PDA

View Full Version : Are we entering a new golden era of basketball?



DemarDerozan
09-17-2014, 11:30 PM
Right now we have three bigs that have Superstar potential (AD, DMC, Dre)

Two top ten GOAT in LBJ and Durant.

A ton of up and coming wings and guards. (Kawhi, Wiggins, Parker, Curry, DeRozan, Beal, Wall).

And it feels like the competetive spirit is back with real rivalries. GSW VS LAC. HOU vs Dallas, Cavs vs Heat.

Are we entering a new golden age of hoops?

JLeBeau76
09-17-2014, 11:40 PM
If not then damn close! The level of talent in the league just seems to be getting better and younger. Even the East is starting to pick up (which was bound to happen with all the high draft picks).

With the NFL dealing with so much crap right now and the NBA product looking better and better, it'll be interesting to see if basketball can close the gap.

ThuglifeJ
09-17-2014, 11:41 PM
I'm more optimistic this season than past few years for good entertainment... Ages/primes are aligning well among stars right now.

The spurs may have saved the NBA....




Lol at Durant top 10 all time though..slow down on that one

mightybosstone
09-18-2014, 12:21 AM
"Golden era" is an overused term in sports. But I do believe this is the most talented era of basketball in NBA history outside of the late 80s to early 90s. That time period saw all-time great veterans finish up their careers, guys like Kareem, Moses, Magic and Bird. While new all-time greats were taking their place in MJ, Hakeem, Barkley, Robinson, Stockton and Malone.

We've seen something similar in the last 5-10 years with Duncan, Kobe, Dirk, Garnett, Nash, Kidd, Pierce and Allen all exiting their prime and finishing up their careers. Except now we're seeing talent come in huge waves. First it was the 2003 draft with Lebron, Melo, Wade and Bosh. But it wasn't long before Dwight and Paul came along. And then it was Durant, Westbrook, Love, Harden, Griffin, Curry and Cousins. And now it's Davis, Drummond, Wiggins and Parker.

It's possible that the last five years and the next five years will be the most talented decade in the history of the NBA.

HandsOnTheWheel
09-18-2014, 12:54 AM
Not too impressed by present day superstar talent so no. Besides Bron and Durant there's nobody. Besides, rivalries are dead in today's nba.

That era came and went in the past 20-25 years.

BHF
09-18-2014, 12:57 AM
Better question is are you new to basketball?

0nekhmer
09-18-2014, 01:49 AM
I think OP means overall talent of the league is better. Of course in the 80s and 90s the dozens of superstars were top notch, and were pretty much better and had guys who could single handedly carry their teams. Other than LBJ, Durant, Westbrook, there aren't many two-three way players who can not only be a global icon, but lead their teams single handedly.

benny01
09-18-2014, 01:54 AM
no

Alayla
09-18-2014, 01:57 AM
Im going to go in the total other direction from most posters here and say 100% NO
LBJ CP3 Durant and Curry are the only really high level once in a generation talents in the NBA right now imo.
Things look super bleak for the league there is no bigs at all
the wings are at best flirting with superstar talent and at worse marginal all stars in any other generation. Most players are 1 way players and the balance between the east and west is damn near none existant. i want to argue that outside of the 4 mentioned above these players these days are so mediocre no one remembers what a truly great player is like.

ps. my interest in basketball has tanked massively the past 3 - 5 seasons too.

koreancabbage
09-18-2014, 03:11 AM
anyone who thinks the league is not as talented at any point in basketball must be fooling themselves.

the only thing that isn't as strong as the 80s and 90s (in relation) is competition

ThuglifeJ
09-18-2014, 08:08 AM
Not too impressed by present day superstar talent so no. Besides Bron and Durant there's nobody. Besides, rivalries are dead in today's nba.

That era came and went in the past 20-25 years.

I kinda gotta agree with this. There's not enough SUPER stars.. And all the stars we have have way too big of flaws

dalton749
09-18-2014, 08:30 AM
to be fair though, all of the guys get picked apart a lot more than they did back then thanks to advanced stats, social media
without it we would probably look at the harden/love/cousins etc and call them super stars alongside lebron/durant because as fans of other teams we wouldnt have access to info or see them play enough to think otherwise

ThuglifeJ
09-18-2014, 08:36 AM
I'm sorry but early 2000s anyone??

Kobe, SHAQ, Garnett, Duncan, Pierce, Ray, Vince, McGrady, Iverson, rookie Melo and Lebron, young Wade, Yao, Billups, Francis, Kidd, Kmart, Webber, Peja, Parker, Ginobili, Pau, Big Ben, Sheed, Dirk, Old Reggie, Baron, Jermaine, injured Hill and Penny, Nash, Marion, Stoudemire, Artest, wizards Jordan, Zo

Rookie Scalabrine..

Thats an absurd amount of TALENT. Not to mention you have prime/peak Shaq, Duncan (top 10 all time), Garnett...prime McGrady, Iverson, Kobe, VC.. rookie Lebron, Wade. That trumps prime Durant and Lebron.

I think (actually I am certain, but don't want to sound arrogant) early 2000s star power blows today's out of the water..and is equal to the 90s and 80s mentioned earlier.


I will agree that the disparity is better, as in you can have a full starting lineup of 5 good players, and that the role players are better..lottssts of solid talent today, but not as many studs.

So in that sense its a golden age, but star players are important, and we lack actually good ones nowadays. Watching the western conference feels like golden age if ur more than just a casual watcher..
I think this will be a fun season.

mightybosstone
09-18-2014, 08:45 AM
Not too impressed by present day superstar talent so no. Besides Bron and Durant there's nobody.
What does that even mean? Nobody? I think you're seriously, seriously underrating the talent in the league today and are living a bit in the past. Chris Paul is easily a top 10 all-time PG and on his way to cracking the top 5. Duncan, Parker and Manu still have the Spurs playing at a freakishly high level. And the talent at PG and PF is just insanely high between Curry, Westbrook, Lowry, Dragic, Irving, Lillard, Wall, etc. and Love, Griffin, Davis, Aldridge and Dirk. Hell, I would argue that those two positions might be the most stacked they've ever been in the history of the league.


Besides, rivalries are dead in today's nba.
Just because we don't have the Lakers and Celtics playing at a high level doesn't mean we don't have rivalries. There are teams that genuinely do not like each other, especially in the Western Conference, which is as deep and as talented as it's ever been. And with the East getting a boost this offseason, we should see a lot more competitive play in that conference this season.

ThuglifeJ
09-18-2014, 09:07 AM
Not too impressed by present day superstar talent so no. Besides Bron and Durant there's nobody.
What does that even mean? Nobody? I think you're seriously, seriously underrating the talent in the league today and are living a bit in the past. Chris Paul is easily a top 10 all-time PG and on his way to cracking the top 5. Duncan, Parker and Manu still have the Spurs playing at a freakishly high level. And the talent at PG and PF is just insanely high between Curry, Westbrook, Lowry, Dragic, Irving, Lillard, Wall, etc. and Love, Griffin, Davis, Aldridge and Dirk. Hell, I would argue that those two positions might be the most stacked they've ever been in the history of the league.


Besides, rivalries are dead in today's nba.
Just because we don't have the Lakers and Celtics playing at a high level doesn't mean we don't have rivalries. There are teams that genuinely do not like each other, especially in the Western Conference, which is as deep and as talented as it's ever been. And with the East getting a boost this offseason, we should see a lot more competitive play in that conference this season.

That's not enough really. You could have a lot more to say about past gens. You could argue a reason why Spurs are playing at such a high level still (Parker ginobili Duncan), is cuz the league hasn't progressed enough to knock them off. I'm sure these guys thought they'd be retired by now but they look around and don't see any young phenoms that push them into retirement like usual.

And yes rivalrys are dead. More so between players. I don't know any significant ones that get you excited....lebron and Durant practice together. Its denial to say we still have good rivalry's today..

MrfadeawayJB
09-18-2014, 09:14 AM
I can see the golden age coming but first we need to get rid of flopping as a huge issue and I'd like to see player-player competitiveness increase. Sportsmanship is fine, but I'd like to see it when the series is over, not during a series.

yaswaggin
09-18-2014, 09:22 AM
No. The parity in the NBA absolutely sucks

There are only three legit championship contending teams in the NBA: Cavs, Thunder, and Spurs

Atlanta was the 8th seed last year 6 GAMES UNDER .500!

There are a lot of star players who refuse to play defense or suck at defense (Melo, Love, Harden, Blake, Curry) who can't carry their teams on the offensive end anyhow (except maybe for Curry)

JasonJohnHorn
09-18-2014, 09:46 AM
I'd say maybe a golden age of SF's.

I think LBJ and KD will go down as the two best SFs the league has seen since its inception until now. They will have an edge on Bird because they will have longer careers (barring injury).

But past that, I don't see much of a 'golden age'.

There is not one center in the league today that would have made the All-NBA team between the mid-80's and mid 90's.

As for power forward, nobody in the league today has played at a level as high as Barley, Malone, Garnett and Duncan (though Blake has the potential to pull even with Barkley or Malone, and if Love can start playing defence, he may be able to as well).

As for point guards, CP3 is the only guy in my book who is going to be a top-10 all-time point guard in the league (maybe Curry), as opposed to the 80's and 90's that saw guys like Magic, Stockton, Thomas, and later Nash and Kidd. This is a league where Hardaway and Kevin Johnson struggled to make an All-NBA team.

As for shooting guards..... the 90's had Jordan, Drexler, Richmond.... and Sprewell. I honeslty can't think of a single shooting guard who is currently playing as well as any of those guys did in their respective primes. Obviously Harden and Wade are up there, but I'll take prime Sprewell or Richmond over either of them right now (though Harden may get better and Wade's past play has obviously been much higher).

The league has a lot of great point guards and a lot of great SFs. It is kind of weak at the rest of the positions, though some of the young guys may develop into something special.



We are very lucky to see some really talented players like KD and LBJ and CP3, and I think Anthony Davis has the potential to be as good as Duncan, which is high praise, but I don't see the kind of depth that was in the league in the late 90's/early 80's.


That said, it is hard to compare. The league has changed a LOT. Jordan/Pippen/Jackson change how the game was played. Before that, most teams were very rigid in the idea that the point guard would handle the ball, and since then, the league has changed dramatically. We've seen the rise of combo guards like Iverson and then later Rose and Westy. We've seen more teams run plays through wing guys (sf/sg) like LBJ, PP, Kobe, Harden, Wade, T-Mac, Manu.

It is hard to compare a point guard like Stockton, Hardaway or Johnson with Westy, because they don't play the same position in that the point guard is not used as it once was universally.


Also, it's hard to compare bigs. Advanced stats have impacted coaching more than coaches will admit. The three point shot and wing play has become more important than ever, and rule changes have facilitated this shift. So we don't see coaches drop the ball in the post like they did with Hakeem, Malone, Barkley and the like. So while a C like Gortat might be able to post 24/11 a game, no coach is going to give him that many shots because 3-point shots are more efficient, or driving the lane where a foul can be drawn and an extra point can be earned. As a result, you can't really compare Noah with Mourning. The game just isn't the same. Even if we got another Hakeem.... he would never post scoring numbers like Hakeem did in the 80's/90's. And the shift means that post guys will never develop the kind of offensive game that Hakeem or D-Rob had because it won't be important enough to develop.

Hawkeye15
09-18-2014, 09:48 AM
No. The parity in the NBA absolutely sucks

There are only three legit championship contending teams in the NBA: Cavs, Thunder, and Spurs

Atlanta was the 8th seed last year 6 GAMES UNDER .500!

There are a lot of star players who refuse to play defense or suck at defense (Melo, Love, Harden, Blake, Curry) who can't carry their teams on the offensive end anyhow (except maybe for Curry)

when the hell was there every parity? Since 1980, how many teams have won it? Sure you get a Sixers and Mavs team sprinkled in once, a Rockets team twice, a Pistons and Miami team three times, and then what? 4 teams winning everything else. In 34 years, only 4 teams have combined for a total of 25 championships.

Parity? It has never really been there...

you are griping about the 8th seeds? Remember 85-86'? 5 playoff teams under .500 for example. No defense for the stars? Did you watch the 80's? Who did Nique ever guard? Magic?

The NBA is the same old, same old. The only differences now are the social media aspect, and the way free agency has grown in the NBA, along with the salaries.

Same old ****, different day.

Hawkeye15
09-18-2014, 09:54 AM
I'd say maybe a golden age of SF's.

I think LBJ and KD will go down as the two best SFs the league has seen since its inception until now. They will have an edge on Bird because they will have longer careers (barring injury).

But past that, I don't see much of a 'golden age'.

There is not one center in the league today that would have made the All-NBA team between the mid-80's and mid 90's.

As for power forward, nobody in the league today has played at a level as high as Barley, Malone, Garnett and Duncan (though Blake has the potential to pull even with Barkley or Malone, and if Love can start playing defence, he may be able to as well).

As for point guards, CP3 is the only guy in my book who is going to be a top-10 all-time point guard in the league (maybe Curry), as opposed to the 80's and 90's that saw guys like Magic, Stockton, Thomas, and later Nash and Kidd. This is a league where Hardaway and Kevin Johnson struggled to make an All-NBA team.

As for shooting guards..... the 90's had Jordan, Drexler, Richmond.... and Sprewell. I honeslty can't think of a single shooting guard who is currently playing as well as any of those guys did in their respective primes. Obviously Harden and Wade are up there, but I'll take prime Sprewell or Richmond over either of them right now (though Harden may get better and Wade's past play has obviously been much higher).

The league has a lot of great point guards and a lot of great SFs. It is kind of weak at the rest of the positions, though some of the young guys may develop into something special.



We are very lucky to see some really talented players like KD and LBJ and CP3, and I think Anthony Davis has the potential to be as good as Duncan, which is high praise, but I don't see the kind of depth that was in the league in the late 90's/early 80's.


That said, it is hard to compare. The league has changed a LOT. Jordan/Pippen/Jackson change how the game was played. Before that, most teams were very rigid in the idea that the point guard would handle the ball, and since then, the league has changed dramatically. We've seen the rise of combo guards like Iverson and then later Rose and Westy. We've seen more teams run plays through wing guys (sf/sg) like LBJ, PP, Kobe, Harden, Wade, T-Mac, Manu.

It is hard to compare a point guard like Stockton, Hardaway or Johnson with Westy, because they don't play the same position in that the point guard is not used as it once was universally.


Also, it's hard to compare bigs. Advanced stats have impacted coaching more than coaches will admit. The three point shot and wing play has become more important than ever, and rule changes have facilitated this shift. So we don't see coaches drop the ball in the post like they did with Hakeem, Malone, Barkley and the like. So while a C like Gortat might be able to post 24/11 a game, no coach is going to give him that many shots because 3-point shots are more efficient, or driving the lane where a foul can be drawn and an extra point can be earned. As a result, you can't really compare Noah with Mourning. The game just isn't the same. Even if we got another Hakeem.... he would never post scoring numbers like Hakeem did in the 80's/90's. And the shift means that post guys will never develop the kind of offensive game that Hakeem or D-Rob had because it won't be important enough to develop.

zone defense and rule changes have led to an adjustment in the league. No doubt.

HandsOnTheWheel
09-18-2014, 10:21 AM
I'm sorry but early 2000s anyone??

Kobe, SHAQ, Garnett, Duncan, Pierce, Ray, Vince, McGrady, Iverson, rookie Melo and Lebron, young Wade, Yao, Billups, Francis, Kidd, Kmart, Webber, Peja, Parker, Ginobili, Pau, Big Ben, Sheed, Dirk, Old Reggie, Baron, Jermaine, injured Hill and Penny, Nash, Marion, Stoudemire, Artest, wizards Jordan, Zo

Rookie Scalabrine..

Thats an absurd amount of TALENT. Not to mention you have prime/peak Shaq, Duncan (top 10 all time), Garnett...prime McGrady, Iverson, Kobe, VC.. rookie Lebron, Wade. That trumps prime Durant and Lebron.

I think (actually I am certain, but don't want to sound arrogant) early 2000s star power blows today's out of the water..and is equal to the 90s and 80s mentioned earlier.


I will agree that the disparity is better, as in you can have a full starting lineup of 5 good players, and that the role players are better..lottssts of solid talent today, but not as many studs.

So in that sense its a golden age, but star players are important, and we lack actually good ones nowadays. Watching the western conference feels like golden age if ur more than just a casual watcher..
I think this will be a fun season.
Totally agree with this.

HandsOnTheWheel
09-18-2014, 10:33 AM
What does that even mean? Nobody? I think you're seriously, seriously underrating the talent in the league today and are living a bit in the past. Chris Paul is easily a top 10 all-time PG and on his way to cracking the top 5. Duncan, Parker and Manu still have the Spurs playing at a freakishly high level. And the talent at PG and PF is just insanely high between Curry, Westbrook, Lowry, Dragic, Irving, Lillard, Wall, etc. and Love, Griffin, Davis, Aldridge and Dirk. Hell, I would argue that those two positions might be the most stacked they've ever been in the history of the league.
Chris Paul is overrated imo. Also I'm referring to superstars, not all-stars.


Just because we don't have the Lakers and Celtics playing at a high level doesn't mean we don't have rivalries. There are teams that genuinely do not like each other, especially in the Western Conference, which is as deep and as talented as it's ever been. And with the East getting a boost this offseason, we should see a lot more competitive play in that conference this season.
More so the player's rivalries than teams. These guys are all buddies and I feel like the competitiveness is at an all time low. Guys like Kobe and KG. They are totally nonexistent in today's game. The nba culture landscape has gone completely passive.

Hawkeye15
09-18-2014, 10:36 AM
I'm sorry but early 2000s anyone??

Kobe, SHAQ, Garnett, Duncan, Pierce, Ray, Vince, McGrady, Iverson, rookie Melo and Lebron, young Wade, Yao, Billups, Francis, Kidd, Kmart, Webber, Peja, Parker, Ginobili, Pau, Big Ben, Sheed, Dirk, Old Reggie, Baron, Jermaine, injured Hill and Penny, Nash, Marion, Stoudemire, Artest, wizards Jordan, Zo

Rookie Scalabrine..

Thats an absurd amount of TALENT. Not to mention you have prime/peak Shaq, Duncan (top 10 all time), Garnett...prime McGrady, Iverson, Kobe, VC.. rookie Lebron, Wade. That trumps prime Durant and Lebron.

I think (actually I am certain, but don't want to sound arrogant) early 2000s star power blows today's out of the water..and is equal to the 90s and 80s mentioned earlier.


I will agree that the disparity is better, as in you can have a full starting lineup of 5 good players, and that the role players are better..lottssts of solid talent today, but not as many studs.

So in that sense its a golden age, but star players are important, and we lack actually good ones nowadays. Watching the western conference feels like golden age if ur more than just a casual watcher..
I think this will be a fun season.

yes!

Hawkeye15
09-18-2014, 10:37 AM
More so the player's rivalries than teams. These guys are all buddies and I feel like the competitiveness is at an all time low. Guys like Kobe and KG. They are totally nonexistent in today's game. The nba culture landscape has gone completely passive.

you are not going to like the future of sports....

mightybosstone
09-18-2014, 11:13 AM
Chris Paul is overrated imo. Also I'm referring to superstars, not all-stars.
How is he overrated? And "superstar" is the most overused word in sports. What the hell does it even mean? Top 5 player? Top 10 player? Marketable? Scoring? Two-way player? It doesn't mean anything. But when I look at the league today, I see a ridiculous amount of young talent. The talent is distributed differently and there are fewer elite centers, so we may not have an Hakeem or a Shaq. But we've got some Gary Paytons, some Charles Barkleys and even a couple of Michael Jordans.

(And no, I'm not saying those players are exactly like Payton, Barkley or Jordan or necessarily as talented. Just making a general observation comparing the 90s to today.)


More so the player's rivalries than teams. These guys are all buddies and I feel like the competitiveness is at an all time low. Guys like Kobe and KG. They are totally nonexistent in today's game. The nba culture landscape has gone completely passive.
I'll admit that the NBA culture has become more passive, but I think that's a byproduct of Stern cleaning up the behavior on and off the court in his tenure. If you've got guys wearing suits to and from games and you're treating them like employees, they're naturally going to act more professional. But you're never going to take animosity or rivalry out of this league and we've had some really great rivalries over the years.

The problem with rivalries is that they're just not lasting that long because of how much players change teams and because of injuries. The Lakers and Celtics had a solid rivalry there in the late 2000s, but both teams got old. The Cavs had rivalries with the Pistons and Celtics, but the Pistons got old and then Lebron changed teams. Then the Heat were poised to have a great rivalry with Chicago, but Rose's injuries screwed that up. The Heat/Pacers rivalry was a pretty good one, too, but then Lebron switched teams again. Miami and San Antonio could have been a great rivalry if Wade hadn't fallen off so much and Lebron had stayed in Miami.

But I think there are some really solid budding rivalries in the West that have potential to get really, really good in the next 5-10 years between teams like OKC, the Clippers, Houston, Golden State and Portland. If those rosters stay together for a while, we're going to see some really intense playoff basketball in that conference for the next decade. And now that Lebron is back in Cleveland, I think the Cavs are going to have some pretty heated games with Chicago, Miami and Indiana (once George gets back).

meloman1592
09-18-2014, 11:17 AM
Yea whatever but LOL at Durant being top 10 all time. I mean it's possible but slow your roll

ThuglifeJ
09-18-2014, 11:45 AM
MBT don't play like you don't understand 'superstar'. There is a hierarchy of players in sports. Superstar is a term for the elite, dominant players. All stars are not dominant. Lebron is a superstar, Damian Lillard is an All-star. One is clearly better than the other and in a different hierarchy no offense to Dame.

And I hate to say this, and not trying to troll but are you just acting like it's a dumb term because harden and Dwight fit in the all star category and not superstar?

TheIlladelph16
09-18-2014, 12:05 PM
MBT don't play like you don't understand 'superstar'. There is a hierarchy of players in sports. Superstar is a term for the elite, dominant players. All stars are not dominant. Lebron is a superstar, Damian Lillard is an All-star. One is clearly better than the other and in a different hierarchy no offense to Dame.

And I hate to say this, and not trying to troll but are you just acting like it's a dumb term because harden and Dwight fit in the all star category and not superstar?

"Not trying to troll, but...." is usually followed by a troll statement. Thanks for keeping with the tradition.

A label such as "Superstar" is largely subjective. Some people view Chris Paul as a Superstar, others don't. There is no definitive definition. That's all he meant.

Hawkeye15
09-18-2014, 12:58 PM
"Not trying to troll, but...." is usually followed by a troll statement. Thanks for keeping with the tradition.

A label such as "Superstar" is largely subjective. Some people view Chris Paul as a Superstar, others don't. There is no definitive definition. That's all he meant.


exactly. For me personally, a superstar is a player that can be put on any team and make them good. There are rarely more than 3-5 players in any given year that fit that criteria. LeBron, and Durant are the only for sure ones right now, and you can make a case for Paul I suppose, only because he has done it in the past. But could he still?

mightybosstone
09-18-2014, 12:58 PM
"Not trying to troll, but...." is usually followed by a troll statement. Thanks for keeping with the tradition.

A label such as "Superstar" is largely subjective. Some people view Chris Paul as a Superstar, others don't. There is no definitive definition. That's all he meant.

:nod: If I were to ask 10 NBA fans to give me a list of every player in the league they felt were superstars, I'm probably getting 10 different lists. There is no set criteria and it means nothing. Some guys are great scorers, but suck at defense (Harden, Love, Curry, Melo, Cousins, Jefferson). Some guys are really good two-way players, but aren't elite on either end of the floor (George, Aldridge, Dragic, Lowry). Some guys are elite defensive players who are good at pretty much everything but don't provide much scoring (Noah, Gasol). And some guys are super sound fundamentally, but aren't particularly sexy or marketable (Duncan, Davis).

"Superstar" means nothing. It's a lazy word for people who can't take the time to say what they really mean. If you're trying to refer to a player that is arguably a top 5 guy or a top 10 guy, then say that. If you're trying to say that a player has the potential to be historically great or that he's an elite player at his position, than say that as well.

ThuglifeJ
09-18-2014, 01:00 PM
:nod: If I were to ask 10 NBA fans to give me a list of every player in the league they felt were superstars, I'm probably getting 10 different lists. There is no set criteria and it means nothing. Some guys are great scorers, but suck at defense (Harden, Love, Curry, Melo, Cousins, Jefferson). Some guys are really good two-way players, but aren't elite on either end of the floor (George, Aldridge, Dragic, Lowry). Some guys are elite defensive players who are good at pretty much everything but don't provide much scoring (Noah, Gasol). And some guys are super sound fundamentally, but aren't particularly sexy or marketable (Duncan, Davis).

"Superstar" means nothing. It's a lazy word for people who can't take the time to say what they really mean. If you're trying to refer to a player that is arguably a top 5 guy or a top 10 guy, then say that. If you're trying to say that a player has the potential to be historically great or that he's an elite player at his position, than say that as well.

I disagree. Personally I'd rather use the team 'Elite of elite' over Superstar, but it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that Lebron and Durant are the only two who fit this elite of elite/historically great/superstar category in today's league.

mightybosstone
09-18-2014, 01:10 PM
I disagree. Personally I'd rather use the team 'Elite of elite' over Superstar, but it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that Lebron and Durant are the only two who fit this elite of elite/historically great/superstar category in today's league.

Why doesn't Chris Paul belong in that category? He's been in the top four in WS/48 in six of the last seven seasons and finished in the top 7 in MVP voting like five times in the last seven years. He's fourth in career WS/48, second in career AST%, third in career APG and sixth in career PER. He made six All-NBA teams, including three consecutive All-NBA 1st selections, six All-Defensive teams, also including three consecutive first-team selections.

By what my definition of what "superstar" would be, Paul would absolutely make the cut. He should be in the same conversation as Lebron and Durant.

Jamiecballer
09-18-2014, 01:37 PM
i definitely don't agree. there are a handful of all time greats that are playing, the guys who really "get it", guys like James, Durant, Paul, possibly Curry but other than that we are not seeing very good basketball.

Hawkeye15
09-18-2014, 02:05 PM
Why doesn't Chris Paul belong in that category? He's been in the top four in WS/48 in six of the last seven seasons and finished in the top 7 in MVP voting like five times in the last seven years. He's fourth in career WS/48, second in career AST%, third in career APG and sixth in career PER. He made six All-NBA teams, including three consecutive All-NBA 1st selections, six All-Defensive teams, also including three consecutive first-team selections.

By what my definition of what "superstar" would be, Paul would absolutely make the cut. He should be in the same conversation as Lebron and Durant.

just playing devils advocate, but do you think if you removed Blake from the Clippers, that team could still make the playoffs? Like I mentioned above (and I have a rigid definition of superstar), I only consider someone that if you can put them on a crappy team and that team automatically becomes a legit playoff team, or better. Paul absolutely was a superstar for a few years in New Orleans. Is he still?

he may very well be, I just don't know if he is as good anymore. Dwight the same. For me, there are 2 superstars right now. Paul slides jussssst below those 2.

mightybosstone
09-18-2014, 08:34 PM
just playing devils advocate, but do you think if you removed Blake from the Clippers, that team could still make the playoffs? Like I mentioned above (and I have a rigid definition of superstar), I only consider someone that if you can put them on a crappy team and that team automatically becomes a legit playoff team, or better. Paul absolutely was a superstar for a few years in New Orleans. Is he still?

he may very well be, I just don't know if he is as good anymore. Dwight the same. For me, there are 2 superstars right now. Paul slides jussssst below those 2.

Yeah, I do think he could take that Clippers team to the playoffs without Blake, assuming you replaced Blake with an average starting PF. West was the best teammate he ever had in New Orleans and that Clippers team is pretty deep even without Blake. Also, while Paul isn't the same guy he was at his peak in New Orleans, he isn't that far removed from being that guy. In fact, his Per 36 minutes stats last season were practically identical to his per 36 stats in 08 and 09, easily his two best seasons.

I do think you're right in that Paul is the clear, distant third after Lebron and Durant. But I also think Paul is the clear choice as the league's third best guy and there isn't a super close fourth option.

Hawkeye15
09-18-2014, 10:45 PM
Yeah, I do think he could take that Clippers team to the playoffs without Blake, assuming you replaced Blake with an average starting PF. West was the best teammate he ever had in New Orleans and that Clippers team is pretty deep even without Blake.

right, but do you think CP3 is that same player, impact wise? And trust me, I am a stats guy, but the eyeball test, do you see the same player? I don't. But, it's speculation on both our parts, which is why I asked...


Also, while Paul isn't the same guy he was at his peak in New Orleans, he isn't that far removed from being that guy. In fact, his Per 36 minutes stats last season were practically identical to his per 36 stats in 08 and 09, easily his two best seasons.

those are the stats I don't favor too much, the per minute ones (even though all stats are measured on possession basis, kinda hypocritical of me haha). I am not sure his body could deal with having to carry that load anymore.


I do think you're right in that Paul is the clear, distant third after Lebron and Durant. But I also think Paul is the clear choice as the league's third best guy and there isn't a super close fourth option.

yep, though I think Anthony Davis might just leapfrog the crap out of a bunch of players and move near that this year. He is so ready for elite status dude.

NYKalltheway
09-19-2014, 03:59 PM
It's not even better than the 60s and 70s, so hell no.

JEDean89
09-20-2014, 03:22 PM
just playing devils advocate, but do you think if you removed Blake from the Clippers, that team could still make the playoffs? Like I mentioned above (and I have a rigid definition of superstar), I only consider someone that if you can put them on a crappy team and that team automatically becomes a legit playoff team, or better. Paul absolutely was a superstar for a few years in New Orleans. Is he still?

he may very well be, I just don't know if he is as good anymore. Dwight the same. For me, there are 2 superstars right now. Paul slides jussssst below those 2.

dude, you think you can just drop your opinion of what a superstar is, which is by no means what people define a superstar to be and that proves any sort of point? you do realize that chris paul led those relatively weak NO teams out of the 1st round right? You realize that there probably isn't a player in the game that could make the 76ers a playoff team or better right? We have never seen LBJ play with absolutely minimal talent. Like Melo's Knicks level of talent or the Kings level of talent. A superstar doesn't have a definition but if your definition of superstar in todays game doesn't include Chris Paul then it is a wrong definition. By your definition there are no superstars.

Chris Paul is a Superstar, a healthy Kobe is a superstar, a healthy Wade is too. Melo, Paul, Love are all on their best days Superstars. There has to be a distinguishing term between Star's and really really good stars like Melo, Harden etc... Paul has had the unfortunate circumstance of never playing in the Eastern conference (like LBJ) and never having a team that was truly a contender (like LBJ, like Durant, like Kobe). If the Clips win next year with Paul as their best player do you think it will be because Paul got that much better or the rest of the Clips team got that much better? I don't think there is any debate.

Vee-Rex
09-20-2014, 04:05 PM
dude, you think you can just drop your opinion of what a superstar is, which is by no means what people define a superstar to be and that proves any sort of point? you do realize that chris paul led those relatively weak NO teams out of the 1st round right? You realize that there probably isn't a player in the game that could make the 76ers a playoff team or better right? We have never seen LBJ play with absolutely minimal talent. Like Melo's Knicks level of talent or the Kings level of talent. A superstar doesn't have a definition but if your definition of superstar in todays game doesn't include Chris Paul then it is a wrong definition. By your definition there are no superstars.

Chris Paul is a Superstar, a healthy Kobe is a superstar, a healthy Wade is too. Melo, Paul, Love are all on their best days Superstars. There has to be a distinguishing term between Star's and really really good stars like Melo, Harden etc... Paul has had the unfortunate circumstance of never playing in the Eastern conference (like LBJ) and never having a team that was truly a contender (like LBJ, like Durant, like Kobe). If the Clips win next year with Paul as their best player do you think it will be because Paul got that much better or the rest of the Clips team got that much better? I don't think there is any debate.

:laugh:

2007 Cavs roster that made the finals:

Shannon Brown
Daniel Gibson
Drew Gooden
Larry Hughes
Zydrunas Ilgauskas
Damon Jones
Dwayne Jones
Donyell Marshall
Ira Newble
Sasha Pavlovic
Eric Snow
Anderson Varejao
David Wesley

mightybosstone
09-20-2014, 04:14 PM
It's not even better than the 60s and 70s, so hell no.

If you think this, you're truly delusional. Today's best players would absolutely crush the best players from 40 and 50 years ago.

Hawkeye15
09-20-2014, 04:15 PM
[QUOTE=JEDean89;29056502]dude, you think you can just drop your opinion of what a superstar is, which is by no means what people define a superstar to be and that proves any sort of point?

Huh? When did I say my opinion of what a superstar is needs to be yours? I am giving my view. You can have yours..


you do realize that chris paul led those relatively weak NO teams out of the 1st round right?

Right. 3 years ago. That is my point. Paul was absolutely a superstar by my personal definition in NO. But is he still? His Clippers team didn't miss a beat basically when he went down, and I just don't know if he could still be one of the very few guys to lead any team to the playoffs, and be a one man wrecking crew.


You realize that there probably isn't a player in the game that could make the 76ers a playoff team or better right?


Probably not, cause Hinkie would trade them away immediately because they are messing up his rebuilding plan


We have never seen LBJ play with absolutely minimal talent.

actually we saw that for 5 years, close to all 7 in Cleveland...


Like Melo's Knicks level of talent or the Kings level of talent. A superstar doesn't have a definition but if your definition of superstar in todays game doesn't include Chris Paul then it is a wrong definition. By your definition there are no superstars.

A superstar can elevate any team to a playoff team. LeBron and Durant are the only 2 I currently see. Again, you can have your own definition. I am not asking you to have mine, not sure why you think I am.


Chris Paul is a Superstar, a healthy Kobe is a superstar, a healthy Wade is too.

I already said, Paul is on the fence for me, because I don't know if he can do what is required to do in MY definition. Kobe and Wade are not healthy, and well past their primes. This isn't a "what if" scenario. You either are, or you are not.


Melo, Paul, Love are all on their best days Superstars. There has to be a distinguishing term between Star's and really really good stars like Melo, Harden etc... Paul has had the unfortunate circumstance of never playing in the Eastern conference (like LBJ) and never having a team that was truly a contender (like LBJ, like Durant, like Kobe). If the Clips win next year with Paul as their best player do you think it will be because Paul got that much better or the rest of the Clips team got that much better? I don't think there is any debate.

there are obviously levels of how good a player is. You can be an all star, or a perennial all star, or an all NBA player, or a superstar. There are all sorts of levels. I just have a very strict definition of superstar. There aren't many superstars in the league in any given year. Usually a very few only. Then you get the guys like Love, Harden, Dwight, Blake, who are all NBA players. Then you get the all stars. Then you get the very good starters. Then the good starters. Then the average starters. So on, and so on.

Bruno
09-20-2014, 04:52 PM
not for defense.

Jamiecballer
09-20-2014, 05:10 PM
The amount of athleticism is unquestionably off the charts, best its ever been. Fundamentally sound basketball - probably never been worse. The basketball purist in me isn't satisfied but I can see why some enjoy it more.

JEDean89
09-20-2014, 05:15 PM
I am not saying you are holding other people to your definition. where do i say that? i'm saying you are holding players to your own made up definition and stating it as fact. reference your closing argument saying that there aren't many superstars. my point is that you making up a definition of superstars to defend your argument that there are no superstars makes your whole argument invalid. Usually, in the media and most fan based discussion I have read on this site there is little to no distinction between an All-NBA 1st or 2nd team player and a Superstar. The occasions when there is a distinction is with someone like Gasol, Chandler or Noah who get in because of how weak the C position is.

Now the 07 Cavs team went to the finals, true. They were a 50 win team though (good enough for 2nd place in that atrocious conference, would have been 7th seeded in the west this year) and clearly weren't anything special. They beat a weak 41 win Wizards, 41 win Nets and 53 win Piston team and yes Lebron carried them, but that team that year is the one example and those playoff opponents are a joke. You are referencing LBJ's play 7 tears ago and then saying that Pauls play 3 years ago doesn't mean anything? Paul has played as good of ball as he has ever played on the Clipps. For CLE the 08-09 team won more games than any of the MIA teams did. LBJ did not just elevate the srubs higher than those stacked MIA teams, clearly there were numerous guys playing good ball. His teams weren't great in that they didn't have another star but they had well balanced role playing talent. In the supremely weak Eastern Conference, this is not a historical feat, especially considering they got obliterated in the finals. But yes, if there is one guy who can elevate a team to the playoffs and beyond single handedly it was 06-07 LBJ, he was phenomenal that year.

YesMcCann
09-20-2014, 05:28 PM
Absolutely not. The talent level is nowhere near the last great peak, which ended in the mid-90s. The lack of skilled bigs, the lack of competition in an entire conference for over a decade... Come on, now. Golden age? There is potential out there, sure, but it's nowhere near being fully realized.

Hawkeye15
09-20-2014, 08:49 PM
not for defense.

then you missed the 80's haha

NYKalltheway
09-21-2014, 05:45 AM
If you think this, you're truly delusional. Today's best players would absolutely crush the best players from 40 and 50 years ago.

How?
They are less talented but more athletic.
Bring the guys from 40 and 50 years ago in the 21st century and they'd be as talented as they were and almost as athletic as the others. Bring the modern guys 40 or 50 years back and they're be as talented as they are and lose almost all of their athleticism.

60s and 70s >>>> 2010s

BALLER R
09-21-2014, 09:25 AM
The talent around the league is becoming more balanced. Give it a couple more years and there should be a a lot of really good teams.

valade16
09-21-2014, 09:52 AM
If we made a top 10 list of the best players in the league for these random seasons:

2014
2001
1989
1977
1967

Which one would be the best? What if it was a top 100? Which year would the 100th guy be the best.

TheCatch
09-21-2014, 02:06 PM
If we made a top 10 list of the best players in the league for these random seasons:

2014
2001
1989
1977
1967

Which one would be the best? What if it was a top 100? Which year would the 100th guy be the best.


It would be the 1989 era or year.

Jordan, Magic, Robinson, Mullin, Ewing, Barkley, Pippen, Wilkins, Isiah, Drexler. Also the depth would be the greatest as well in this era. I didn't even get to dominant players like Bird, McHale, Kevin Johnson, Joe Dumars, Rodman, Ron Harper, M. Price, Worthy... The list can really go about 100 deep of great all star level players. Oh, and Stockton and Malone. I almost forgot about them. A point guard that averaged 17 and 15 with 3 steals per game on 58% shooting. A PF that averaged 31ppg 11 rebounds 2 steals and 3 assist.

TheCatch
09-21-2014, 02:09 PM
The talent around the league is becoming more balanced. Give it a couple more years and there should be a a lot of really good teams.

This is exactly what a lot of Eastern conference fans that are younger have been saying each year for the last 7 or 8 years.

"give it a couple years" "It's real balanced now"

TheCatch
09-21-2014, 02:18 PM
How?
They are less talented but more athletic.
Bring the guys from 40 and 50 years ago in the 21st century and they'd be as talented as they were and almost as athletic as the others. Bring the modern guys 40 or 50 years back and they're be as talented as they are and lose almost all of their athleticism.

60s and 70s >>>> 2010s

They're not more athletic today.

It may appear that way to the novice viewer because the rims bend way down now when players dunk also the rims the back then were 10'1 because the league didn't want as many players bending the rim down. So they'd stiffin it up and sit it higher.


Loser rims today also help with long jumpers "getting the bounce" and dropping.

There aren't athletes like Russell, Chamberlain, Robertson (strong), Barry, Hawkins, Gus Johnson, David Thompson, Julius Erving, Gervin, Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Loser rims today also help with long jumpers "getting the bounce" and dropping.

ThuglifeJ
09-21-2014, 03:17 PM
How?
They are less talented but more athletic.
Bring the guys from 40 and 50 years ago in the 21st century and they'd be as talented as they were and almost as athletic as the others. Bring the modern guys 40 or 50 years back and they're be as talented as they are and lose almost all of their athleticism.

60s and 70s >>>> 2010s

They're not more athletic today.

It may appear that way to the novice viewer because the rims bend way down now when players dunk also the rims the back then were 10'1 because the league didn't want as many players bending the rim down. So they'd stiffin it up and sit it higher.


Loser rims today also help with long jumpers "getting the bounce" and dropping.

There aren't athletes like Russell, Chamberlain, Robertson (strong), Barry, Hawkins, Gus Johnson, David Thompson, Julius Erving, Gervin, Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Loser rims today also help with long jumpers "getting the bounce" and dropping.

Lol. Lebron James, Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant are/were more athletic than any past wing players to ever play and just as athletic as Jordan, Pippen, Kemp...

Dwight Howard (even tho not as good), Kevin Garnett, Blake Griffin, Anthony Davis, heck even Deandre Jordan were more athletic then any past bigs to ever play except maybe Chamberlain because he did more than basketball. You can argue Thompson and Russell if you want but only in terms of leaping ability they were bones compared to more modern athletes.

Oh and guys like Allen Iverson, Rondo, even Eric Bledsoe are way more athletic than past point guards.

ESPECIALLY 60s man...I'm not saying their better but in terms if athleticism....

You need to move on from the past.

TheCatch
09-21-2014, 03:43 PM
Lol. Lebron James, Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant are/were more athletic than any past wing players to ever play and just as athletic as Jordan, Pippen, Kemp...

Dwight Howard (even tho not as good), Kevin Garnett, Blake Griffin, Anthony Davis, heck even Deandre Jordan were more athletic then any past bigs to ever play except maybe Chamberlain because he did more than basketball. You can argue Thompson and Russell if you want but only in terms of leaping ability they were bones compared to more modern athletes.

Oh and guys like Allen Iverson, Rondo, even Eric Bledsoe are way more athletic than past point guards.

ESPECIALLY 60s man...I'm not saying their better but in terms if athleticism....

You need to move on from the past.


This is where you're completely wrong buddy. This is where your understanding of the game is off.

If DeAndre Jordan was a highly skilled player in the post and the Clippers went to him 35 times in the post to see what they could get and he took a phyiscal beating everynight. He would have to conserve some energy to play well in the game. He would not be able to get as many dunks as he does now because he'd have to conserve his energy and also he'd have better defense on him every night.
If someone like David Robinson only was a dunker and the Spurs never went to him but like 5 times a game and he rarely had much defensive attention around him then he could concentrate solely on dunking and wowing the crowd. He would also have more energy to dunk because he wouldn't be taking a beating in the post every night.


Vince, Bryant and James are all great athletes. The rim does bend down way more today and back then it wasn't seen as a big deal to dunk. But make no mistake about it. The Late 60's and 70's had plenty of high flyers. Many would often just get a nice dunk and conserve energy because players back then played about 45 minutes per game every night. Also if you got injured that was pretty much it for your career. They didn't have the long guaranteed contracts back then. David Thompson was only 6'4, but could grab a dollar off the top of the backboard. Julius could dunk from the foul line.
James honestly can't do either. Nothing against James, he's just not the athlete that Julius or Sky Walker were. Nothing against him, it's just a fact. No reason to hold his head down.

As for Vince. He had a nice under the legs dunk and that is what put him on the map. He also had the FASTER version of what had been done many times of the windmill 360. They did it in the 80's but was slower and more elongated on purpose because that was seen as better looking and more style to be smooth.
Vince just did it fast and hyped it up after he dunked. Even Kenny Smith went on about that saying the dunk was great, but it was really the hype after it that people liked at the contest. At least at that time they liked the hype. In the 80's it wasn't seen as cool or smooth to hype yourself after a dunk.

ThuglifeJ
09-21-2014, 07:55 PM
This is where you're completely wrong buddy. This is where your understanding of the game is off.

If DeAndre Jordan was a highly skilled player in the post and the Clippers went to him 35 times in the post to see what they could get and he took a phyiscal beating everynight. He would have to conserve some energy to play well in the game. He would not be able to get as many dunks as he does now because he'd have to conserve his energy and also he'd have better defense on him every night.
If someone like David Robinson only was a dunker and the Spurs never went to him but like 5 times a game and he rarely had much defensive attention around him then he could concentrate solely on dunking and wowing the crowd. He would also have more energy to dunk because he wouldn't be taking a beating in the post every night.


Vince, Bryant and James are all great athletes. The rim does bend down way more today and back then it wasn't seen as a big deal to dunk. But make no mistake about it. The Late 60's and 70's had plenty of high flyers. Many would often just get a nice dunk and conserve energy because players back then played about 45 minutes per game every night. Also if you got injured that was pretty much it for your career. They didn't have the long guaranteed contracts back then. David Thompson was only 6'4, but could grab a dollar off the top of the backboard. Julius could dunk from the foul line.
James honestly can't do either. Nothing against James, he's just not the athlete that Julius or Sky Walker were. Nothing against him, it's just a fact. No reason to hold his head down.

Look I don't like James and I think his skillset is overrated, but he is by far more athletic than past players...he can't jump off two feet all that well but the dude can get up and down the court with speed and power and leap better than any of these guys in the 80s or earlier could..if you saw current Lebron in an 80s game, it'd look like an alien or robot because he's that much more athletic than all of them..It's just athleticism..it doesn't make a player, but it is indeed something that improves over time whether you like it or not (apparently not). Don't know why you care so much. Dr J might be more graceful but there's more to athleticism than that.

As for Vince. He had a nice under the legs dunk and that is what put him on the map. He also had the FASTER version of what had been done many times of the windmill 360. They did it in the 80's but was slower and more elongated on purpose because that was seen as better looking and more style to be smooth.
Vince just did it fast and hyped it up after he dunked. Even Kenny Smith went on about that saying the dunk was great, but it was really the hype after it that people liked at the contest. At least at that time they liked the hype. In the 80's it wasn't seen as cool or smooth to hype yourself after a dunk.
What? No, it didn't. He already had a lot of buzz through college/rookie season, the dunk contest AS A WHOLE put his name in the limelight. His popularity exploded because the whole thing was legendary. Not just the between the legs or 360..and the 360 was never done before at all in anyway similiar to that. You sound obnoxiously bitter about the fact your favorite times are over...but to make claims like this is just dumb. The 80s contests were great, the Jordan vs Niques were great contests, but VC's was the best ever in case you have been stubbornly living under this rock of yours... It's okay to defend things from the past but not obvious blunders like this

--

TheCatch
09-21-2014, 08:33 PM
Jordan and Nique's contest was by far the best weirdo.

You're just saying Vinces because that was the first one you watched and it was the most watched one. Being that many many more Americans were getting cable tv by then.

The Jordan and Nique several were only viewed by probabbly 1/10th the amount of people.

Vince jumped high and had in mind exactly what he wanted to do. But had the contest been 5 more dunks he would've faltered some. Because he has his 3-4 in mind that he wanted to do and he practiced those up and rehearsed them completely.

Jordan and Wilkins both said they never plan what they are going to do. They both said they only wing it. That to me shows more talent.

As for Lebron playing in the 80's lets say.

He jumps a lot like Prime Karl Malone did, with a little mix of Clyde. But really more Malone. He's a slightly smaller version of Malone that fucuses and puts more attention of dunks and playing like a guard. They are similar and Prime Malone would be able to work him pretty well. Those guys were very competitive back then and would look accross at their contemparies and counterparts to see what they're doing and see how big and strong they're getting or how high they're jumping.

James would be there around 27 a game at the SF. A big SF, he'd be and many of the PF's would think to rough him up back then. PF's don't really think like that today. And James would want nothing to do with the Centers at all back then or the PF's . James has trouble scoring inside on Tim Duncan who is a throw back center from the 90's but he's 38 years old now. Just use common knowledge and you can see he'd get lose against those players back then just like he loses to Duncan. They just have better understanding of position defense and where to be to get in the way of drivers which lebron is. They also had great timing and handtime back then.

What was the whole saying back then... You know....

"You got to Get UP!!!" That was everywhere man.

"GET TOUGH!!!"

But anyway's Jordan would be at 33ppg roughly like he was pretty much for his prime career
Wilkins around 28 like he was
Malone around 28
then James at about 27.

And the way people look at ppg so much to rate or rank players. This would mean a lot. They would see Malone, Jordan and Wilkins as better players.

James is becoming the most overated player in sporst history. I mean really, it's like people don't even see when he loses with a hand picked team.

FlashBolt
09-21-2014, 11:44 PM
I'm more optimistic this season than past few years for good entertainment... Ages/primes are aligning well among stars right now.

The spurs may have saved the NBA....




Lol at Durant top 10 all time though..slow down on that one


KD is easily going to top 10 with what he's been doing as of late. Slow down, sure. But if he keeps it up for 5 more years, he's hands down top 10...

Not too impressed by present day superstar talent so no. Besides Bron and Durant there's nobody. Besides, rivalries are dead in today's nba.

That era came and went in the past 20-25 years.
Did MJ have a rivalry? Only legitimate rivalry is probably Bird vs Magic - and that was a product of NBA trying to gain new fans. NBA is more talented now than ever and the reason why you don't have 1 super established player is because more teams have 2-3 really good players capable of being the 1st option.

How?
They are less talented but more athletic.
Bring the guys from 40 and 50 years ago in the 21st century and they'd be as talented as they were and almost as athletic as the others. Bring the modern guys 40 or 50 years back and they're be as talented as they are and lose almost all of their athleticism.

60s and 70s >>>> 2010s

This is so dumb... What a horrible analysis. That was arguably one of the weakest eras and certainly not "great". The great players were just well ahead of everyone else and slowly it has been catching up. No way Bob Pettit and his 6"9 205lb frame would survive that beating.. and you're telling me he would be able to take on Dwight - who has 50 lbs of muscle on him? LOL.


This is where you're completely wrong buddy. This is where your understanding of the game is off.

If DeAndre Jordan was a highly skilled player in the post and the Clippers went to him 35 times in the post to see what they could get and he took a phyiscal beating everynight. He would have to conserve some energy to play well in the game. He would not be able to get as many dunks as he does now because he'd have to conserve his energy and also he'd have better defense on him every night.
If someone like David Robinson only was a dunker and the Spurs never went to him but like 5 times a game and he rarely had much defensive attention around him then he could concentrate solely on dunking and wowing the crowd. He would also have more energy to dunk because he wouldn't be taking a beating in the post every night.


Vince, Bryant and James are all great athletes. The rim does bend down way more today and back then it wasn't seen as a big deal to dunk. But make no mistake about it. The Late 60's and 70's had plenty of high flyers. Many would often just get a nice dunk and conserve energy because players back then played about 45 minutes per game every night. Also if you got injured that was pretty much it for your career. They didn't have the long guaranteed contracts back then. David Thompson was only 6'4, but could grab a dollar off the top of the backboard. Julius could dunk from the foul line.
James honestly can't do either. Nothing against James, he's just not the athlete that Julius or Sky Walker were. Nothing against him, it's just a fact. No reason to hold his head down.

As for Vince. He had a nice under the legs dunk and that is what put him on the map. He also had the FASTER version of what had been done many times of the windmill 360. They did it in the 80's but was slower and more elongated on purpose because that was seen as better looking and more style to be smooth.
Vince just did it fast and hyped it up after he dunked. Even Kenny Smith went on about that saying the dunk was great, but it was really the hype after it that people liked at the contest. At least at that time they liked the hype. In the 80's it wasn't seen as cool or smooth to hype yourself after a dunk.

LeBron not the athlete... what? Do you know what athletic means? You're talking about finesse. LeBron doesn't have much finesse since his rookie season because he's gotten bigger. Bigger players just aren't supposed to look finesse. LeBron is athletically the most gifted athlete of ALL time. You don't have a body of a center and chase down PG's weighing 80 lbs less than you. I don't know what you're smoking but anyone with a brain has to at least have James on their top 10 athletes without even thinking. James doesn't have a tough time scoring against Duncan.. He has a hard time getting past Diaw/Leonard/Duncan. And LeBron DID dunk from the free throw line before.. You are totally misinformed. To even compare LeBron to Karl Malone? LeBron had his body and he was as quick as Jordan... Karl wasn't QUICK. That's why LeBron is a menacing force. You're telling me players are just weaker and they are all letting LeBron score freely? No, they can't stop him! And athletes don't get worse, they get better. That's like saying technology gets worse and worse... How did you even come up with James getting 27 points while Wilkins gets 28? By your logic, KD is better than MJ. And yes, KD is a better scorer than MJ. Who the hell said scoring = better player? I don't recall anyone saying Melo was the best player last year.

James being overrated is completely subjective. Overrated? Since year 2? Look what he did was he was freaking 19-20 years old averaging 27/7/7. You don't average 27/7/7 for 10 years consistently and then naturally get called an overrated player all while winning MVP's, rings, and countless accolades. If you even watched last year's finals, how could you possibly blame that on LeBron when Spurs 5th best player outplayed Miami's 2nd best player?

You really think Dominique is better than LeBron despite Dominique only getting out of the FIRST ROUND 3x his entire career? Good one.. meanwhile, LeBron led a team which is can be labeled arguably the worst NBA Finals team ever..

TheCatch
09-22-2014, 12:30 AM
You managed to over rate him by saying he's more athletic than Shaq, Jordan, Kemp. He is no where near the freaks of nature these three were NO WHERE CLOSE BUDDY... I could name several more that he is not as fast, quick or jumps as high or far as. Like Julius Erving, Wilt Chamberlain.

You like James because he's a huge POINT GUARD!!!!! That is the only reason you like him.... Take the ball away from him and take his handle and he's an AVERAGE PLAYER. PERIOD!


Is that really the angle you're going to take? You think James took the worst team to the Finals to only be swept embaressly? Ever heard or Jason Kidd and Allen Iverson who led much crappier teams to the Finals in the same crappy East as Lebron. By your logic Jason Kidd and Allen Iverson are better than James and everyone else.

Also what about Moses Malone that led a 41-41 team to the 81 Finals? How bout Patrick Ewing leading the 25 and 25 Knicks to the 99 Finals?

All these players are faster and quicker than James.
Cheeks, Jordan, Pippen, Julius, Barry, Stockton, Payton, Robinson, N. Nixon, Archibald, Drexler, G. Wilkins, Iverson, Parker, D. Harris, M. Ellis, Barkley, Sprewell, Westbrook and many more players

These players are all stronger than James,
Shaq, Robinson, Hakeem, S. Roberts, Barkley, Malone, Kemp, Nowitzki, Garnett, Mahorn, Oakley, McDaniel, Chambers, Chamberlain, Russell, J. McRoberts, P. Ewing, D. Howard, D. Jordan, D. Dawkins. M. Jordan, Longley, and many more

These players all jump higher and dunk better
Chambers, Pippen, Jordan, Wilkins, Chamberlain, Barkley, Kemp, O'neal, Drexler, V. Carter, K. Bryant, J. Erving, David Thompson, D. Dawkins

Mengxing
09-22-2014, 12:34 AM
no :eyebrow: (http://www.thenbajerseystore.com/)

GunFactor187
09-22-2014, 12:39 AM
Nothing can top what had happened in the true "Golden Era" of the NBA, but I do feel like we are in the "Platinum Era" of it though, while it doesn't hold the same luster as it did back in the day we have reached the next evolution of NBA Basketball. Bigger, more agile and athletic players are definitely more prevalent than ever, floor spacing is as crucial as ever, etc.

TheCatch
09-22-2014, 12:57 AM
Nothing can top what had happened in the true "Golden Era" of the NBA, but I do feel like we are in the "Platinum Era" of it though, while it doesn't hold the same luster as it did back in the day we have reached the next evolution of NBA Basketball. Bigger, more agile and athletic players are definitely more prevalent than ever, floor spacing is as crucial as ever, etc.

Nothing you say makes any sense.

You do know the Spurs dominate today just like they did 10 years ago.

Post up ball with guys in their position. Not with 6'11 players masquerading as point guards and not rebounding.

James and Durant are so over rated. Neither rebound at all. Guys their size should average 15 rebounds per game.

Also they can't post up because they have no post skillz or footwork. Most players their size have a post game and can get a basket when needed.

Thank the rulse of today for allowing them to dribble withoug contact on the perimeter. Also thank the VERY LOOSE rims today for the higer three point shooting %.

James and Durant both actually suck. They would get killed by any post up forward from the 80's or 90's. Look at what Tim Duncan did to them this season. Duncan scored at the better rate than them in crunch time against them.

NYKalltheway
09-22-2014, 05:06 AM
This is so dumb... What a horrible analysis. That was arguably one of the weakest eras and certainly not "great". The great players were just well ahead of everyone else and slowly it has been catching up. No way Bob Pettit and his 6"9 205lb frame would survive that beating.. and you're telling me he would be able to take on Dwight - who has 50 lbs of muscle on him? LOL.


thank you for expressing that you didn't get what I said in this manner.

Heatcheck
09-23-2014, 08:37 AM
No we are not....the LeBron left the heat and you can all go **** yourselves.

Bruno
09-23-2014, 03:20 PM
then you missed the 80's haha

haha, i did miss the 80's. caught the later 90's and early 2000's though.

you think our board is young? check out reddit i feel like a grandpa in there.

Punk
09-23-2014, 04:39 PM
I wouldn't call it Golden. Nothing can top the 80s and 90s. However, this is the best era since those days.

We have skilled bigs with Lopez, Cousins, Gasol, Davis, Griffin, Love. The PG position is deep. We have superstardom at the wing position with Bron', Melo, George and now Leonard.

I think this is the decade where the NBA firmly cements itself as the #2 sport in America behind Football.

joshhorvath
09-23-2014, 05:56 PM
Right now we have three bigs that have Superstar potential (AD, DMC, Dre)

Two top ten GOAT in LBJ and Durant.

A ton of up and coming wings and guards. (Kawhi, Wiggins, Parker, Curry, DeRozan, Beal, Wall).

And it feels like the competetive spirit is back with real rivalries. GSW VS LAC. HOU vs Dallas, Cavs vs Heat.

Are we entering a new golden age of hoops?

Cavs vs Heat is a real rivalry? battle of sun vs snow? ive never seen these two teams as rivals, or is just because of a single player that went north this off season?

the biggest rivalry right now is HOU vs Dallas, to me, a rivalry in sports shouldnt be about a player vs player, but rather should be about a team vs team. But in all honesty, the NBA team vs team rivalrys are non existent, even player vs player rivalries are non existent..

look at the NHL, if you want to see what a team vs team rivalry looks like.. MTL vs Toronto, Toronto vs Ottawa, MTL vs Boston, the old Detriot vs Colorado, LA vs Anaheim, Chicago vs Vancouver... i could go on, but the NBA doesnt have any good or in general.. rivalries to speak of.

chi-townlove1
09-23-2014, 08:20 PM
"Golden era" is an overused term in sports. But I do believe this is the most talented era of basketball in NBA history outside of the late 80s to early 90s. That time period saw all-time great veterans finish up their careers, guys like Kareem, Moses, Magic and Bird. While new all-time greats were taking their place in MJ, Hakeem, Barkley, Robinson, Stockton and Malone.

We've seen something similar in the last 5-10 years with Duncan, Kobe, Dirk, Garnett, Nash, Kidd, Pierce and Allen all exiting their prime and finishing up their careers. Except now we're seeing talent come in huge waves. First it was the 2003 draft with Lebron, Melo, Wade and Bosh. But it wasn't long before Dwight and Paul came along. And then it was Durant, Westbrook, Love, Harden, Griffin, Curry and Cousins. And now it's Davis, Drummond, Wiggins and Parker.

It's possible that the last five years and the next five years will be the most talented decade in the history of the NBA.

Couldn't have said it better

Quinnsanity
09-24-2014, 12:07 PM
Waitwaitwait

Durant top 10 all time?!?!?

TheIlladelph16
09-24-2014, 12:51 PM
haha, i did miss the 80's. caught the later 90's and early 2000's though.

you think our board is young? check out reddit i feel like a grandpa in there.

I love PSD and Reddit may have a younger audience, but the discussions over there on r/nba are so civil and great debates usually compared to this place. That's the wonder of the downvote I suppose.

JustinTime
09-24-2014, 01:19 PM
The reason it dropped off was because places like NY have started to fade in talent-production. The reason it's back is because Canada and possibly Australia have filled in for markets like NY.

Heatcheck
09-24-2014, 01:41 PM
Nothing you say makes any sense.

You do know the Spurs dominate today just like they did 10 years ago.

Post up ball with guys in their position. Not with 6'11 players masquerading as point guards and not rebounding.

James and Durant are so over rated. Neither rebound at all. Guys their size should average 15 rebounds per game.

Also they can't post up because they have no post skillz or footwork. Most players their size have a post game and can get a basket when needed.

Thank the rulse of today for allowing them to dribble withoug contact on the perimeter. Also thank the VERY LOOSE rims today for the higer three point shooting %.

James and Durant both actually suck. They would get killed by any post up forward from the 80's or 90's. Look at what Tim Duncan did to them this season. Duncan scored at the better rate than them in crunch time against them.

they've won A championship in the last seven years. not exactly dominant.

Seven a game for a SF who also brings the ball up and sets the offense isn't garbage either.

most players their size played the 4 back in the day, so yeah, they had better post up games, and nowadays most players their size DONT get to the basket at will, especially the perimeter players their size.

Heatcheck
09-24-2014, 01:43 PM
The reason it dropped off was because places like NY have started to fade in talent-production. The reason it's back is because Canada and possibly Australia have filled in for markets like NY.

how so?

JustinTime
09-24-2014, 01:54 PM
how so?

Look at the top 10 draft picks Canada and Australia have produced and will continue producing in the future Irving, Wiggins, Bennett, Exum, Stauskas, Thompson. Trey Lyles, Thon Maker and Ben Simmons coming soon. Without Canada and Australia this era wouldn't even be considered for these claims. Those two countries in addition to the US are what is making this era so promising. The US hasn't produced a #1 pick in 2 years and Thon Maker and Ben Simmons are considered to be future #1 picks so that could mean that 4 times in a span of 5 or 6 years the number 1 pick could belong to Canada or Australia and not the US which is unheard of. I don't personally believe Simmons will be a number 1 pick but scouts do so I'm basing it on that.

YAALREADYKNO
09-24-2014, 02:18 PM
well have to wait and see if those talents develop into superstars. The rivalries are interesting but I don't know if I would put him up there with the spurs/mavs rivalry or kings/lakers rivalry in the early to mid 2000's

Heatcheck
09-25-2014, 03:44 PM
Look at the top 10 draft picks Canada and Australia have produced and will continue producing in the future Irving, Wiggins, Bennett, Exum, Stauskas, Thompson. Trey Lyles, Thon Maker and Ben Simmons coming soon. Without Canada and Australia this era wouldn't even be considered for these claims. Those two countries in addition to the US are what is making this era so promising. The US hasn't produced a #1 pick in 2 years and Thon Maker and Ben Simmons are considered to be future #1 picks so that could mean that 4 times in a span of 5 or 6 years the number 1 pick could belong to Canada or Australia and not the US which is unheard of. I don't personally believe Simmons will be a number 1 pick but scouts do so I'm basing it on that.
Irving was simply born in australia, he's lived in nj since he was 2, everyone else is just potential (if you want to consider bennet to have potential), just like Chris porter, Khalid El Amin, Michael Olowakandi, Marvin Williams, Julius Hodge, Darko, Kwuame, and Thabeet.
Not that they WONT become all stars, but right now they have perceived talent, when they do something in the pros, then we can say Canadas been producing talent like NY.

DarrylDawkins
09-25-2014, 03:59 PM
Why are people still writing in this thread.

2-ONE-5
09-25-2014, 05:31 PM
we are really far from any kind of golden era. and when you have to use guys like Cousins and Drummond as examples the asnwer is certainly no.

2-ONE-5
09-25-2014, 05:33 PM
Nothing you say makes any sense.

You do know the Spurs dominate today just like they did 10 years ago.

Post up ball with guys in their position. Not with 6'11 players masquerading as point guards and not rebounding.

James and Durant are so over rated. Neither rebound at all. Guys their size should average 15 rebounds per game.

Also they can't post up because they have no post skillz or footwork. Most players their size have a post game and can get a basket when needed.

Thank the rulse of today for allowing them to dribble withoug contact on the perimeter. Also thank the VERY LOOSE rims today for the higer three point shooting %.

James and Durant both actually suck. They would get killed by any post up forward from the 80's or 90's. Look at what Tim Duncan did to them this season. Duncan scored at the better rate than them in crunch time against them.

this is riduclous. how do u expect a wing defender to grab 15 baords a game when there are typically 2 other defenders occupying the lane for boards?

Heatcheck
09-26-2014, 07:29 AM
this is riduclous. how do u expect a wing defender to grab 15 baords a game when there are typically 2 other defenders occupying the lane for boards?

shhhhhh!!!...they can do it on 2k, so they should be able to do it in real life.
Lebron blows, a player like him should average a quadruple double, no problem. what a loser. id take mark eaton or john salley over LeBron any day.

JustinTime
09-26-2014, 10:55 AM
Irving was simply born in australia, he's lived in nj since he was 2, everyone else is just potential (if you want to consider bennet to have potential), just like Chris porter, Khalid El Amin, Michael Olowakandi, Marvin Williams, Julius Hodge, Darko, Kwuame, and Thabeet.
Not that they WONT become all stars, but right now they have perceived talent, when they do something in the pros, then we can say Canadas been producing talent like NY.

True enough but this whole golden era idea is based on potential is it not? For all we know Wiggins, Parker, Bennett, Maker, Simmons, Exum, and the rest could all be much worse and than we think and the whole thread would be in question. I don't think we've entered the golden era until these guys produce and guys like Derozan and Cousins don't help sell the idea.