Gobert should start

[infection]

1. Then where have all the lumbering giants gone? The only player anything like Eaton in today's NBA is Roy Hibbert, but he's still a much better athlete than Eaton ever was.

2. A well executed pick and roll, sure, but what I was trying to get at is that today's guards and wings are able to consistently create better separation from their defenders. Bigs are required to help AND recover a lot more quickly now than they were in the 1980s. That today's guards and wings are a lot stronger and quicker doesn't help.

I get the argument that you're making and it's quite reasonable to presume that the way the game has changed would hamper some of the strengths that made Eaton effective. The problem I'm having is this:

You're saying that a guy who is one of the best defensive big men of all time, a former all star, a 2x defensive player of the year in an era where people actually played it, the all-time leader in blocks per game, and a guy who Hakeem Olajuwon said was the toughest matchup he ever had to go against, would be a scrub in today's game? When? His rookie year? Mid career? Nearing retirement? I suppose if you've got a team coached by a D'Antoni or Don Nelson, or had a roster assembled by David Kahn, then maybe this would be a reasonable position. But we're talking about a scrub. The chronological elitism is ludicrous.

Though there's been a movement of big guys being able to shoot more from the outside (more fours than fives) the vast majority (especially considering guys off the bench) are not producing in such a manner to render an Eaton useless. Rule changes allowing for a zone would increase his value for any team wishing to have a legit anchor off the bench to run a zone. The proliferation of guys who are athletic slashers without any outside game would further highlight his lane-clogging presence. In today's game he'd get paid. And he'd play. He wouldn't be getting 30+ minutes like he did on his prime, but he'd be seeing the floor and contributing in meaningful ways. Yeah, there aren't many lumbering stiffs in today's game. But it's not like those lumbering stiffs out of a job now would have magically been solid guys on an 80s/90s squad.

Pavel Podkolzine couldn't make it in today's NBA. It's not because he's a modern-day Mark Eaton. 25 years ago he wouldn't have been Mark Eaton. Today's stiffs aren't Mark Eaton.

 

[GVC]

You're saying that a guy who is one of the best defensive big men of all time, a former all star, a 2x defensive player of the year in an era where people actually played it, the all-time leader in blocks per game, and a guy who Hakeem Olajuwon said was the toughest matchup he ever had to go against, would be a scrub in today's game?

1. Defense in the 1980s was hilariously non-existent. It's the biggest reason I can't stand watching basketball from that era; getting open shots was incredibly easy. It was the defense and overall physicality in the mid-1990s that forced the NBA to make rule changes to open the game up.

2. Maybe "scrub" is a bit strong. Still, I find it hard to believe that Eaton would do well against most matchups he'd face in today's NBA. He's a less mobile, less skilled Hibbert. He played in a post-centric era, where his strengths far outweighed his weaknesses. I don't think that would be the case now.

 

[LogGrad98]

The thing Eaton had that really made him the player he was was a very good sense of timing and good reaction times. He could recover and block multiple shots, he followed the ball well and knew when to make the move for the block. Not easy for any big to duplicate. That would still translate into today's NBA and he would be a paint enforcer especially with a zone.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

1. Defense in the 1980s was hilariously non-existent. It's the biggest reason I can't stand watching basketball from that era; getting open shots was incredibly easy. It was the defense and overall physicality in the mid-1990s that forced the NBA to make rule changes to open the game up.

It's always funny to me when people act like there was defense being played in the 80s. Nobody played a lick of defense until Detroit showed that by playing defense you could beat more talented teams like the Lakers and Celtics - teams that had always been able to win by just out-scoring everybody. The Bulls, with Jordan and Pippen knew they had to defend in order to beat the Pistons and by the time the Bulls beat the Lakers in 91, NBA teams knew they'd better figure it out and that is what led to the mid-90s ugliness you mention above.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

The thing Eaton had that really made him the player he was was a very good sense of timing and good reaction times. He could recover and block multiple shots, he followed the ball well and knew when to make the move for the block. Not easy for any big to duplicate. That would still translate into today's NBA and he would be a paint enforcer especially with a zone.

And he was ****ing 7'4".

Eaton would do just fine in today's NBA, good lord.

 

[b_line]

How did changing the illegal defense rule and moving the 3-point line back favor the offense?

I thought it was pretty clear that moving the three point line back provided more spacing for the offense? That would seem pretty beneficial to me.

 

[b_line]

Not 100% sure how Eaton would do in today's NBA, but I am sure that he would have been able to hold down a job.

I have always thought that if Eaton was 7 or 8 years younger, the Jazz would have been a dynasty in the mid 90's, and people would be talking about one of the greatest teams ever when they talked about Malone, Stock and Eaton.

 

[GVC]

I thought it was pretty clear that moving the three point line back provided more spacing for the offense? That would seem pretty beneficial to me.

Teams still had the option to take 3s from further back when the line was closer, preserving the spacing of the deeper line. They also had the option of taking closer 3-point shots. This benefits the offense.

 

[GVC]

It's always funny to me when people act like there was defense being played in the 80s. Nobody played a lick of defense until Detroit showed that by playing defense you could beat more talented teams like the Lakers and Celtics - teams that had always been able to win by just out-scoring everybody. The Bulls, with Jordan and Pippen knew they had to defend in order to beat the Pistons and by the time the Bulls beat the Lakers in 91, NBA teams knew they'd better figure it out and that is what led to the mid-90s ugliness you mention above.

In 1984/85, teams scored 110.1 points per game on 102.1 possessions per 48 minutes on average. In 2003/04, the season before the league changed the hand checking rules, teams scored 93.4 points per game on 90.1 possessions per 48 minutes on average (scoring and pace was even lower during the lockout season of 98/99).

 

[NUMBERICA]

The workability of a Favors-Gobert frontline has as much to do with Favors' improvement as it does with Rudy's. If Favors takes a step forward offensively, which I think he will

Why?

 

[Stifle Tower]

Why?

Because if Favors can't hit shots outside of 10-ft, all you're doing is clogging the inside offensively. Does no good for Exum to drive if no one can hit a shot if he has to kick it outside.

I'm actually looking forward to seeing a second unit featuring Exum, Gobert, Hood, Novak. Hood and Novak are going to get a ton of 3's.

 

[cowhide]

I am as big a Gobert fan as anyone but Rudy still needs to show he can handle the physicality of the NBA game. I certainly think he can be a starter in this league but everyone needs to realize that summer league and even the World Cup are worlds away from being a starter in the NBA. Unless Kanter comes to camp in poor shape or something I don't see Rudy starting just yet. The Jazz need offense and Kanter is our best big offensively.

However, I can see why everyone is excited and the idea is not far-fetched. I just like our bench right now with Exum, Booker, Hood, and Rudy etc.