Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 271
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    7,342
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    He was the strongest, most athletic big in the league. Why didn't he dominate? Why would Lebron dominate if Dawkins, playing in a position and with a body that enables him to have it easier than getting beat up to enter the clogged paint on the drive couldn't?
    Do you really think LeBron's skillset alone would put him in the top 10 of the 80s non-bigs?
    You are a sad, sad individual.


    Rippin' lips son!!

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    21,873
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    At his peak nope not greatest of all time. Greatest sf of his era. No heís not forgotten he is still ranked probably 2nd to Lebron. Because of his skill set he would have worked well in todayís game. Would he be the best player in the league no. Would he dominate like he did in his rival days with magic, no. The speed of the game and his durability would have been a problem. Would him klay and Curry form the best team in the nba yes.
    So how come Jokic and Doncic are so good? They don't benefit from a fast pace at all. Also a league where jump shooters can't be touched means Larry Bird lasts longer than he did. At least I think.
    Quote Originally Posted by ChongInc. View Post
    Facts can be hypothetical.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,139
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Johnson#3 View Post
    So how come Jokic and Doncic are so good? They don't benefit from a fast pace at all. Also a league where jump shooters can't be touched means Larry Bird lasts longer than he did. At least I think.
    or do they bread and butter in the post. I did not say he wont be good i said he wont be the top player. Hes skills transend to this era.
    Last edited by ldawg; 06-20-2020 at 11:20 PM.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    10,114
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    He was the strongest, most athletic big in the league. Why didn't he dominate? Why would Lebron dominate if Dawkins, playing in a position and with a body that enables him to have it easier than getting beat up to enter the clogged paint on the drive couldn't?
    Do you really think LeBron's skillset alone would put him in the top 10 of the 80s non-bigs?
    ewing, is that you?
    The Baker has come. Believe the hype.


  5. #80
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,377
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    Honestly I donít know. Given his longevity he is probably #2 out of guys I got a decent look at (that doesnít include Kareem, Wilt, Russel....) I donít think he became total killer until his second stint in Clev when he learned to shoot. Since LeBron that can shoot and LeBron that constantly plays D really didnít co-exist I feel there is a case to be made for Bird having a better peak. Since his return to Clev his has had a second career that really impresses me and probably puts him #2 overall on my list


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I think you are right about how great he was in Cle and that he did advance offensively some even by then but would argue 2013 as kinda that type of season he showed it all. It was his best season from 3pt range % wise in the regular season and 2nd best was in 14. In ECF and Finals he lead the team in attempts from 3 (was 1st/2nd in makes). I actually think pop kinda played him with the idea you can beat him by making him shoot and he finally proved it this year he could overcome it (game 7 he was 5/10 from 3 high in both volume and makes and efficiency) and that mid range one to cap the win as well. This was also near his peak defensively (he was 2nd in dpoy this year).

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,841
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    The NBA was a joke in the 80s and 90s. Lacking athleticism and talent due to expansion.

    Not sure where you got the idea that it was so athletic lol.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
    What now??

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    What now??
    LOLOLOLOL right?

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    21,873
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    or do they bread and butter in the post. I did not say he wont be good i said he wont be the top player. Hes skills transend to this era.
    I'm aware of what you said and I disagree. I think he'd be even better. Are you implying that Larry Bird couldn't pass in the post? If so, you're insane. Imagine Larry Bird in a PnR, 3 ball heavy NBA where he couldn't be touched. 30 PPG easy. In fact I'll go as far as saying that if Larry Bird played in todays NBA he'd probably be held in even higher regard than he is now.

    This myth that athleticism = talent is hilarious. Athleticism is a bonus and always has been. Basketball IQ > athleticism. That's the reason we've seen so many Marqueese Chriss, Tyrus Thomas and Gerald Wallace types over the years. They're freak athletes who still need to learn the game but never really do. Jokic and Doncic literally both just needed a year to adapt to the NBA game and started dominating. If Larry Bird played in todays NBA he'd **** on everyone.
    Last edited by R. Johnson#3; 06-21-2020 at 01:55 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by ChongInc. View Post
    Facts can be hypothetical.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    25,642
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    What now??
    Its understood that that was the case. So many people watched it growing up so they refuse to acknowledge it.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

    Click here to register!

    Hope to see some new posters around here soon.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,841
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    Its understood that that was the case. So many people watched it growing up so they refuse to acknowledge it.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
    It's actually the other way around.

    Less people from those days are even remotely interested in NBA basketball. Lots of them view it as an exhibition show similar to the WWE these days. Most of the guys who were rating Magic and Bird don't give a rat's *** about Lebron, Durant and Curry because they don't care as much about the NBA. Their kids are the ones who claim that the guys they're now watching are better.

    We have more people watching basketball today that have no knowledge of 80s basketball, limited knowledge of the 90s just because they've heard of Michael Jordan being the best and have seen some footage, a basic knowledge of the 2000s where Shaq & Kobe was a thing, the Spurs were a dynasty and then the Boston vs Lakers rivalry rekindled a bit but what we do have is a couple of generations that haven't seen the NBA in any other form other than its current one (2006 and on) that overhype everything and think that basketball didn't exist before 2000.

    Your previous post is a classic example of someone who doesn't have any idea of NBA basketball of the 80s and 90s. Only such a person would call those eras a joke.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,139
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Johnson#3 View Post
    I'm aware of what you said and I disagree. I think he'd be even better. Are you implying that Larry Bird couldn't pass in the post? If so, you're insane. Imagine Larry Bird in a PnR, 3 ball heavy NBA where he couldn't be touched. 30 PPG easy. In fact I'll go as far as saying that if Larry Bird played in todays NBA he'd probably be held in even higher regard than he is now.

    This myth that athleticism = talent is hilarious. Athleticism is a bonus and always has been. Basketball IQ > athleticism. That's the reason we've seen so many Marqueese Chriss, Tyrus Thomas and Gerald Wallace types over the years. They're freak athletes who still need to learn the game but never really do. Jokic and Doncic literally both just needed a year to adapt to the NBA game and started dominating. If Larry Bird played in todays NBA he'd **** on everyone.
    I am saying he would be good but not as good as Lebron.

    No Being Athletic is just as important as being skill. I am not saying the most athleic or the most skilled player is the best player. I look at the over all package. I would never call Shaq the most skilled Center or would i call Hakeem the most athletic center. I just dont think bird skills is that much better to over shadow the athletic advantage Lebron would hold.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    21,873
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    I am saying he would be good but not as good as Lebron.

    No Being Athletic is just as important as being skill. I am not saying the most athleic or the most skilled player is the best player. I look at the over all package. I would never call Shaq the most skilled Center or would i call Hakeem the most athletic center. I just dont think bird skills is that much better to over shadow the athletic advantage Lebron would hold.
    Shaq had some deadly moves in the post and became an excellent passer out of it as well. He didn't need to do a million head fakes and pump fakes because he was a freak of nature. He just needed to get some basic moves down, which he did. The reason Shaq got so dominant isn't just because he got huge. The man also learned how to read defences like books. Imagine a 360 pound beast who was fully aware of when double teams were coming and had finally managed his ego enough to pass out of them. That was Shaq from 2000 and on.

    Larry Bird would be right at the top of the league with Lebron today. The fact that you disagree with this is kind of funny considering at Larry's peak he was at the top of the league with a player who's kind of comparable to LeBron aside from physical dominance. This player was also much more athletic than Larry Bird.
    Quote Originally Posted by ChongInc. View Post
    Facts can be hypothetical.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    21,873
    Just for fun put Larry Bird on today's Raptors. You think he wouldn't get 30 a night?
    Quote Originally Posted by ChongInc. View Post
    Facts can be hypothetical.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,139
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    It's actually the other way around.

    Less people from those days are even remotely interested in NBA basketball. Lots of them view it as an exhibition show similar to the WWE these days. Most of the guys who were rating Magic and Bird don't give a rat's *** about Lebron, Durant and Curry because they don't care as much about the NBA. Their kids are the ones who claim that the guys they're now watching are better.

    We have more people watching basketball today that have no knowledge of 80s basketball, limited knowledge of the 90s just because they've heard of Michael Jordan being the best and have seen some footage, a basic knowledge of the 2000s where Shaq & Kobe was a thing, the Spurs were a dynasty and then the Boston vs Lakers rivalry rekindled a bit but what we do have is a couple of generations that haven't seen the NBA in any other form other than its current one (2006 and on) that overhype everything and think that basketball didn't exist before 2000.

    Your previous post is a classic example of someone who doesn't have any idea of NBA basketball of the 80s and 90s. Only such a person would call those eras a joke.
    I dont think people call it a joke. And your wrong People know more about basketball more now than ever before. Not just in the US but international as well. Its always been an exhibitinon show that part did not change. Same game different player. Older guys dont care as much about basketball becuase it no longer thier era. Even with that your still wrong Many of them still hang around the league. No everyone will have their era being better. thats like 80S dad watching wresting today and saying Hulk Hogan and rick flair is the greatest of all time and these young guys flying back flipping all over the place is not on the same level.

    The resaon many dont know 80s basketball is they were not born or just being born. The reason they will say it is they have access to films and they are seeing the same as today but hey dont have an emotional tie to that era. I mean how great was it back then if the same teams won all the time. Would that not be the same as Rick Flair and Hogan? The heavy marketed and the face of Wrestling?

    Star wars was a great Movie and today still remain a classic show. It dont change movie special effects improved greatly since then so a younger person would not find it speical if filmed in 1983 and released in 2020. An older person that saw it back then will say its the best movie they ever seen, Have shirts, hats, posters, collection of toys, DVD, etc. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/21/revi...sney-plus.html

    One in his era will sound like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OLmgmQ6jCs This is why we try to take out emotional ties but that is easier said than done.

    It have some things from the past that were better but not everything same as not everything new is better. Should the nba kept the ball that bounce and lost it shape as it hit the floor, What about the backboard that shattered, What about no 3 piont line, What about letting them fight, What about, no 3 sec, etc. Thing is the man that loves the 80s 90s forgot about the guy that also tought the 50s 60s 70s was better than 80s 90s. Why the back board got stronger, why they added a 3 point line, why movies special effects got better, etc is because man did not conclude the past was better.

    Make America great Again is a bad slogan. Why do one want to go back in time? The only time i would want to go back in time if it made me younger... LOL

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tMmaXRSeL4
    Last edited by ldawg; 06-21-2020 at 05:53 PM.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,139
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Johnson#3 View Post
    Shaq had some deadly moves in the post and became an excellent passer out of it as well. He didn't need to do a million head fakes and pump fakes because he was a freak of nature. He just needed to get some basic moves down, which he did. The reason Shaq got so dominant isn't just because he got huge. The man also learned how to read defences like books. Imagine a 360 pound beast who was fully aware of when double teams were coming and had finally managed his ego enough to pass out of them. That was Shaq from 2000 and on.

    Larry Bird would be right at the top of the league with Lebron today. The fact that you disagree with this is kind of funny considering at Larry's peak he was at the top of the league with a player who's kind of comparable to LeBron aside from physical dominance. This player was also much more athletic than Larry Bird.
    exactly. He was still skilled but not close to being the most skilled. But his massive size give him such an advantage he did not need to be the most skilled. Hakeem was not the most Physical but he was skilled. While Larry would be a star you Got Durant, Kawhi, Curry, Lebron, Harden Luka, etc so like all stars if you dont win you wont get the title of best player, I would not say for sure because he had success in 80s he will in 2020. The team you play for and the other guys plays a factor if you win or not. I will say if i lined him up over the time frame with and Lebron Lebron woud have shadowed him.
    Last edited by ldawg; 06-21-2020 at 05:29 PM.

Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •