Reply With Quote
What he fails to realize is that there are plenty of athletic players in the league rn but most of them are scrubs and their records are like 10-27
Dennis Hopson, Johnny Walker, and Dee Brown were plenty athletic back in the day, didn't do anything for them.
What he fails to realize is that there are plenty of athletic players in the league rn but most of them are scrubs and their records are like 10-27
Then he has to beat the best team in the West.
and who was the 2nd best player in the 90s? Olajuwon who never faced Jordan's Bulls? Ewing, who was a major choker? Robinson who was a great all around player but not a true #1 offensive option? Charles who never won crap? Malone?
Let's just compare the superstar compe ion.
Jordan vs. Olajuwon, Ewing, Drexler, Robinson, Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Payton, younger Shaq
or
Lebron vs. Kobe, Wade, Timmy, Dirk, Durant, Garnett, Dwight, Pierce, Nash, CP3, older Shaq
yeah, the latter compe ion is unquestionably superior.
Yep, and Jordan having to go through teams like Atlanta with Christian Lattener and Steve Smith as your best players, or the Bullets with young Juwan Howard and Webber was particularly difficult. How about Miami, starring Glen Rice and Rony Seikaly? Oh yeah those are some truly rough teams to deal with. The Nets with Keith Van Horn and and Sam Cassell? Truly some superstar talent there. Or the Hornets with *gasp* Glen Rice again and David Wesley?Lebron's compe ion in the 2012 playoffs: NY Knicks
2013 playoffs: Milwaukee Bucks
Yeah, this era has been so tough, especially when the Eastern Conference is the tiest it has been in the last decade, definitely ter than in the late 80s/90s with the bad boy Pistons, Celtics, Pacers, Zo on the Heat, Ewing on the Knicks and Shaq and Penny in Orlando...MJ faced top 50 all-time players in the playoffs year in year out.
Quit with the revisionist history already. Every great player that wins championships goes through some teams with great players, and some teams with weak compe ion. That's just how things go, especially when you are consistently getting a high seed, and thus getting rewarded with playing easier compe ion.
So the general increase in athleticism hasn't changed the way the game is played at all? You should have an objective enough mind to understand that.
What you fail to realize is that you have not brought any good points or legitimate arguments to the table. All you have done is piggyback on more knowledgeable posters, because you are incapable of debating effectively.
Players today are probably more athletic, but lack fundamentals.
team concepts always beat athleticism, no one has said otherwise.
but Jordan was a 1-on-1 player. his 1-on-1 scoring would not be as effective with facing bigger, stronger, and faster players on a nightly basis, slower pace of game, along with greater defensive strategy that was allowed with the rule chance that allowed zone defense. He wouldn't be averaging 30+ppg on 50% shooting every single season like he was able to in his day.
He wasn't able to win in the 80s, because of a higher level of compe ion than the 90s, just like he wouldn't win 6 out of 8 in todays league, due to a higher level of compe ion.
I'd stake Stockton over any other PG in this era and Robison over any other Center.and who was the 2nd best player in the 90s? Olajuwon who never faced Jordan's Bulls? Ewing, who was a major choker? Robinson who was a great all around player but not a true #1 offensive option? Charles who never won crap? Malone?
Let's just compare the superstar compe ion.
Jordan vs. Olajuwon, Ewing, Drexler, Robinson, Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Payton, younger Shaq
or
Lebron vs. Kobe, Wade, Timmy, Dirk, Durant, Garnett, Dwight, Pierce, Nash, CP3, older Shaq
yeah, the latter compe ion is unquestionably superior.
Yep, and Jordan having to go through teams like Atlanta with Christian Lattener and Steve Smith as your best players, or the Bullets with young Juwan Howard and Webber was particularly difficult. How about Miami, starring Glen Rice and Rony Seikaly? Oh yeah those are some truly rough teams to deal with. The Nets with Keith Van Horn and and Sam Cassell? Truly some superstar talent there. Or the Hornets with *gasp* Glen Rice again and David Wesley?
Quit with the revisionist history already. Every great player that wins championships goes through some teams with great players, and some teams with weak compe ion. That's just how things go, especially when you are consistently getting a high seed, and thus getting rewarded with playing easier compe ion.
I think people are missing the point. It's not like MJ and stars of the 80s and 90s would get to face defenders like Craig Ehlo on a nightly basis.
In today's league, there is a highly athletic wing defender on nearly every team. One night its Sefalosha, then its Artest, then Tony Allen, then Shane Battier, then Shawn Marion, then Paul George, then AK-47, and the list goes on. And those aren't including the star players that can step up and play a high level of defense when called upon, like Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Durant, Pierce, and plenty more.
that's what I've been saying this whole time -___-
so how can you say Magic and Bird wouldn't dominate in today's nba or vice versa with LeBron?Team concepts beat athleticism, no one has said otherwise
Plus, with less double teams, and less double teams, LeBron's assist wouldn't be as high since no one is collapsing down to help and leaving people open for threes. One on one, his poor shooting ability would be exposed in the 80s.
Class is about to start but i got you when I get out
Edit: pepper ur angus
Certainly changed the game. Can't say for better or worse though.
What I can say is that athleticism does not equate to better basketball talent. Players like stromile swift and Harold miner comes into mind. On the other end of the spectrum, Larry bird, Tim Duncan or even a pre-injury Brandon Roy comes into play.
I never said they wouldn't dominate. Do you not read my posts? The very first thing I said, was that "they would be great". What I was saying is that there is no way that the two of them combine to be in every single finals series through the past decade, like they did in the 80s. Why? Because of a higher level of compe ion.
Lebron gets most of his assists off of transition, or dish and drive. Most people don't get a lot of assists off of drawing double teams in post position, because usually to find the open man out of that position, it takes 2-3 swing passes around the perimeter. Otherwise Timmy, Olajuwon and Shaq would have been getting 10 APG for much of their career.
One on one Lebron wouldn't need to shoot. He would just physically brutalize his way to the cup, considering players on average were smaller, weaker, and slower than they are today.
You'd take CP3 or Nash over Stockton? The guy who played every game for 16 out of 18 seasons, barely missed a game and led his team to the Finals for 2 straight years?
At least try to be objective
Miami, with Hardaway and Mourning
Magic, Shaq and Penny
Early 90's Knicks would beat Miami in a series.
Bird coached Pacers-Miller, Smit, Smith Bros, Jackson
Miami had to go through
Boston who were in their last legs
Bulls who missed Rose in one of the series
Iguodala led Sixers
Melo's Knicks
Brandon Jenning's Milwaukee Bucks
All of those teams, minus Boston are a joke
I completely agree with you.
But with having to face bigger, faster, stronger players on an nightly basis, makes things a little different.
People keep mistaking what I am saying, thinking I am implying that 80s or 90s players wouldnt be good simply because of increased athleticism, which is not what I've said. I've said a combination of bigger, faster, stronger players, increased defensive strategy, a slower pace, and rule changes that allow zone and more traps/double teams will make it more difficult for players to dominate the way they used to be able to. MJ wouldn't be putting up the outrageous numbers annually like he once was. Magic's fast break wouldn't be as effective. Bird's post game wouldn't be as easy with the extra defensive attention that would be shot at him. They would all still be superstars in this era, but not be able to dominate like they used to.
Lebron is just peaking at the right time for him when most teams are either rebuilding or all the other NBA superstars are at the end of their careers, yet still a 36 year old TD lead team almost beat him anyway. Also not forgetting that all the current newer superstar talents are still way to early in their careers to be compe ion. Put Lebron and his current team up against any of these winning teams in their primes and he wouldn't have a single ring. Shoot the Heat would never even make it out of the east if they went against early 2000 pistons or Bird in his prime Boston, not even including the Bulls.
Lebron is good but he is not as good as people rate him as.
So you think that if the 80s and 90s players had the medicinal and technical advantages that the players today have, they wouldn't be as good as they were back then?
Obviously a kid that started watching NBA 5-10 years ago.
Bucks and Sixers werent that good, similar to some of the bad teams MJ played.At least try to be objective
Miami, with Hardaway and Mourning
Magic, Shaq and Penny
Early 90's Knicks would beat Miami in a series.
Bird coached Pacers-Miller, Smit, Smith Bros, Jackson
Miami had to go through
Boston who were in their last legs
Bulls who missed Rose in one of the series
Iguodala led Sixers
Melo's Knicks
Brandon Jenning's Milwaukee Bucks
All of those teams, minus Boston are a joke
The Knicks were not a bad team at all. Indiana was solid. And the thing is, Lebron isn't done yet. He has a LOT of basketball left to be played.
Now I don't disagree that the East probably had some tougher compe ion during MJs days, but it's not like he faced any transcendent teams either.
So Kobe in the 90s would be as good if not better than MJ?
I don't disagree that they would probably have a better advantage, but we have no facts to base it on. On the contrary, one could argue, that if a guy like MJ tried to be more bulky and match up with Lebron sizewise, how effective would he have been with his style of play? He certainly wouldn't have the range of motion that allowed him to do some of the incredibly acrobatic things he was able to do, or have the mid-range jumpshooting game that he had. We have to take things at face value.So you think that if the 80s and 90s players had the medicinal and technical advantages that the players today have, they wouldn't be as good as they were back then?
judging by the fact that you think Wilt is a top 5 player of all time, you are a got living in the 60s who can't accept change.Obviously a kid that started watching NBA 5-10 years ago.
Kobe at his best is arguably just as skilled overall as Mike. Mentally? Mike is unquestionably superior, which is the reason he will always have the edge over Kobe in MJ vs Kobe debates.
If you are going to say this about Lebron, you have to say the same about MJ.
so seeing what Kobe has done through this era it's not unimaginable that MJ would still be able to average 30 ppg on 50% shooting which you claim would not be sustainable in this era?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
