PDA

View Full Version : Just how good would prime Bernard King be in the league nowadays?



JordansBulls
03-03-2009, 11:58 AM
This was one of the most underrated players in NBA History. But even so, how good do you think he would be in the NBA today in his prime? Would he be top 3? top 5? Top 10?


???

Hellcrooner
03-03-2009, 12:17 PM
best player on the league.

the season he injured he was being competition to both brd and magic for the mvp, go figure.

Spiderfox
03-03-2009, 12:33 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnThwmNBvfc

I agree.. He'd be top 3.. Bernard King was an amazing Basketball player.. He could score at will.. One of the best mid range games ever.. Belongs in the HOF for sure..

JordansBulls
03-03-2009, 01:07 PM
best player on the league.

the season he injured he was being competition to both brd and magic for the mvp, go figure.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_1984.html#mvp

He was 2nd in MVP voting and ahead of Magic, Kareem, Dr J, Moses Malone, Isiah, etc that year.

kevvvo247
03-03-2009, 01:18 PM
uh, if he played against these guy's he'd get embarrassed. bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic ability, he was great against his comp. though.

hotdogbun
03-03-2009, 01:21 PM
top 4 with kobe,lebron,wade or maybe over wade

hotdogbun
03-03-2009, 01:28 PM
best player on the league.

the season he injured he was being competition to both brd and magic for the mvp, go figure.

just because you are atop the mvp race that doesnt mean ur better than players under you.

peja was 4th in the mvp race in 04 so does that make him better than the other guys? lol

but still king is top 4 or 3

SteveNash
03-03-2009, 01:31 PM
I'd put him somewhere in the 10-15 range.

JordansBulls
03-03-2009, 01:32 PM
just because you are atop the mvp race that doesnt mean ur better than players under you.

peja was 4th in the mvp race in 04 so does that make him better than the other guys? lol

but still king is top 4 or 3

Bernard took the Celtics 7 games that year in the playoffs. That was the year the Celtics won a title as well. And Bernard was literally outplaying everyone in that playoffs as well IIRC.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2009, 02:04 PM
with the league sissied up now, he would be unstoppable scoring wise. You can't touch a player nowadays, at least a perimeter player, he would lead the NBA in scoring easily

JordansBulls
03-03-2009, 03:06 PM
I'd put him somewhere in the 10-15 range.

You could name 10 guys better than he would be in the league now?

SteveNash
03-03-2009, 04:02 PM
You could name 10 guys better than he would be in the league now?

Would Alex English be in the top 10 these days? Probably not, but people seem to just look at Bernard King's numbers and then blame the injury and act like he was one of the greatest players of all time.

People look at his 1 1/2 great season and just see PPG and FG%. He did little else. His 32 PPG were nice but his team sucked. 26 PPG on 57% is pretty amazing, but he wasn't a great rebounder or passer and a terrible defender.

Comparing him to todays players, based on those stats is useless because todays NBA players can actually take and make three point shots dropping their FG%. While King played in a faster era that inflated his stats.

Most similar to a Danny Granger today. Is Granger top 10?

albertc86
03-03-2009, 04:12 PM
He'd be a top 15 player in the league but he'd have a difficult time guarding the players of today.

Hellcrooner
03-03-2009, 04:20 PM
i saw him play a lot , so i know what im talking about stevenash, his only flaw was three point shooting.

JordansBulls
03-03-2009, 05:51 PM
Would Alex English be in the top 10 these days? Probably not, but people seem to just look at Bernard King's numbers and then blame the injury and act like he was one of the greatest players of all time.

People look at his 1 1/2 great season and just see PPG and FG%. He did little else. His 32 PPG were nice but his team sucked. 26 PPG on 57% is pretty amazing, but he wasn't a great rebounder or passer and a terrible defender.

Comparing him to todays players, based on those stats is useless because todays NBA players can actually take and make three point shots dropping their FG%. While King played in a faster era that inflated his stats.

Most similar to a Danny Granger today. Is Granger top 10?

Yes so King's team was bad but he still took the Celtics 7 games and he ended up beating the Pistons as well without the HCA.

PJAF
03-03-2009, 05:58 PM
Top 5.

AFlagRules
03-03-2009, 06:01 PM
He'd be top 10 for sure. He was awesome.

Missing56&33
03-03-2009, 06:03 PM
one of the top players in the league. King would prolly avg 34ppg. We be the scoring leader IMO. With the hand check rule out he would have a field day. King had deceptive quickness as well, could get to the basket and finish better than anybody ever. These current players just dont know, they got lucky they missed BK, MJ, Magic, bird, parish, Kareem, Dr. J.

MakaSizzle
03-03-2009, 06:14 PM
"the reason hes not in the HOF has nothing to do with his achilles , writers say he was nothing more than a selfish gunner whos numbers were inflated because of the stlye they played in new york, add to that he did not play any defense"

DoubleDragon
03-03-2009, 06:26 PM
This was one of the most underrated players in NBA History. But even so, how good do you think he would be in the NBA today in his prime? Would he be top 3? top 5? Top 10?


???

The thing is with the old "superstars" is that their game in retrospect of course would have to be adjusted to today's more stringent standards on both end s of the court along with other tangible rule/court changes, restricted areas, three point shot, etc. bernard was Smoooooove (with a V) and had all the tools to be an elite player today and yesteryear. Top 50? Well, IMHO, I think top 100 easily (including some of today's stars).

i would like to think that the star's of yesteryear (yes I love that word : )
because I am now considered yesteryears generation, had more of an open canvas in expressing their more physical game. Though a lot of today's spoiled superstars might be crushed by the non-whining brand of smashmouth B-Ball.
Today's game is finesse but has a few exceptions in tough and smooth players like Kobe/Lebron.

Oscar Robertson was a bad**** in any era. Pistol Pete would make Nash (all due respect) look just a bit above average with his circus accuracy and exploitive fastbreak nightmarish play creation. Wilt would be feared, even in today's game, and Russell's Leadership vs Skill level would still be the orange on the apple tree and priceless. Shaq...well, is Big/Dominant in any era.

Damn!....what were we talking about again? So much for the "old mind" Oh yeah, Bernard King. Great player, top 100 (probably top 80)

In my humble opinion of course.

Now kids, stay away from too many Red Bulls. This is what happens...nonsensically loooong tomes that veer off-topic:o

$KnicksAndKobe$
03-03-2009, 06:27 PM
Zach Randolph without the rebounding and more assists

JordansBulls
03-03-2009, 07:56 PM
The thing is with the old "superstars" is that their game in retrospect of course would have to be adjusted to today's more stringent standards on both end s of the court along with other tangible rule/court changes, restricted areas, three point shot, etc. bernard was Smoooooove (with a V) and had all the tools to be an elite player today and yesteryear. Top 50? Well, IMHO, I think top 100 easily (including some of today's stars).

i would like to think that the star's of yesteryear (yes I love that word : )
because I am now considered yesteryears generation, had more of an open canvas in expressing their more physical game. Though a lot of today's spoiled superstars might be crushed by the non-whining brand of smashmouth B-Ball.
Today's game is finesse but has a few exceptions in tough and smooth players like Kobe/Lebron.

Oscar Robertson was a bad**** in any era. Pistol Pete would make Nash (all due respect) look just a bit above average with his circus accuracy and exploitive fastbreak nightmarish play creation. Wilt would be feared, even in today's game, and Russell's Leadership vs Skill level would still be the orange on the apple tree and priceless. Shaq...well, is Big/Dominant in any era.

Damn!....what were we talking about again? So much for the "old mind" Oh yeah, Bernard King. Great player, top 100 (probably top 80)

In my humble opinion of course.

Now kids, stay away from too many Red Bulls. This is what happens...nonsensically loooong tomes that veer off-topic:o

He didn't have the career to be top 50.

GoatMilk
03-03-2009, 07:58 PM
he's a more explosive Carmelo.
Definitely top 5

SteveNash
03-03-2009, 09:40 PM
Yes so King's team was bad but he still took the Celtics 7 games and he ended up beating the Pistons as well without the HCA.

I said his 32 PPG was nice but his team sucked. When he averaged 32 his team his team was bad, I can't find the exact record because he was injured throughout the season before suffering his ACL towards the end of the year.

As I said, the 26 on 57% was nice, but is Joe Johnson as top ten player for taking last years Celtics to 7?

JordansBulls
03-04-2009, 12:37 AM
I said his 32 PPG was nice but his team sucked. When he averaged 32 his team his team was bad, I can't find the exact record because he was injured throughout the season before suffering his ACL towards the end of the year.

As I said, the 26 on 57% was nice, but is Joe Johnson as top ten player for taking last years Celtics to 7?

Thats different. The Hawks had a much more balanced team. Bernard's knicks didn't really have that.

Bernard King reminds me of Paul Pierce just a more explosive scorer.

dre1990
03-04-2009, 12:44 AM
He was a beast