The Unpopular Opinion thread

[Jeffx]

^Love the Duncan comparison to Bill Russell. They're cut from the same cloth.


It's considered the forgotten decade, but I loved the NBA during the 70s. The league had its issues, but there was some great basketball being played, especially by my Knicks from 1970-74 (and a terrific rivalry with the Bullets). You had the '71 Bucks, '72 Lakers, '74 Finals (Kareem hitting an amazing shot), Rick Barry in '75, Dr. J & the ABA, Game 5 of the '76 Finals (most incredible playoff game I've ever seen), Bill Walton spearheading Portland's championship run in '77, and those fun Seattle teams in '78 & '79 with Gus 'The Wizard' Williams, Dennis Johnson & 'Downtown' Freddie Brown.

[TMagic]

I dont think if you took players from the 60s/70s, or anytime before, and placed them in todays NBA, that they would be nearly as good.

Take for instance that clip. That was impressive...THEN.

I dont think that would happen today. Defense was crap back in the day. Again, look at that clip. Literally nobody stopped the ball. And it wasnt like he was being shifty. He went all the way down with one hand, in a straight freaking line.

Now Russell was athletic. Not taking that away. But Im just basing my opinion on skills they HAD. Not some assumed skills that they'd develop playing now (which should tell you a lot right there).

Going back to Russells athleticism...It would not give him the advantage he had then if he played today. There are plenty of guys nowadays that are every bit as athletic. Even if you think guys today arent, they sure as hell are way more athletic than the competition he was facing.

Hell, I think you could have taken Javele McGee and put him in that era, and he would have been a monster...maybe. Lol

Kobe Bryant would s*** all over an Oscar Robertson.

Allen Iverson would have been shattering ankles left and right back in the day...my goodness.

My point is I think a lot of players back then were great...BACK THEN. I dont think they would be considered great if they were somehow transplanted into todays NBA.

[BraedenG33]

Quote: Originally Posted by TMagic

I dont think if you took players from the 60s/70s, or anytime before, and placed them in todays NBA, that they would be nearly as good. Take for instance that clip. That was impressive...THEN. I dont think that would happen today. Defense was crap back in the day. Again, look at that clip. Literally nobody stopped the ball. And it wasnt like he was being shifty. He went all the way down with one hand, in a straight freaking line. Now Russell was athletic. Not taking that away. But Im just basing my opinion on skills they HAD. Not some assumed skills that they'd develop playing now (which should tell you a lot right there). Going back to Russells athleticism...It would not give him the advantage he had then if he played today. There are plenty of guys nowadays that are every bit as athletic. Even if you think guys today arent, they sure as hell are way more athletic than the competition he was facing. Hell, I think you could have taken Javele McGee and put him in that era, and he would have been a monster...maybe. Lol Kobe Bryant would s*** all over an Oscar Robertson. Allen Iverson would have been shattering ankles left and right back in the day...my goodness. My point is I think a lot of players back then were great...BACK THEN. I dont think they would be considered great if they were somehow transplanted into todays NBA.

I can respect that. I don't agree with all of it, but to each his own. I think their are a few transcendent players who you could drop them in any era and they would be plenty successful (Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Michael, etc.). Now to bring players back in time is also unfair, because they would then have to be considered as part of that era. We would have to assume Russell would be a better player now compared to 60's era Russell because he would be raised in the modern era of medical and fitness technology, and how players are developed at a younger age to be great now and take care of their bodies more. Along the same lines, 60's era Kobe would not be as good as today's Kobe because Kobe would have been raised in the 60's when medical and fitness technology was not nearly as good, players didn't take care of the bodies as well, and the sport wasn't as popular and there wasn't as much money invested in developing young players into NBA stars like there is now.

I think Russell was more than athletic enough for today's era (same as Wilt, who is the most athletic basketball player ever), and his skills on defense, as a passer, as a rebounder, and everything else he did on the floor still translates to today's game. I think he'd be a better Anthony Davis (or perhaps just prime-Anthony Davis, we haven't seen his true potential yet). Plus it's not like Russell was that small, like some people seem to believe, he was 6'10" and 220 pounds back then, and today I'd bet he could have been even bigger because of how he would have been trained.

[TMagic]

Quote: Originally Posted by BraedenG33

I can respect that. I don't agree with all of it, but to each his own. I think their are a few transcendent players who you could drop them in any era and they would be plenty successful (Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Michael, etc.). Now to bring players back in time is also unfair, because they would then have to be considered as part of that era. We would have to assume Russell would be a better player now compared to 60's era Russell because he would be raised in the modern era of medical and fitness technology, and how players are developed at a younger age to be great now and take care of their bodies more. Along the same lines, 60's era Kobe would not be as good as today's Kobe because Kobe would have been raised in the 60's when medical and fitness technology was not nearly as good, players didn't take care of the bodies as well, and the sport wasn't as popular and there wasn't as much money invested in developing young players into NBA stars like there is now. I think Russell was more than athletic enough for today's era (same as Wilt, who is the most athletic basketball player ever), and his skills on defense, as a passer, as a rebounder, and everything else he did on the floor still translates to today's game. I think he'd be a better Anthony Davis (or perhaps just prime-Anthony Davis, we haven't seen his true potential yet). Plus it's not like Russell was that small, like some people seem to believe, he was 6'10" and 220 pounds back then, and today I'd bet he could have been even bigger because of how he would have been trained.

I actually agree with what you said.

Thats exactly my point in a sense. Players today are better BECAUSE they have these advances and luxuries.

Not only that, but we have players excelling against their peers who are enjoying the same luxuries. Which should be even more impressive not less.

I think players who we consider the "Best of All Time" are great because of the era they played in and their accomplishments there-in. Not necessarily because they are more talented players.

Depends on what we are really saying when we say "player X is better than player Y".

Who do I think should be higher up on the all times greats list? Jerry West or Allen Iverson? Id say Jerry West.

Who would Id pick for one game of pick up? Id say Iverson.

Why? Because I think Iverson is a better player and would give me a better chance at winning.

[x Stinkfist x]

Iverson would have been trash back in the old days, most players would be. They actually made players follow the rules. Eveyone would get called for carrying 50% of the time, not to mention traveling....the game has changed so much since the league began.

[ojandpizza]

^ and a hall of fame level player couldn't adjust his dribbling once he realized he was getting called for a carrying violation? lol ok then.

[Sgt_Carnage]

Quote: Originally Posted by Caveman24

I said we don't hold CP3 to same standard as the other guys that left/ or superstars which is the truth. Every since Melo got to the Knicks all I heard was championship or bust same with LBJ,Dwight and others with CP3 he just slips under the cracks. He falls short in the 4th have a costly turnover nothing is said let LBJ or Melo do it and it's WW3. Now onto to LBJ Cavs those teams wasn't that bad at all! They weren't championship material but it was still a more than capable roster. Those Cavs teams overachied but they wasn't trash or an laughing stock as some like to make it be.

Yeah,they went from 60 wins his last yr there,to 19 right afterwards.....but no they weren't trash or anything.

[Caveman24]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sgt_Carnage

[/b]Yeah,they went from 60 wins his last yr there,to 19 right afterwards.....but no they weren't trash or anything.

Yes when you take away any team best player and replace it with nothing that's what's going to happen.