Are The Current Generation Of NBA Players The Most Talented/Skilled We've Seen?

[TMagic]

So, as the title suggests, do today's players have better talent collectively than in any years past?

I know that this may not be the popular opinion, but I would have to say yes.

I've been watching some old school bball lately (trying to get my bball fix. lol) and they are just not as impressive as the players that we have today, IMO.

I would venture to say that many of today's players would excel not even as far back as the 90's. And I'm not talking about the superstars. I'm talking about lesser players as well. Guys like T Parker, Deng, or even a JR Smith would be studs "back in the day" in my book.

One of the reasons I think the Bulls were so dominant is because their team had a very similar structure to a team you'd see today, with Jordan and Pippen being more skilled/athletic than any other players and being on the wing. Then you have Rodman as the hustler/defender. Kukoc the euro player (dribbling, shooting as a big man) and coming off the bench. Etc...

Players today are just more well rounded than in the past. Plus they are more athletic. Watching the older games, I don't see players with the same dribbling ability that players possess today. And rarely did I ever see a guy break a guy down to get into the paint solely utilizing a combination of handles and quickness. From what I've been watching, players looked a lot easier to defend. A few exceptions I would say are Jordan, Penny, Grant, and to a lesser extent, Pippen (I'm sure there are a few others. These are the guys that stand out at the top of my head). Today we see a myriad of players in the league that can pull off a lot of what we've seen these guys do back then. Essentially every team has guys that can take a guy off the dribble and finish with athleticism and creativity at the rim.

Today the smallest players on the floor (PGs) possess strength, leaping ability, quickness, and speed unlike any in history. Just think of guys like Wall, Westbrook, Rose, Lawson, etc. On top of that their handles are superior to any player that has come before them.

The one glaring hole is the big men. But I don't know whether that is because the dramatic evolution of PG and Wing play that has far exceeded that of the big men. One could say that leaves less opportunities for big men because perimeter players have just gotten that much better.

Or it could be a result of the style of play from then up until now. Back then there was A LOT more inside/out basketball being played. Most teams tried to dump the ball inside the paint. The game (mostly speaking of the late 80's, 90's) consisted of mostly post ups and isolations. This would make big men more valuable than they are today and would result in more opportunities for them on offense.

Or maybe it's simply that they just aren't as good. lol...I myself don't believe that to be the case, as I think there are several guys that you can place into the past and see them be every bit as good, if not better than they are now.

This reminds me of a time before when someone was trying to argue that Oscar was better than Kobe. Kobe would have had a field day in Oscars time. lol

All in all, I think that the league today as a better pool of talent than in the past. But that's just my own opinion. And I'm really interested on hearing what everyone else thinks.

Thoughts...?

[AlexBrady]

Quote: Originally Posted by TMagic

So, as the title suggests, do today's players have better talent collectively than in any years past? I know that this may not be the popular opinion, but I would have to say yes. I've been watching some old school bball lately (trying to get my bball fix. lol) and they are just not as impressive as the players that we have today, IMO. I would venture to say that many of today's players would excel not even as far back as the 90's. And I'm not talking about the superstars. I'm talking about lesser players as well. Guys like T Parker, Deng, or even a JR Smith would be studs "back in the day" in my book. One of the reasons I think the Bulls were so dominant is because their team had a very similar structure to a team you'd see today, with Jordan and Pippen being more skilled/athletic than any other players and being on the wing. Then you have Rodman as the hustler/defender. Kukoc the euro player (dribbling, shooting as a big man) and coming off the bench. Etc... Players today are just more well rounded than in the past. Plus they are more athletic. Watching the older games, I don't see players with the same dribbling ability that players possess today. And rarely did I ever see a guy break a guy down to get into the paint solely utilizing a combination of handles and quickness. From what I've been watching, players looked a lot easier to defend. A few exceptions I would say are Jordan, Penny, Grant, and to a lesser extent, Pippen (I'm sure there are a few others. These are the guys that stand out at the top of my head). Today we see a myriad of players in the league that can pull off a lot of what we've seen these guys do back then. Essentially every team has guys that can take a guy off the dribble and finish with athleticism and creativity at the rim. Today the smallest players on the floor (PGs) possess strength, leaping ability, quickness, and speed unlike any in history. Just think of guys like Wall, Westbrook, Rose, Lawson, etc. On top of that their handles are superior to any player that has come before them. The one glaring hole is the big men. But I don't know whether that is because the dramatic evolution of PG and Wing play that has far exceeded that of the big men. One could say that leaves less opportunities for big men because perimeter players have just gotten that much better. Or it could be a result of the style of play from then up until now. Back then there was A LOT more inside/out basketball being played. Most teams tried to dump the ball inside the paint. The game (mostly speaking of the late 80's, 90's) consisted of mostly post ups and isolations. This would make big men more valuable than they are today and would result in more opportunities for them on offense. Or maybe it's simply that they just aren't as good. lol...I myself don't believe that to be the case, as I think there are several guys that you can place into the past and see them be every bit as good, if not better than they are now. This reminds me of a time before when someone was trying to argue that Oscar was better than Kobe. Kobe would have had a field day in Oscars time. lol All in all, I think that the league today as a better pool of talent than in the past. But that's just my own opinion. And I'm really interested on hearing what everyone else thinks. Thoughts...?

You've been duped. The lack of hand-checking today is a god-send for perimeter players. No longer is there any need to turn their backs on the offense or to protect their dribble. Its easier to get into the paint than ever with the outlawing of cut-banging and hip-riding.

This is what the bean counters want though. A finesse pin-ball game where acrobatic layups, power dunks, and fancy dribbles rule the day.

Tony Parker is a speed guard but he would be severely hindered by the violent hands-on game of long ago. Luol Deng is too erratic to ever be a "stud". J.R. Smith is too immature and myopic.

The Bulls were an incredible team because their parts fit together so cohesively. Ron Harper was brilliant, he knew all the angles and saw everything on the court. His defense was exceptional and he could guard points, shooting guards and small forwards. He was a big reason why the Bulls could play their quick switching perimeter defense.

Michael Jordan could do everything, and do it at the highest level. Scottie Pippen was an exceptional team defender, a runner, and a whip-it passer.
Dennis Rodman was an incredible defender and rebounder. Credit Rodman with turning the opponents glass into a volleyball game.

Luc Longley gets forgotten but he was an integral player. At 320 lbs he was a can't miss post target (couldn't move him off his spot) which allowed the Bulls to dump entry passes in and play off the Big Australian. Consequently, the defense was bent completely out of shape.

And the bench was strong, Toni Kukoc was 6'10 with a guard-like handle. Steve Kerr was a drop-dead shooter. Bill Wennington was 7 feet, and automatic from mid range. Phil Jackson was the coach, a courageous and disciplined man committed to a philosophy. This team was the perfect storm of players, coach, and strategy.

Players today are not more well-rounded. How many have an appetite for doing anything off the ball (90% of the game)? Boxing out? Screening? Footwork? Ball reversals? Focus? These areas are lacking.

When watching an 'older' game, take your eyes off the ball and watch whats happening on the weak side. There is alot more action. Solid screens, determined cuts, ect. That is where the game is won and lost.

The presense of hand-checking necessitates that the ball handler be more careful with their dribble. The league wants to see the fancy dribbles and the guards dominate though. Supposedly, its more 'fun'. Anyhow, if today's powder-puff defense were played in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and early 90s the guards would be flashing the ball like a yo-yo.

Every team has players that can finish with creativity at the rim? Thats blasphemous. The hardest players to defend are guys who are active off the ball and are unpredictable in where they receive the ball.

For what its worth, Penny Hardaway and Grant Hill were just one on one scorers. Similarly, they were both soft as warm brie.

Wall, Westbrook, Rose, and Lawson are erratic jump shooters that play zero defense. All four are guilty of overhandling, overpenetrating, and making numerous mistakes in a crowd. Oh, but they can flash the ball like a coin and convert acrobatic layups. The game is more than that.

The glaring hole is big men. Why? Because the powers that be don't want to see bigs ruining their highlight a minute pin-ball game. The zone defenses also drastically reduce the bigs area to work. Once again, the league thinks power basketball is 'boring'. The result is bull**** basketball all over the league.

Perimeter players haven't truly gotten better. The rules have been peverted. And did I mention the balls they use today are mushy oranges that constantly plop/swish through the net?

For me, Oscar was slightly better than Kobe. Why? Much stronger and consistently played all out defense. Rough-house defenders give Kobe serious trouble, not so for Oscar. Both wonderful players though.

The talent pool today is diluted and the players sloppy/lazy. I fear this situation will only get worse.

[ehh]

Quote: Originally Posted by AlexBrady

You've been duped. The lack of hand-checking today is a god-send for perimeter players. No longer is there any need to turn their backs on the offense or to protect their dribble. Its easier to get into the paint than ever with the outlawing of cut-banging and hip-riding. This is what the bean counters want though. A finesse pin-ball game where acrobatic layups, power dunks, and fancy dribbles rule the day. Tony Parker is a speed guard but he would be severely hindered by the violent hands-on game of long ago.

Could not agree more with this. It was so bad of a transition that I pretty much stopped following the NBA for two years because of it. '05-'06 when a cotdamn point guard shot 55% from the floor? That's when I officially knew the NBA I grew up with was dead. I pretty much washed my hands of it and said 'eff this' about the NBA at that point (along with the reffing shadiness). I guess I've finally adjusted, but it's still a joke how finesse the game is today. The game is so soft. Stern's work over the last dozen years was a precursor for what the NFL has done lately too.

I don't think the rule changes and the current crop of amazing point guards are a coincidence. PG's 20 years ago were distributors and shooters primarily because it was tough to get into the lane and finish. When they did drive it was mostly to penetrate-n-pitch. No need for that now. As an example when looking at the current PGs, I have no doubt in my mind that Kevin Johnson would be nuts in today's NBA.

Deng can barely get by anyone off the bounce in today's NBA, he'd have serious trouble being more than role guy off the bench 15 years ago. JR Smith is too much of an idiot to be a stud in any era of professional basketball. I don't know why people think there's THAT much of a difference athletically from the 90's. It was 20 years ago, yes more guys lift weights and are on strict diets but Lord, human evolution doesn't make that big of a leap in just two decades. The average NBA player was 6'7 214 lbs in 1986 and 6'7 221 lbs 2010.

Skills are debatable, players in general seem more committed to their craft these days and get the "professsionalism" aspect of being in the NBA. Player roles are also much more defined now though and I would argue that players 20 years ago were more well rounded because of it. I also don't think there's any doubt that the general basketball IQ is by far the lowest it has ever been. I think it's been poor for about a decade now. Cliche, but I strongly believe AAU and how the youth of our country grow up "learning" the game is the problem. I don't think that's an overstatement.

As for the idea of more guys breaking people down off the dribble - it's certainly more prevalent but it's not necessarily a good thing. Watching Kobe go 1-on-5 the last five years in big postseason games has often been a horrible thing for the Lakers. AI's horrible FG% throughout his career? Meh. How many high volume/low-percentage guards did we have in the 90's? None, because it's inefficient offense. Not saying everyone had great shot selection back then but it certainly was better.

The craziest thing is when I go back and watch old Knicks games from the 90's, who were considered a pretty foul team offensively, they would have the best ball movement in the league today. Oakley, Mason and Ewing would put every current front court to shame in terms of interior passing. Which is just wild to think about because it was nothing special when I was watching those teams 15-20 years ago. But the game changes, not sure if it's really evolving that much though.

[st0rmb11]

To answer the title question "are today's NBA players the most talented/skilled we've seen."

No. not by any stretch of the imagination.

I blame AAU and the lack of a necessity to ever develop any legitimate skills. Players get by on sheer athleticism these days. as AlexBrady & ehh eluded to, the rules change REALLY had a lot to do with this. A super athletic guard can now get to the rim at will because the rules cater to them.

This is why you hear so many analysts talk about young point guards as "very fast and athletic, needs to develop a jump shot." They are never forced to develop an outside game because from the time they turn 14, their coach just turns them loose in an isolation situation and tells them to go to the rim. Even the faster point guards of the past (Isiah, Tim Hardaway, Payton) were money from mid-range and a little further out. They had to learn to shoot to force teams to play up on them so that they could use their speed.

and don't even get me started on the big men of today. find me a SKILLED big man who was drafted within the past 5 years (excluding foreign born players.) Kevin Love? no. he can shoot from outside, sure. but he has limited post game, which is why he has to shoot from the outside.

any guy that is 6'4" or taller at 12 years old is thrown into the post and never forced to learn any ball handling skills, they never have to develop a shot, and they never have to develop a post game because they are taller than everyone else and are better athletes. (case and point, Dwight Howard.)


Guys of the 60s-90s had SO many more skills than this era. (with the 80s being the peak, in my opinion. because by then, the athleticism had blossomed to a level that is close to what we have now, but all of the guys learned the fundamentals growing up because...that was what you did.)

There's a reason that guys like Kobe, Duncan, Nash, Nowitzki, Gasol, etc. stand out so much. They develop actual skills to go along with their athletic blessings.

Notice, 2 of those guys are European. There's a reason the rest of the world has caught up to us in basketball. They teach real basketball. They teach EVERYONE the same skills from a young age. If they grow to be 7'0"? so be it. they still have the skills and fundamentals of a 6'5" player. Whereas, the US has gotten to the point where our teams (up until the 2008 team) were basically trying to rely on out jumping and running everyone.

[bkrich83]

Best answer I can come up is no, not by a long shot.

More athletic? Maybe. More skilled, no, and it's not even close.

[The 24th Letter]

You shouldve known the answer you were going to get from this when you started this thread Mag, LOL...

and thats not saying I disagree..

[1Rose]

AlexBrady and ehh pretty much nailed this one on the head. Hand checking while seems like a minimal rule change really changed the physical nature of basketball but also diminished the need for fundamental ball handling and security in today's game.

I've been saying this for years every time a Kobe > Jordan comment pops up or anything similar. Most players today would get eaten alive by the defenses of yesteryear, just from a physicality standpoint.

Like bkrich83 said, they may be more athletic, but skill wise, no chance.

[LingeringRegime]

So true that the play is so sloppy/lazy now as a whole. Guys who have perfected their craft are few and far between now, and because of that they stand out in the sea of mediocrity. I wonder how many really love the game today? My guess is very few. Like Rodman said, players today don't give a damn about the game.