Nobody knew Jordan was going to be what he became, except him. He was great in college, but Dean Smith's system really put the leash on him, and he wasn't showcased as much as he could be. Worthy and Perkins took a lot of the glory early on as well. Yes, he was a star, but a sure fire star? Not so much, or else he would have gone first.
Same for Durant, there will always be talks about somebody else deserving the #1 pick. People were talking about Keith Van Horne drafted before Duncan! Now obviously the gap between Duncan vs. KVH and Oden vs. Durant wasn't nearly as large, but the general consensus was that Oden was a can't miss, and the only red flag was his health. That red flag became a reality though.
Weber was highly hyped coming out of college, but he wasn't generally viewed as a saviour. People were more stoked about seeing Shaq team up with Weber with that ridiculously imposing frontline, but then Orlando (who did the right thing) traded him away for Hardaway and a bunch of picks.
They were all high-touted, but I don't really see any one of them more touted than Duncan.
Didn't say that. But your rationale of why he was overrated was wildly inaccurate and full of exaggerations. Wilt's era wasn't filled with 6'8" midgets who are unathletic, he had some good compe ion.You would seriously pick that bum over Tim? Wilt was a mental midget who simply dominated by just being bigger and more athletic than everyone.
Over the course of their careers, I will take Duncan over Wilt, even factoring in Wilt's individual dominance. Wilt was too much of a diva.
So which players during Wilt's era who were as good or better than Duncan's? Wilt didn't have to face the likes of KG, Shaq, Malone, Webber, Gasol brothers, and Dirk--yet Duncan beat them all. Wilt's greatest rivals were Kareem and Russell, yet he mightily struggled to beat both. Wilt was nothing more than a leaner and slightly skilled version of DeMonkey Jordan if he played today. He got by with size and athleticism and when those attributes declined as he aged, he simply stopped being relevant. No GM in his right mind would pick Wilt over Duncan in the draft.
Yep. As ambchang aluded to, you're pretty much only taking those legendary 7'0"+ superstar centers over Duncan in the draft (I saw you listed some extra ones in a later post too, and I agree).
It's too bad we're not seeing any more Ewings, Robinsons Olajuwons, etc anymore. It was fun to see them dominate many plays on both ends of the floor.
1. Back in the 80's a #3 pick is considered a sure-fire star. Especially in that draft. Hakeem was also a a star and a center so of course he went first . That doesnt mean Jordan was not a star. He was. He just suffered from the same thing Durant did. People fell in love with the potential of Bowie (who I saw in the SEC tournament his senior year he was absolutely a high upside big with hops and a nice skill set but he took a nasty fall in that tournament undercut on an oop IIRC). He was hurt a lot in college and the Blazers still chose him over J because teams always chose talented bigs which he was and also because they already had Drexler which is also part of the reason Blazers chose oden (they had Roy). And choosing Hakeem over Jordan was no mistake and no one questions it because Hakeem was also a star and a big ... Bowie didnt even win SEC POTY but did manage a 2nd team all-america award.
2. MJ was carrying UNC post Perkins and Worthy graduating.He not only won Wooden his junior year but won Naismith and sporting news .In fact he won SN POTY his sophmore and junior years. Pretty hard not to be a "star" when you sweep those awards in college. In fact, he is one of the few college players to win the SN award multiple years joining other stars like KAreem, Bill walton Oscar Robertson. Duncan only won it once. Again no one knew he would be a GOAt but to say he was not a star or hyped is blatantly false. Portland just made a bad choice or at the very least a bad gamble given Bowie's injury history ...
3. durant also won SN and Naismith the first ever freshman to win the award.Agin i am not disputing that most of the media was in love with Oden. He was hard worker, team player and had trmendous size along with Robinson "lite" type athleticism. but when i watched that cat something seemed off to me. Simmons captured it well (from a debate with Chad Ford:
f I'm Portland's GM, I just spent the last five weeks wondering about Greg Oden. What's his ceiling? Can he be better than Patrick Ewing? Alonzo Mourning? Can he become as dominant as Tim Duncan? Should I be worried about his surgically repaired wrist, or the fact that he might suffer back problems some day because his legs are different sizes? What about the fact that he likes basketball, but doesn't love it? The thing is, all these franchise centers are basically the same -- it just comes down to their inherent will to dominate a game. Hakeem had that will, Duncan has it, Moses had it, Shaq had it in 2000 and 2001 ... for whatever reason, Ewing didn't have it, and neither did Mourning or Robinson. Can you see Oden stepping onto a basketball court and saying, "There's no way we're losing this f-ing game. I'm destroying the other team tonight." For some reason, I can't.
Well, Durant plays that way every game. He's a cold-blooded killer. I hate pre-draft workouts, but didn't you find it interesting that Oden was nervous, awkward and apologetic during his workout in Portland, but a confident Durant strolled in there two days later and blew everyone away? You know what's funny about that? I knew that was going to happen. One guy plays basketball because he was created to play basketball; the other plays because he was bigger than everyone else and it seemed like the logical thing to do. If there was a pickup game and Oden was on one side, Durant was on the other, and your life depended on the game, you'd pick Durant. You would.So if Portland takes Oden, it will happen because of conventional NBA logic (you always take the franchise center), because their fans are pushing for him (obviously, nobody watches college basketball in Portland) and because he's a personable, gregarious, likable big guy for a city that's desperately needed a personable, gregarious, likable big guy ever since Bill Walton ditched Portland for San Diego. I'm not saying those reasons are wrong. In fact, I understand them completely. But if I'm Portland's GM, I'm taking the guy with a legitimate chance to go down with Bird, Magic, MJ, Baylor, Oscar, West, Duncan, Pet , Havlicek and every other great non-center who ever played in the National Basketball Association. I'm taking Kevin Durant.
4. As for Van Horn he played in a joke (mountain West?)conference. With inflated numbers. he was very good college player that hit some big shots. But was not the star Duncan was who played in the rough ACC. and won the awards Durant and Jordan won ...
Simmons was right about shaq in 2000 (whole year)and 2001 (playoffs and Finals) not sure I would take Jordan over Shaq ...but why didnt we see THAT shaq more often?
From the same Simmons article:
Bill: At long last, I get to realize my lifelong dream of running the Celtics. For my first act, I'm firing Doc Rivers and hiring Rick Carlisle.
Chad Ford: Rick Carlisle is NOT an upgrade over Doc Rivers.
Simmons owning a ESPN NBA insider ..i cant believe people actually pay for stuff like this.
Also:
Bill: just make sure the trainer keeps putting in those one and a half inch lifts in Oden's left sneaker so his legs are the same size. Also, you might want to have him wear a splint during practice so he doesn't reinjure that bum wrist. Oh, and he's going to be nervous on Opening Night, for every Portland game and every playoff game -- just prescribe him a drug called Valerian, it calms the nerves and shouldn't affect his play too much. Good luck and congrats on getting the next Patrick Ewing.
Chad: As long as Oden has five healthy fingers to put those championship rings on ... I can live with it.
can you link that article killa
and this is from 2008 ... BS rubbing it in after oden got hurt ...
Simmons: Chad, you glossing over what happened with Oden versus Durant, the defining draft-day debate of this decade, would be like Richard Nixon playing the "Except for Watergate, I think I did a pretty good job!" card. I backed Durant for three reasons: I thought he had a chance to become a truly dominant offensive player; I thought Oden was too nice of a guy; and I thought Oden was headed for a career of health problems. As Tommy Heinsohn would say, bing, bang, boom! If Kevin Pritchard called Sam Presti right now and said, "Hey, we'll give you Oden for Durant," Presti would either hang up or ask him, "What else are you throwing in the deal?" Do you really think Oden -- the guy who's coming off microfracture surgery and wrist surgery in consecutive years, the guy who has one leg that's an inch and a half shorter than the other, the guy who walks like a 50-year-old man -- has more value in the NBA than the 2008 rookie of the year? You can't really think that, right?
Ford: Bill, you're claiming victory already? Have you had a "Mission Accomplished" banner printed yet?
Listen, the Oden microfracture thing hurt. But from everything I can gather, Oden will be fine. Oden is 19 years old. I think we can give him a few years. It's not like Kevin Durant set the Sonics on fire this year. Durant spent most of they year jacking up ugly 3s while watching his team get blown out. So while it's clear Durant was and will be better than Oden for the next few years, it doesn't matter. In five years, we'll be talking about Oden as the most dominant big man in the game, the Blazers will be competing for championships and Durant will be scoring 30 points a night in Oklahoma City.
I'm not saying Durant is a bad pick, but I still think the future is Oden, even with the microfracture surgery.
Chad ford refusing to admit he was wrong
Sportsguy33: On John Wall (Ben's question): I think there are four potential All-Stars in this draft (Wall, Turner, Favors, Cousins) and that's it. Of those four he has the best chance of being an All-Star by far. But he's a fairly weak No. 1 overall pick I think. Agree or disagree Chad?
Chad Ford, ESPN Insider: Disagree. He has the athleticism of Derrick Rose (true) and the command of the floor of a Jason Kidd (FALSE!!!)... he's going to be a stud. Better than Rose or Rondo in my opinion.
Sportsguy33: I don't see the "command of the floor"/Kidd thing at all. He's not the same passer. Love his athleticism and I think as an open-court player on both ends and a fill-in-the-blanks guy, I see the Kidd thing ... but I don't think he has Kidd's vision.
Ford is actually pretty horrible at his job ...
Last edited by Killakobe81; 12-04-2015 at 03:02 PM.
None of this was as bad as Ford's daily article before and after the 2003 draft about how Darko was a better pick for Cleveland than LeBron.
Holy , Chad Ford talking about how he'd take Oden because Durant will bolt for a large market?
How much tier a market can you get than OKC and Durant has stayed loyal as to them.
GTFO!! Are you serious he is a bigger dumbass than I thought ...None of this was as bad as Ford's daily article before and after the 2003 draft about how Darko was a better pick for Cleveland than LeBron.
Why are you moving the goalpost?
And I again, I never said I'd take Wilt over Duncan, I said the reasons you provided to support you claims requires additional research.
Beating other players is subjective. If you want to talk about h2h records, it's a team accomplishment. Wilt averaged 34.4ppg and 28.4rpg vs. Russell when he was with the warriors, and 21.9 ppg and 27.9 rpg when he was with the 76ers. I wouldn't call that struggling (even though his points dropped, his rebounds went up, and his FG% stayed pretty constant, which was a function of not actually getting the ball, or being forced to pass with heavy double/triple teams).
He averaged 18/25/5 assists vs. Kareem, with many of those games played while he was way past his prime. That was far from struggling.
Wilt also had to play against Thurmond, Reed, Walt Bellemy, and Jerry Lucas. The 60s had a number of great centers.
Not disputing any of that, but the fact remained that Jordan and Durant were not as highly touted as Duncan coming out of college, or else they would have gone at least 2nd and 1st, respectively. Unless you want to argue Bowie and Oden were both more highly touted than Duncan coming out of college, which I would disagree.
I am saying going where they went doesnt prove any of that. My point being that Jordan was probably a bigger star than Hakeem but Hakeem was also a star and a center so he went first. Rose went first so did Wall were they bigger stars than Jordan? Saying he went 3rd doesnt prove your case. I was never arguing that some of those guys were better "prospects" than Tim. Tim went first because like I said he was the best college prospect since shaq and I dont think even though Lebron was a national star anyone would Take him over tim because he was the better "prospect". But I think Webber although not the better player was a bigger star in college than Tim. So was Melo. Star does not equal always who you take first. You could argue Alonzo and definitely Laettener were bigger "stars" than Shaq but who went first in the draft?
This. Shaq is notoriously difficult to classify because he peaked in the late 90s/early 00s. He has even said that he was "in between generations" or something to that effect.
But either way, he wasn't the best of his generation. 90s Hakeem > 90s Shaq, and 00s Duncan > 00s Shaq.
I agree. except 2000 Shaq (whole year) and 2001 Shaq is more dominant than either guy. But you did nail that perfect ...when looking at body of work.
It's going to be awkward discussing this in 5 years when Durant is still ringless...
Before Durant was drafted I felt that he was a McGrady clone except taller.
For who Simmons? I never said all of that about durant only that I thought he was one of the best college scorers I ever saw and seemed more legit than what I saw out of Oden.
But even if Durant never rings I think Simmons crushed Chad Ford in this argument. Durant has an MVP and two scoring les. Add those together and Oden has more total knee surgeries.
Good comparison not as explosive but a better shooter.
I don't see KD with nearly the handles that TMac had. Durant plays like a hybrid guard/forward. McGrady was a straight-up 6'8" guard. Way more explosive power to the rim, but not nearly the shot that KD is.
Yes, for Simmons. And yes, Simmons did well, I just hate anytime someone lists "will to win" as an attribute. It's such an esoteric thing and can be captured by a lot of other factors.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
