Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 142
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Tx
    Posts
    23,136
    vCash
    950
    O-Rob is one of the most overrated players ever.

    The PSD's Official Steve Nash Support Crew, Members: R4L

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    T.O
    Posts
    66
    vCash
    1500
    It's Oscar ROBERTSON not Oscar Robinson....

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Tx
    Posts
    23,136
    vCash
    950
    Maybe he was suggesting that a duo of Oscar Robertson and David Robinson is underrated?

    The PSD's Official Steve Nash Support Crew, Members: R4L

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Windsor, Earth's Rectum (as reported by Stephen Colbert).
    Posts
    8,162
    vCash
    1500
    People generally give him a lot of credit, especially guys who played with him. He was recognized as one of the best defenders of his generation, and also one of the best scorers and all-around players. Russell, Wilt and Kareem all said he was the best player they ever played with/against. And believe it or not, the league was VERY competative back then. There were fewer teams which meant there was a lot of talent on the teams that were there, and it wasn't like today where you have a bunch of games again teams like Charlotte, every game you were playing great teams.

    The thing about the Big O is that he played PG, SG and SF, so people don't always now which position to rank him at. Generally he seen as the second best PG behind Magic, but there are people who put him at number one.

    Some people might go on about how he only has one ring, but let us be honest, he was playing at a time when the Celtics and Lakers were just dominating the rest of the league. It was like trying to win a title in the 90's against the Bulls.


    And a lot of young people discredit the stats of players from the 60's and 70's, in part because there were more possessions, and in part (and I don't agree) because they say the league was weaker then.

    the biggest obstacle Oscar would have today is his size, because he would be able to play SF at his size the way he could then, even in J-Kidd and Rondo we see guys whose 6'3 can pull down 10 boards... it's just a question of can he do it every night?
    What the eye doesn't see and the mind doesn't know, doesn't exist.
    Follow me on Twitter and I'll follow back: @JasonJHorn

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    24,282
    vCash
    2502
    Quote Originally Posted by JNA17 View Post
    I respectfully disagree.

    Wilt benched pressed over 500 pounds during his time. Can you imagine that kind of strength in today's NBA where not many if ANY are that strong? Wilt was also a great track and field runner and was incredibly athletic given his size. It wasn't just his height that put him over the top. And that's not even counting what kind of training methods he would do in today's world.
    Being strong and fast isn't enough to dominate in today's NBA. Javale McGee is a physical specimen, strong and fast and crazy athletic, for example. You have to be skilled in today's NBA to be effective, and I don't think Wilt's game would necessarily stand up to the test of time.

    Oscar Robinson was the most physical guard of his time and had the quickness and speed to boot. Just like Wilt at his position, Big O dominated with his sheer athleticism. That's not even covering the skills he had at his position to boot. Big O would EASILY be able to hold his own in today's NBA.
    You just made my point for me. He dominated because he was big and quick and physical. A 6' 5" PG 10 years later would not have touched a triple double. Hell, there's a reason why his numbers started taking a dive in his mid 20s. It's because more and more black athletes were coming into the sport and he wasn't able to completely dominate people like he did from 61-65. (And again, it's Robertson, not Robinson.)


  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    24,282
    vCash
    2502
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonJohnHorn View Post
    Some people might go on about how he only has one ring, but let us be honest, he was playing at a time when the Celtics and Lakers were just dominating the rest of the league. It was like trying to win a title in the 90's against the Bulls.
    You can make that argument early in his career (although he did play with great players in Cincinatti), but in the last four or five years, he had Kareem to play with and only earned one title. To me, that's inexcusable. That would be like if Kobe and Shaq had only won one title.

    And a lot of young people discredit the stats of players from the 60's and 70's, in part because there were more possessions, and in part (and I don't agree) because they say the league was weaker then.
    The league wasn't weaker in terms of talent distribution, but it was weaker in terms of athletes. In the early 60s especially, the lack of black players was a serious advantage to guys like Wilt and Oscar. There's a reason why Oscar's numbers took a dive after 65, and that's because of the influx of more black athletes to the sport.

    the biggest obstacle Oscar would have today is his size, because he would be able to play SF at his size the way he could then, even in J-Kidd and Rondo we see guys whose 6'3 can pull down 10 boards... it's just a question of can he do it every night?
    No way would he get 10 rebounds a game in today's NBA. Fewer possessions, taller players, stronger big men and more floor spacing with the 3-point shot would all contribute to this. He'd be lucky to average 6 boards a game in today's NBA.
    Last edited by mightybosstone; 10-29-2012 at 10:21 AM.


  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Miami Beach, FL
    Posts
    7,310
    vCash
    1500
    lol the comments on here are so funny.

    OF COURSE ROBERTSON is overrated. Did anyone else in his era average a triple double during the regular season? nope. so the notion of "he wouldnt produce the same stats in todays NBA" is simple irresponsible and lazy.

    As for the "he was big and phycial," that is as silly as saying LeBron's game is all athleticism, but disregard the fact that Josh Smith, Javale Mcgee, etc are nowhere near as dominant as lebron is.

    The point is during big o's era, he was a dominant force, and people dont give him the credit that is due, and i am talking about the general public/media.

    his teammates and peers during that era give him a lot of respect, however i feel the masses dont. clearly its an era thing, so not too worried about that.


    LETS GO HEAT




  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    24,282
    vCash
    2502
    Quote Originally Posted by Im_in_Mia_bish View Post
    OF COURSE ROBERTSON is overrated. Did anyone else in his era average a triple double during the regular season? nope. so the notion of "he wouldnt produce the same stats in todays NBA" is simple irresponsible and lazy.
    Yeahhh.... That's a horrible argument, because you're just ignoring context. There weren't that many skilled 6' 5" guards in the 60s and there weren't nearly as many black players when Oscar first came into the league.

    As for the "he was big and phycial," that is as silly as saying LeBron's game is all athleticism, but disregard the fact that Josh Smith, Javale Mcgee, etc are nowhere near as dominant as lebron is.
    Again, you're ignoring context, and the Lebron argument is a horrible one. The athletes of today are completely superior to athletes of the 60s, which is why Lebron's numbers are all the more astonishing. If Lebron did this in the 60s, it wouldn't be anywhere near as impressive.

    his teammates and peers during that era give him a lot of respect, however i feel the masses dont. clearly its an era thing, so not too worried about that.
    His teammates also said he was a hard *** that would rip you for making mistakes and that they were afraid to fail while playing with him. So, clearly he was respected, but I'm not sure he was liked or that he made his teammates better.

    And I know I keep ripping on O, but I just think the whole "He averaged a triple-double!" thing is totally overrated, just like Wilt's numbers. I respect titles in the 60s more than I respect the numbers, because it was a different game with far more possessions and far fewer black athletes.


  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    21,309
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by Raidaz4Life View Post
    Maybe he was suggesting that a duo of Oscar Robertson and David Robinson is underrated?


    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    You can make that argument early in his career (although he did play with great players in Cincinatti), but in the last four or five years, he had Kareem to play with and only earned one title. To me, that's inexcusable. That would be like if Kobe and Shaq had only won one title.


    The league wasn't weaker in terms of talent distribution, but it was weaker in terms of athletes. In the early 60s especially, the lack of black players was a serious advantage to guys like Wilt and Oscar. There's a reason why Wilt's numbers took a dive after 65, and that's because of the influx of more black athletes to the sport.


    No way would he get 10 rebounds a game in today's NBA. Fewer possessions, taller players, stronger big men and more floor spacing with the 3-point shot would all contribute to this. He'd be lucky to average 6 boards a game in today's NBA.

    Wilt's numbers took a "dip" because he became obsessed with leading the league in assists and he wanted to win a championship. Not because more black players suddenly showed up.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    21,309
    vCash
    1000
    In regards to the question, the Big O is underrated for the simple reason that he dominated the league a good 20-30 years than most of PSD was born. He and Wilt are arguably the only two players from that generation that wouldn't see a BIG drop in production if they are transported into the modern game yet people are too busy making up excuses to detract from the success of generations past.

    "Stats from that era are inflated."
    "Competition was weaker."
    "There were no athletes."
    "Players were smaller."

    It's a joke. Everyone in the 60s was playing the same competition and he dominated. That's enough for me. Comparing across eras gets messy. Keep the players in the context of their peers and work from there. The Big O is a top 10 player of all-time.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    24,282
    vCash
    2502
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    Wilt's numbers took a "dip" because he became obsessed with leading the league in assists and he wanted to win a championship. Not because more black players suddenly showed up.
    That's actually a typo. I meant to say Oscar's numbers, not Wilt's. But the sheer fact that Wilt wanted to lead the league in assists shows you the guy's mentality and how huge his ego was. I'd take Russell over Wilt 9 times out of 10.

    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    In regards to the question, the Big O is underrated for the simple reason that he dominated the league a good 20-30 years than most of PSD was born. He and Wilt are arguably the only two players from that generation that wouldn't see a BIG drop in production if they are transported into the modern game yet people are too busy making up excuses to detract from the success of generations past.
    I'm sorry dude, but that's ********. You honestly don't think Oscar's numbers would take a massive hit in today's NBA? The dude averaged 31/11/12 in 61-62 playing at a MUCH faster pace than in today's NBA with far more possessions and playing 44 minutes per game. In today's NBA, he'd be lucky to average 20/10/5.

    It's a joke. Everyone in the 60s was playing the same competition and he dominated. That's enough for me. Comparing across eras gets messy. Keep the players in the context of their peers and work from there. The Big O is a top 10 player of all-time.
    So we're just supposed to ignore context completely because he put up freakish numbers? In that case, why aren't players in the 50s given more credit? Because you could argue George Mikan was a top 10 player all-time if you just looked at the numbers and ignored the fact that he was a 6' 10" center playing without a shot clock in an inferior league.

    And if you think Oscar is a top 10 player, which of the following players would you knock off the list to include him:
    1. Michael Jordan
    2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
    3. Magic Johnson
    4. Larry Bird
    5. Bill Russell
    6. Wilt Chamberlain
    7. Tim Duncan
    8. Hakeem Olajuwon
    9. Shaquille O'Neal
    10. Kobe Bryant


  12. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago
    Posts
    14,914
    vCash
    1500
    I'm in agreement with MBT it relation to Russell here on PSD. He's extremely underrated. Elsewhere though he's extremely overrated.

    As for Oscar he's overrated by those who don't know how to put his career into perspective. I have him as a top 15 player all time which is right about where the masses do as well.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago
    Posts
    14,914
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    I actually think Bill Russell is seriously underrated and Oscar Robertson (not Robinson like the OP wrote) is fairly overrated. Why? Because Russell was the greatest defensive player of his era, he dominated Wilt on a regular basis en route to 11 championships and his teammates loved playing with him (hell, he coached the team his final year!).
    Completely false. Wilt averaged 28 and 28 against him. That's not domination.

    Oscar, on the other hand, was not particularly well liked by this teammates, and even though he put up crazy stats and played with great players (young Kareem in Milwaukee, Jerry Lucas and Jack Twyman in Cincinatti), the dude only won one ring. Why? I don't think he was the kind of guy who made his teammates better, but would rather throw you under the bus when things turned to ****.
    I saw you speaking of context. Well let's put Oscar's career into context as well why don't we. Let's look at when the support came, what Lucass and Twyman did without Oscar who they played against.

    Another reason I wouldn't put him higher is similar to why I won't put Wilt higher despite freakish numbers. They were both insane athletes that were a good 5-10 years ahead of their time in terms of size and athleticism for their positions. Oscar was a lightning quick 6' 5" PG playing in an era of short, slow 5'10" white dudes playing the position. If Oscar had come 10 years later, his numbers would be nothing by comparison.


    Well IMO if they played in another time they'd still be "ahead" of their time. They weren't insane athletes by chance they worked harder than damn near anyone in those days to get where they were at. Who is to say that had they played 10-15 years later they would not have done the same.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,215
    vCash
    1500
    cuz no one on these boards was old enough to ever see him play?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    21,309
    vCash
    1000
    That's actually a typo. I meant to say Oscar's numbers, not Wilt's. But the sheer fact that Wilt wanted to lead the league in assists shows you the guy's mentality and how huge his ego was. I'd take Russell over Wilt 9 times out of 10.
    I'd take Russell's career over Wilt's but give me Wilt the player. I read a great quote that said Wilt could have been Russell but Russell never would have been Wilt.

    I'm sorry dude, but that's ********. You honestly don't think Oscar's numbers would take a massive hit in today's NBA? The dude averaged 31/11/12 in 61-62 playing at a MUCH faster pace than in today's NBA with far more possessions and playing 44 minutes per game. In today's NBA, he'd be lucky to average 20/10/5.
    You are making my point for me. 20-10-5 production is the same today as 31/11/12 and would put him in the discussion with LeBron-Durant for the game's MVP.

    So we're just supposed to ignore context completely because he put up freakish numbers? In that case, why aren't players in the 50s given more credit? Because you could argue George Mikan was a top 10 player all-time if you just looked at the numbers and ignored the fact that he was a 6' 10" center playing without a shot clock in an inferior league.
    I'm asking you to do the exact OPPOSITE. Put players in the context of their peers. I'll give you a simple example. Babe Ruth is the best player of all-time because he hit more home runs in a season than other TEAMS. He was so far superior to his competition that we will never see that type of production again. In that same vein, Oscar Robertson averaged a triple double for an entire season. None of his peers were able to do that, and no one has done it since. That's historical. There's a reason why players from that era revere Oscar the player.

    And if you think Oscar is a top 10 player, which of the following players would you knock off the list to include him:
    1. Michael Jordan
    2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
    3. Magic Johnson
    4. Larry Bird
    5. Bill Russell
    6. Wilt Chamberlain
    7. Tim Duncan
    8. Hakeem Olajuwon
    9. Shaquille O'Neal
    10. Kobe Bryant
    Meh. Fine he's 11th.
    1. Jordan
    2. Kareem
    3. Magic
    4. Kobe
    5. Russell
    6. Bird
    7. Duncan
    8. Wilt
    9. Shaq
    10. Hakeem
    11. Oscar

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •