What's new

All-Time NBA Draft Round 1: Hack vs. Thee jazz fan

Who would win in a 7 game series?


  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .
It's called shooting over the top and it's not like other stars haven't gotten over him before. Recall Malone shooting 15-15 or something crazy like that once. Bird has gotten over on him as well as big game James. Talks about it in the Pistons bad boys ESPN 30 for 30 show. So it's not like he's a for sure lock down defender every time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When did I ever say no one has had a good game against Rodman? I'm just remarking at how silly it is to say no one would ever be able to stop Durant at the 4 like you claim and Rodman would be the most likely to do so. Even in this match up Davis is a guy who has the right combo of length and athleticism for the job. I don't think Davis would want to stay with Durant on the perimeter the whole game, so the team would have to adjust, but still.
 
It's called shooting over the top and it's not like other stars haven't gotten over him before. Recall Malone shooting 15-15 or something crazy like that once. Bird has gotten over on him as well as big game James. Talks about it in the Pistons bad boys ESPN 30 for 30 show. So it's not like he's a for sure lock down defender every time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When did I ever say no one has had a good game against Rodman? I'm just remarking at how silly it is to say no one would ever be able to stop Durant at the 4 like you claim and Rodman would be the most likely to do so. Even in this match up Davis is a guy who has the right combo of length and athleticism for the job. I don't think Davis would want to stay with Durant on the perimeter the whole game, so the team would have to adjust, but still.

I love Durant, and think he is great. But he's not unstoppable. I remember Lebron doing a fantastic job on him in the finals when it mattered.

Durant is a great shooter and scorer. But more of a shooter. His speed and lateral movement isn't great. It's good for his size. Durant will always get his, but there are guys that could slow him down.
 
I love Durant, and think he is great. But he's not unstoppable. I remember Lebron doing a fantastic job on him in the finals when it mattered.

Durant is a great shooter and scorer. But more of a shooter. His speed and lateral movement isn't great. It's good for his size. Durant will always get his, but there are guys that could slow him down.

He still averaged 30 in those finals if I recall


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
He still averaged 30 in those finals if I recall


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know he did. I'm not saying Lebron shut him down. I just remember him having a problem taking over the game at the end.

I remember coming away from that series with a slight drop in my view of Durant. I picked them to win that. And when I saw Durant and Lebron go at each other, you could tell who was the greater player. Lebron made it difficult for him at the end of games.
 
If I recall he was the only one that showed up. Westbrook struggled and Harden was an absolute no show. Durant was trying to win it by himself that's what slowed down Durant only MJ could win by himself. The only reason Durant struggled was due to the overall team not playing up to par. Durant was a beast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ultimately the star gets blamed its one of those deals where the star gets too much credit for team success and too much blame when things don't go well. But this is neither here note there as u don't have LBJ. Not sure why we are talking about this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fact of the matter is my team is way more accomplished then your team and experience wins out usually 9-10 times. Think the Mavs vs LBJ's first year in Miami. My team out thinks out plays and makes less mistakes then Hacks team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ultimately the star gets blamed its one of those deals where the star gets too much credit for team success and too much blame when things don't go well. But this is neither here note there as u don't have LBJ. Not sure why we are talking about this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's kind of a good point. I don't have Lebron .
 
Fact of the matter is my team is way more accomplished then your team and experience wins out usually 9-10 times. Think the Mavs vs LBJ's first year in Miami. My team out thinks out plays and makes less mistakes then Hacks team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My team has plenty of experience. Only starter that doesn't have rings is Davis.

Durant doesn't have any rings. Only been to the finals once. What's with all the hoopla that he knows how to win. Curry is arguably a better winner than him. Had a team with a better record and won the title. Why doesn't he get credit?
 
It's funny that you want to argue more experience and winning.

Curry and Klay actually won a ring. And they had a incredible record. They were the two best players on that team.

Durant and Westbrook do not have rings and have not had a season like Golden State did.

I know alot of people want to dismiss Curry and Klay right now because it was so recent, and they don't seem like they have a ton of experience, but winning is winning. They were the last team standing this year. That's a hell of an accomplishment. You can't dismiss that.
 
It's funny that you want to argue more experience and winning.

Curry and Klay actually won a ring. And they had a incredible record. They were the two best players on that team.

Durant and Westbrook do not have rings and have not had a season like Golden State did.

I know alot of people want to dismiss Curry and Klay right now because it was so recent, and they don't seem like they have a ton of experience, but winning is winning. They were the last team standing this year. That's a hell of an accomplishment. You can't dismiss that.

This kind of thinking goes right out the window around here when we start comparing players from different generations. To Jazz Fanzers a single championship in the 2000's is worth 10 championships in the 60's, and by extension any players on the single championship team is equal to any 10 players from the 60's. Barf.
 
This kind of thinking goes right out the window around here when we start comparing players from different generations. To Jazz Fanzers a single championship in the 2000's is worth 10 championships in the 60's, and by extension any players on the single championship team is equal to any 10 players from the 60's. Barf.

Well, that's because basketball has grown and developed. Players have gotten better.

Why are you old timers so persistent on trying to make everyone believe that basketball in the 60's was just as good as it is now, or in the 80's or 90's ? It just wasnt. We have eyes. We can clearly see that it wasn't as advanced. We don't have some kind of agenda.

A lot players smoked cigarettes then. That should tell you all you need to know about how great they really were. And no, it's not the same as weed.

They also clearly shot the ball and dribbled like girls. Let's not deny that.
 
Well, that's because basketball has grown and developed. Players have gotten better.

Why are you old timers so persistent on trying to make everyone believe that basketball in the 60's was just as good as it is now, or in the 80's or 90's ? It just wasnt. We have eyes. We can clearly see that it wasn't as advanced. We don't have some kind of agenda.

A lot players smoked cigarettes then. That should tell you all you need to know about how great they really were. And no, it's not the same as weed.

They also clearly shot the ball and dribbled like girls. Let's not deny that.

The overall product has arguably improved. Individual players were and would still be excellent, highly skilled athletes, who would by and large adapt. Why is it so hard to understand that?
 
The overall product has arguably improved. Individual players were and would still be excellent, highly skilled athletes, who would by and large adapt. Why is it so hard to understand that?

Some of the players would tranlsate. But not many. Russell and Wilt were truly modern NBA caliber.

If they would "by and large adapt", why didn't they adapt back then? How was Wilt and Russell averaging 22+ rebounds per game? Why didn't they adapt to that? I tell you why, it's because they were far inferior players. Russell and Wilt wouldn't put up the same numbers today. That's hilarious if you think that would happen. Wilt never would have had is 100 game. It's just wouldn't happen. The average player is bigger, faster, more skilled, and knows more about the game, because they have the power of hindsight and all the coaching that has learned from the past.
 
Last edited:
Some of the players would tranlsate. But not many. Russell and Wilt were truly modern NBA caliber.

If they would "by and large adapt", why didn't they adapt back then? How was Wilt and Russell averaging 22+ rebounds per game? Why didn't they adapt to that? I tell you why, it's because they were far inferior players. Russell and Wilt wouldn't put up the same numbers today. That's hilarious if you think that would happen. Wilt never would have had is 100 game. It's just wouldn't happen. The average player is bigger, faster, more skilled, and knows more about the game, because they have the power of hindsight and all the coaching that has learned from the past.

I respectfully disagree on much of this. You are flat out wrong on the "adapting" argument in terms of rebouding. Do some reasearch beyond just the single number you see...how many Wilt rebounded per game for a season...and see how many other players did similarly. Or look at rebounding rate. Or look at some of the other factors, such as pace and FG percentage. Just saying "see no one stopped him from getting 25 boards per game" is short-sighted and lazy. Apparently no one stopped Rodman from getting 18 per game either in the 90's. He must be a singular player out of time.

I am also certain Wilt would likely not score 100...however Kobe scored 80 in the modern era. So your assertion that is patently impossible is wrong. It is a factor of doing what works until it doesn't anymore.

Also, the same argument goes both ways. If you take Charles Barkley out of the modern system and drop him into drinking, smoking, eat whatever you want 1960 he would swell up like a balloon, would be 6'6" laying down too. The players that separated themselves as athletes at that time did so out of their own personal desire to be at the top of their game. That translates. Give Wilt modern training techniques when he had such immense natural strength and athleticism and it would have been scary. I think if you cookie cutter them out of their era into a different one it would take some adaptation from both ends. How far would Kobe get in an era when they could actually play defense. Let Detroit of the 80's knock him around some, see how much he scores. It is very tough to evaluate where this would all go in each era, moving players around. I think you cannot take these arguments ceteris paribus, it just doesn't work that way. And I think you are completely wrong saying that there was such a huge improvement in players. I would agree if you go back to the true beginnings, say the 40's, where it was still a white man's game (no offense) and, like baseball, suffered from a lack of diversity to push people to higher levels of performance. But from the late 50's forward (definitely mid 60's forward) I would argue that the greats would translate their game and be every bit as competitive.
 
I respectfully disagree on much of this. You are flat out wrong on the "adapting" argument in terms of rebouding. Do some reasearch beyond just the single number you see...how many Wilt rebounded per game for a season...and see how many other players did similarly. Or look at rebounding rate. Or look at some of the other factors, such as pace and FG percentage. Just saying "see no one stopped him from getting 25 boards per game" is short-sighted and lazy. Apparently no one stopped Rodman from getting 18 per game either in the 90's. He must be a singular player out of time.

I am also certain Wilt would likely not score 100...however Kobe scored 80 in the modern era. So your assertion that is patently impossible is wrong. It is a factor of doing what works until it doesn't anymore.

Also, the same argument goes both ways. If you take Charles Barkley out of the modern system and drop him into drinking, smoking, eat whatever you want 1960 he would swell up like a balloon, would be 6'6" laying down too. The players that separated themselves as athletes at that time did so out of their own personal desire to be at the top of their game. That translates. Give Wilt modern training techniques when he had such immense natural strength and athleticism and it would have been scary. I think if you cookie cutter them out of their era into a different one it would take some adaptation from both ends. How far would Kobe get in an era when they could actually play defense. Let Detroit of the 80's knock him around some, see how much he scores. It is very tough to evaluate where this would all go in each era, moving players around. I think you cannot take these arguments ceteris paribus, it just doesn't work that way. And I think you are completely wrong saying that there was such a huge improvement in players. I would agree if you go back to the true beginnings, say the 40's, where it was still a white man's game (no offense) and, like baseball, suffered from a lack of diversity to push people to higher levels of performance. But from the late 50's forward (definitely mid 60's forward) I would argue that the greats would translate their game and be every bit as competitive.

Alright, you won't buy the rebounding argument.

Why then was a single team able to dominate everybody and win 11 rings?

Do you think it's actually because they were truly a super team with the greatest players that ever walked the earth?

Or was it because there wasn't much talent in the league?


Cmon Loggrad. Seriously.

You can't possibly believe that Celtics team would win 11 rings in the modern NBA.

My guess is that they wouldn't win one. But I'm dying to hear you say they would win 11 today. And that's what you have to say if you want to stick to your argument that NBA players were the same back then if not better.
 
I respectfully disagree on much of this. You are flat out wrong on the "adapting" argument in terms of rebouding. Do some reasearch beyond just the single number you see...how many Wilt rebounded per game for a season...and see how many other players did similarly. Or look at rebounding rate. Or look at some of the other factors, such as pace and FG percentage. Just saying "see no one stopped him from getting 25 boards per game" is short-sighted and lazy. Apparently no one stopped Rodman from getting 18 per game either in the 90's. He must be a singular player out of time.

I am also certain Wilt would likely not score 100...however Kobe scored 80 in the modern era. So your assertion that is patently impossible is wrong. It is a factor of doing what works until it doesn't anymore.

Also, the same argument goes both ways. If you take Charles Barkley out of the modern system and drop him into drinking, smoking, eat whatever you want 1960 he would swell up like a balloon, would be 6'6" laying down too. The players that separated themselves as athletes at that time did so out of their own personal desire to be at the top of their game. That translates. Give Wilt modern training techniques when he had such immense natural strength and athleticism and it would have been scary. I think if you cookie cutter them out of their era into a different one it would take some adaptation from both ends. How far would Kobe get in an era when they could actually play defense. Let Detroit of the 80's knock him around some, see how much he scores. It is very tough to evaluate where this would all go in each era, moving players around. I think you cannot take these arguments ceteris paribus, it just doesn't work that way. And I think you are completely wrong saying that there was such a huge improvement in players. I would agree if you go back to the true beginnings, say the 40's, where it was still a white man's game (no offense) and, like baseball, suffered from a lack of diversity to push people to higher levels of performance. But from the late 50's forward (definitely mid 60's forward) I would argue that the greats would translate their game and be every bit as competitive.

Alright, you won't buy the rebounding argument.

Why then was a single team able to dominate everybody and win 11 rings?

Do you think it's actually because they were truly a super team with the greatest players that ever walked the earth?

Or was it because there wasn't much talent in the league?


Cmon Loggrad. Seriously.

You can't possibly believe that Celtics team would win 11 rings in the modern NBA.

My guess is that they wouldn't win one. But I'm dying to hear you say they would win 11 today. And that's what you have to say if you want to stick to your argument that NBA players were the same back then if not better.

While watching YouTube highlights of Bob Pettit with the old Bob Pettit talking in the background. He talked about how he never lifted weights till he got to the pros, and said had he known then what he knows now, he'd have started lifting weights in highschool and would've played at 260 lb's. Had all of those players trained and taken care of their bodies the way athletes do now. They would look much different.
 
Some of the players would tranlsate. But not many. Russell and Wilt were truly modern NBA caliber.

If they would "by and large adapt", why didn't they adapt back then? How was Wilt and Russell averaging 22+ rebounds per game? Why didn't they adapt to that? I tell you why, it's because they were far inferior players. Russell and Wilt wouldn't put up the same numbers today. That's hilarious if you think that would happen. Wilt never would have had is 100 game. It's just wouldn't happen. The average player is bigger, faster, more skilled, and knows more about the game, because they have the power of hindsight and all the coaching that has learned from the past.

Wilt said he would've average 50 in the 90s. Today's game is so much softer than 70s, 80s, and early 90s especially. If you watch the Bad Boys doc, regular fouls then would be flagrant 2s now.


Sent from the JazzFanz app
 
Alright, you won't buy the rebounding argument.

Why then was a single team able to dominate everybody and win 11 rings?

Do you think it's actually because they were truly a super team with the greatest players that ever walked the earth?

Or was it because there wasn't much talent in the league?


Cmon Loggrad. Seriously.

You can't possibly believe that Celtics team would win 11 rings in the modern NBA.

My guess is that they wouldn't win one. But I'm dying to hear you say they would win 11 today. And that's what you have to say if you want to stick to your argument that NBA players were the same back then if not better.

If Jordan didn't quit for 2 years, the Bulls would've possibly won 8 in a row. It's not 11 but it's close. Is that because Malone, Barkley, Payton, etc sucked or because Michael and Co were just that much more talented? Based on your argument, you'd have to answer that Malone sucked, whereas the truth is that Jordan was just more dominant.



Sent from the JazzFanz app
 
Wilt said he would've average 50 in the 90s. Today's game is so much softer than 70s, 80s, and early 90s especially. If you watch the Bad Boys doc, regular fouls then would be flagrant 2s now.


Sent from the JazzFanz app

If Jordan didn't quit for 2 years, the Bulls would've possibly won 8 in a row. Is that because Malone, Barkley, Payton, etc sucked or because Michael and Co were just that much more talented?



Sent from the JazzFanz app

The man has some good points.
 
Back
Top