Official Rudy Gobert Trade Ideas Thread

[One Brow]

I disagree 100%. Would Patrick Ewing dominate in our time? Would Robert Parish be able to stay on the floor? Would Craig Ehlo even be an NBA player?

Yes, yes, and yes. You are seriously under-estimating the natural athletic talent of all of these men.

Every player playing today would excel in the past.

They would be slower, weaker, and have worse shooting form than they do today.

Not every player playing back then would adapt to today.

They would be faster, stronger, and have better form than they did back then.

Jordan didn't face zone.

Yes, he did. There were limits on how you could play zone back then (such as having to be in area X when your nominal person was in area Y and the ball was on the perimeter), but coaches found ways around them.

He didn't face double teams and exotic rotations.

You're kidding, right?

It was a man to man league back then with extremely poor defending compared to today's standards. Just compare Rudy to Mark Eaton or Dikembe Mutombo. Those guys would not be NBA starters today. Role players at best. Rudy is an athletic beast and we still bash him because he struggled so much this postseason.

Mark Eaton , perhaps not, because (IIRC) he was a low-post-defense specialist, and the game has moved away from that with the new rule changes. Mutumbo would have been fine.

 

[oneye]

34 year old Rudy will be making $46 million dollars……idk y’all, the more I just looked at that contract the more I’d love to see it moved.

 

[LoPo]

Yes, yes, and yes. You are seriously under-estimating the natural athletic talent of all of these men.


They would be slower, weaker, and have worse shooting form than they do today.


They would be faster, stronger, and have better form than they did back then.


Yes, he did. There were limits on how you could play zone back then (such as having to be in area X when your nominal person was in area Y and the ball was on the perimeter), but coaches found ways around them.


You're kidding, right?


Mark Eaton , perhaps not, because (IIRC) he was a low-post-defense specialist, and the game has moved away from that with the new rule changes. Mutumbo would have been fine.

So your whole argument is that everybody from the past will get bigger, stronger, faster and better then you say everybody from today's era will get slower, smaller, weaker and worst? That's about the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

Today's players are who they are. Players of yesteryear are who they were. Your era is your era. You were who you were. It's stupid to speculate on what a player would do with more training or less training. Just compare them for what they were in regards to the competition that they faced.

MJ's era was littered with unathletic, slow guys who could shoot or pass. Almost all of the NBA MJ played in would not make it in today's league based off of who they were at their prime.

MJ feasted because he was great and he was the first of his kind. People didn't know what to do. Today's players face MJ's on a weekly basis because the league has evolved defensively and offensively.

I'm not going to go through some dumb rabbit hole of what MJ would have become with this or that. If we do that, you could also say that MJ would have been suspended for gambling, ridiculed for off court behavior, and crushed in the media for being an awful teammate.

 

[One Brow]

So your whole argument is that everybody from the past will get bigger, stronger, faster and better then you say everybody from today's era will get slower, smaller, weaker and worst? That's about the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

Yes, my argument is that training makes a difference, and that the better the training, the greater the difference. I fully acknowledge you think this notion is stupid. I really don't think I need to say more in that vein, your response more than suffices for my purposes. Thanks for the conversation.

 

[LoPo]

Yes, my argument is that training makes a difference, and that the better the training, the greater the difference. I fully acknowledge you think this notion is stupid. I really don't think I need to say more in that vein, your response more than suffices for my purposes. Thanks for the conversation.

Why can't you just argue on who the guy is or was? Debate on what we know instead of the unknown? Why do you have to change the rules by assuming they gain some advantage through today's science?

I would argue that MJ might be a better player, but social media would have destroyed him. It definitely would have destroyed his squeaky clean image that the media had to hide in the 90s.

I wasn't trying to insult you with the stupid comment, but I find it hard to work on hypotheticals.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

That’s rich considering you were on here before Game 6 arguing about how dumb I was for saying Gobert can’t guard the perimeter and is a liability against small ball and then went MIA after Game 6 happened. Exactly what I was telling you happened and you had a pie thrown directly in your face. No wonder you didn’t post for awhile after that.

Lmfao