Jump to content

IU Scott

Members
  • Content Count

    21,002
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    51

Posts posted by IU Scott

  1. I just hate when people say that guys back then couldn't compete today.  You act like the guys back then we're all slow stiff white guys with no athletic ability.  There were plenty of athletic players back then who could compete today.  If today's players are so much better athletes then why can't they play every game and not worry about load management.

  2. 1 hour ago, KoB2011 said:

    Because of the conversation about the 90s that was just happening, it seems relevant to bring up Jeff Hornacek. That dude started for the Suns then the Jazz and was an above average shooting guard at that time - he'd be lucky to be in the rotation for any of the elite teams today. 

    He is a lot better than Huerter

    • Like 1
  3. 3 minutes ago, dgambill said:

    Probably...MJ is one of those special cases that would thrive in any era. I think he could avg just about whatever he wanted. That said anything over 40 and it might have a counter productive effect on his team...as other players need to get in rhythm and flow of the game etc. I think Jordan wanting to win would tone down his scoring to make sure his team was successful....but when he needed it....sky would be the limit for sure.

    That is what happened early in his career where he scored 63 in a playoff game against the Celtics but lost.  He didn't start winning until they got Pippen and Grant

    • Like 1
  4. 8 minutes ago, dgambill said:

    Well what about the other 22 teams in the NBA in the 80's lol. That's a pretty narrow view considering those are two of probably the top 10 teams in league history basically. I mean take the 85-86 Pacers for example......I'm not sure a single one of those guys could start on the 2020 Pacers who missed the playoffs lol. I think that is just a narrow view...but I'm not going to argue...it's your opinion.

    I would say players like Tisdale, Williams and Kellogg ate better than any Pacer today. 

    • Confused 1
  5. 3 minutes ago, rico said:

    You need glasses...

    Well it is obvious we have different opinions on this.  Who would start over Jabaar, Magic and Worthy.  Also for that Lakers team Byron Scott was a perfect 2 guard.  That team was about getting the rebound and getting out on the fast break by filling the lanes.

    Who would start over Bird, McHale and Parrish and Johnson and Ainge was a great back court. Back then it was about putting pieces together over just putting the most talent on the court.

     

  6. 6 minutes ago, dgambill said:

    I think there is two different topics. NBA product value and then product value (performance) of actually on the floor. I'm sure @BGleas could offer up a better argument but scoring and shooting ability (talent) has gone through the roof in the past 10 years. There are more talent then ever in the nba...basically if you compare the bottom half of rosters now vs 30 years ago. Everyone coming into the league now is much much more advanced then what we had back then. I know its a different game but I think the talent level is fine in the nba....my issue is trying to make sure teams that acquire it can keep it if they want to...but again..that might not be an expansion issue..just a nature of the beast thing. Not sure if contraction or expansion would slow or stop the shift of the best talent congregating into a few teams.

    I guess I disagree because I look at players who play the majority of the minutes and see players today that wouldn't have seen big minutes back then.  I look at the Hawks and maybe one player would have a chance to start for the Lakers or Celtics of the 80's.  That is how I compare the eras and not the bottom of the roster.

  7. Just now, dgambill said:

    All we can do is base them on the generation in which they played. Historically hard to compare...No one in 90's could really handle them. I think a couple years the Pacers and Knicks were the best teams they went up against but it's very hard for me to believe at full strength that MJ and Scottie would lose to either of those Houston teams (which was the only argument I guess I was talking about). That was prime Scottie and prime MJ....not even old back Scottie and tail end MJ.

    Maybe it is my bias but when I look at the rosters of the top teams I just see the teams of the 80's and 90's having a lot more depth.  I look at some of the top teams today and can't believe some of the players who actually play big minutes.  I think to myself  that no way some of these players would have played for those Lakers or Celtics teams of the 80's.

    • Like 1
  8. 2 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

    I’m not sure that’s true. The Bulls played incredibly weak competition most years in the Finals. 
     

    I don’t want to get into a debate about how the Bulls were, because they were great, but I also think it's an over looked fact of history that they didn't exactly beat up on great teams in the Finals. 

    I would say Utah with Malone and Stockton was really good.  The Sun's had Barkley which is one of the best players ever to play.  Even Portland with Drexler was a really good team.  The Pacers in 98 should have beaten the Bulls in game 7 but was not given a fair shake by the officials.

  9. 11 minutes ago, dgambill said:

    Well...not sure it's hurt their product overall. I mean it's expanded tv markets and enriched the owners obviously...overall product on the floor perhaps...I guess. The NBA has always been dominated by a few teams...not really sure expanding has hurt, made it better...which is why I ask. Certainly the nba has benefited from the influx of talented players in the last 10 years...the skill level especially shooting has never been better...but I wonder about the overall competition level....guess the league has always had bottom dwellers...just without the media scrutiny we didn't notice it before?? Just like to see a way these middle/smaller markets can keep their players in the long run. I say that but then stars force themselves out of big markets too so it just may be the way it is.

    I think if you subtracted a few teams and then distribute those players then it would make each team stronger

  10. 7 minutes ago, dgambill said:

    I wonder...imagine the nba didn't expand so much like it did in the late 80's and mid 90's...would we be better off with 4 less teams (sharing all that talent) or do we need to expand more? To possibly entice stars to spread out or would it just still be a barren wasteland for more bottom teams. 🤷‍♂️ Or do we keep it the same and just move some teams....OKC back to Seattle....Orlando to Tampa....Kings to Las Vegas?

    I agree with you about expansion because I think it hurts the product.  I know it will never happen but they need to cut the league by 4-6 teams.  I think that about all the pro leagues and not just the NBA.  There were always super teams but they were built by the orginization and not by the players.  The Lakers were able to make trades for draft picks which turned out to be #1 draft pick.  They got Magic and Worthy this way.

    • Like 2
  11. We will see what the Reds is made up over the next 11 game home stand.  They still have two games on the road trip at Minnesota but after that it gets really tough.

    Atlanta 4 games.

    Philadelphia 1 game make up.

    SD 3 games.

    Cubs 3 games

     

     

  12. Reds just got swept in a four game series to SD 3-2 in today's game.  For me baseball has to be the most frustrating sport to he a fan of in all of sports.  Even if your team is good you will have to go throughout 65-70 losses a year.  For anyone who Hates losing it is tough to follow your baseball team.

    The Reds came into this series having won 13 out of 16 and 6 straight.  SD was coming in having list 13 out of 17 and only scoring 30 runs in those 13 losses.  It appears the Reds can beat the bad to mediocre teams but can't beat the contenders.

×
×
  • Create New...