when he was one of the few guys who could dribble with either hand.

This thing is the teams today are not as good as they were in the 80's and to a lesser extent in the 90's as well. Expansion is mainly responsible for that. However there were like 6 teams in the 60's and the idea by some of these old farts that as an individual player Duncan can not hold a candle to guys like Cousy and Russell is a fucking joke. Tim is a 7 footer who is a great defender, rebounder and dominant low post player. Russell averaged 20 reb a game in an era where he played against mainly 6'5 white guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbreiden83080

This thing is the teams today are not as good as they were in the 80's and to a lesser extent in the 90's as well.

---

How do you know that? I believe the teams are as good as they were. They are probably even better because the technical and physical preparation as evolved. I believe the 2007 Spurs would be a tough matchup to any team in the league history. Even the great Bulls would have a hard time against the Spurs.
Of course we will never know.
The only thing that matter is to be the best of your generation... Tim Duncan is.

Stupid All Time rankings should be let to stupid ESPN writers.

i can name ten point guards i'd take over cousy.

i respect the hell out of the man from a historical standpoint, but i don't see how you can compare him to more modern stars like magic, nash, kidd, etc.

i think pro athletics, in general, is much more competitive today across the board. athletes are facing more rigorous training, athletes of all races are competing, and athletes from across the world are competing.

I respect the old players from 50's and 60's. I enjoy hearing stories about them and what they accomplished, and I'm sure a few of them could stand up in any era and am no way disrespecting the man because I'm sure he was a great player...

...but I've seen enough footage on NBA VHS and DVD, various highlight clips and documentaries etc to know that Cousy's ballhandling was incredibly bad. Honestly, he dribbled like someone who just mucked around with basketball, not playing it at the highest level. I think I can almost guarantee that anyone that has played basketball at around the High School Team level could dribble like that... it amazes me, because from the other highlights I have seen from that era, other players skills look not to bad. It amazes me how bad Cousy looks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MI21

He downed a lot of hard liquor and fought off the sweet embrace of unconciousness as good as anyone I have ever seen. Even when it did knock him down..a couple of minutes later he was back in the fight

...but I've seen enough footage on NBA VHS and DVD, various highlight clips and documentaries etc to know that Cousy's ballhandling was incredibly bad. Honestly, he dribbled like someone who just mucked around with basketball, not playing it at the highest level. I think I can almost guarantee that anyone that has played basketball at around the High School Team level could dribble like that... it amazes me, because from the other highlights I have seen from that era, other players skills look not to bad. It amazes me how bad Cousy looks.

---

Yeah, but back then he was cutting edge...all players since him have incorporated what he brought to the game, into their game, and built on it...long, long ago....no one handled the ball like he did prior to him doing it.


Anyway...I wouldn't take him over Duncan, but you have to consider that if he'd played in the modern era he'd most likely be a better shooter and look more like a modern player in technique and ball handling.

Incidentally...Bob Cousy VS Tony Parker is a better comparison...the first French PG(Cousy) VS the first PG from France(Parker).

I don't get all those "Cusy was a bad ballhandlar" disscussion.

Hmm :huh Different era and the game was on a different level. And remember, those players of the 50's and 60's did not have such modern medicine the players of today have.

Give Mikan a today's NBA conditions and he would dominate as he was in the leauge.

its all about relative dominance/effectiveness.

those guys in that era will be expose with there defense in todays game

There are so many other factors that have to be taken into account.

Would the players of the past have benefitted from the technology available today (e.g. rubber shoes, physical regimens, flying from game to game on chartered flights, etc.)? Bob Petit once said that if he had the workout equipment that existed today, he would have had the body of Karl Malone.

Would the players have benefitted from facing opposing teams less frequently (less teams back then, but pretty much the same number of games)?

Could players back then have handled the media scrutiny/invasiveness that exists today (imagine Moses Malone straight out of High School)?

Would today's salaries affected past players quality if they would have been tempted to skip the college game and the fundamentals learned there?

Would today's rules hinder or benefit certain players? Would Rick Barry have been the greatest 3-point shooter of all time with the 3-point line? Would Dr. J destroyed the opposition with today's hand-check rules?

Those and other aspects should be taken into account before we say that past players were pathetic. That's why I try to refrain from comparing from different eras because a straight up comparison just isn't fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

those guys in that era will be expose with there defense in todays game

---

Couldn't you undercut a guy for jumping back then? Today's players would last about two games.

When you guys see video of Cousy dribbling and compare that to today, you should realize that back in the 50s and 60s when Couz and Hot Rod Hundley were doing creative things with the basketball, the rules were rules and not just "Guidelines" (to take from a recent "Pirates" movie reference).

In those years, you could not get away with the cross-over dribbles and behind the back dribbles the way they are done by most players today. It would have been called "carrying" by the officials any time the hand came close to the ball's equator or bottom hemisphere. In the spirit of the rules...it IS carrying...but let's not get picky because the game's rules have been relaxed in so many ways.

The game and the skills have certainly changed over the years. You can't fairly compare. Relate, appreciate...that's it.