Zlinedavid

There are legends being born and legacies being cemented before our eyes this year.

Curry and Kawhi moving further away from superstar and more towards legend. The rise of the Greek Freak. And Lillard knocking on the door, showing that he should be in the conversation about the best of this era too.

36 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

To me if Jordan would have played with the rules today would score 45 points a game

While this might sound like hyperbole, keep in mind, Jordan averaged 37 a game in 1986-87 (and yes, it was 82 games). 45 isn't as much of a stretch as you might think.

25 minutes ago, BADGERVOL said:

Here’s a discussion starter...who from the 70s,80s and 90s would’ve blown up in today’s rules and what guys from today could’ve still been really good back then?

i’ll start...Draymond green could’ve done well back in the 90s. I think pistol Pete would’ve had a hay day with these rules.

I think DeAndre Jordan would have done just as well in earlier eras.

A guy to bring forward (aside from the obvious Jordan)? Bird. He could sink an off balance three with one guy in his face and another punching him in the junk. Leave him alone and don't touch him? Almost not fair.

31 minutes ago, BADGERVOL said:

Kidd a good shooter?

I didn't say good, I said not terrible...lol

13 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Wow - Vogel now the Lakers coach. Vogel coaching LeBron, interesting 

Vogel coaching LeBron AND Lance.

57 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

I think Steph is today a top 10 offensive player (ever), but he’s not in the top 10 of all players otherwise. 

It’s worth pointing out that if you put Steph in the 90’s he’d get mauled and wouldn’t shoot nearly as well, and if you put guys like Reggie or Bird in today’s game their scoring would be at least equal, the rules strongly favor guards and high scoring, it’s why the scoring is as high as it is now. 

But it’s also not really fair, and difficult, to do the generation comparison thing. No question Steph is one of the best and quickest shooters, and an elite point guard. 

I still wonder how guys like Nash (also very quick) and Stockton would look in today’s game. I’d definitely want them on my team 

I think guys like Nash and Kidd would have adapted. They were athletic enough to handle the tempo today, and weren't horrible shooters.

What I wonder is how guys like Iverson would have done. Athletic as all hell, but his game was based on getting past his man and driving, which goes against the trends of today. Jump shooting wasn't his forte.

1 hour ago, BADGERVOL said:

I’d love having a beer with you and talking sports! But this one I’m gonna disagree on. I’m sure people did say that at some point but when that player wasn’t playing defense someone else WAS. The game is determined on both ends and if you’re SUCH a bad defender that the other team literally does everything they can to switch and to rotate to get YOU to defend the ball because they know they can TORCH you with almost anyone on the court, I think that has to at least be considered into how good of a player you are overall. I’d argue John stockton was a better defender than Curry and he certainly wasn’t as quick.

Stockton was a better defender, because he had to be. That Era of the game demanded it. Today, that level of D isn't being asked of players. It doesn't hurt, but it's not as high up on the list of priorities.

It's not whether one is better than the other. It's not about if its the way it "should be". It just is.

4 minutes ago, BADGERVOL said:

I love the guy personally. I actually liked him as one of my favorite players when I was in HS (odd I know). But I have to admit when he does pressers and when he’s mic’d Up in the huddles I’m NEVER impressed with what comes out of his mouth X’s And O’s wise. Maybe just me but he always seems to just bathe his players with compliments and say such obvious things in huddles. Maybe he’s got such a talented team he just needs to keep them relaxed and not say much. I know Jackson was similar but he created an entire offense and always “appeared” more of a brilliant mind. And popavich showed he could win with tons of different players playing tons of different roles even changing as they aged. I just don’t see Kerr in their league at all.

You could be the most brilliant tactician in the world, but you're going nowhere if your troops aren't behind you. And you're likely going to get beat by some good but not great tacticians who has a group solidly behind him.

Some groups need a kick in the ass, some need a pat on the back. Good leaders can and know when to apply both.

4 minutes ago, BADGERVOL said:

You really think you can say he’s top ten ever right now? So if god forbid he was killed in a car wreck people would say the body of his work is top ten EVER? Idk if I could go there yet. But maybe I’m not seeing it clearly.

What about his defense? Heck for everyone...it seems like half of players games anymore don’t even matter in people’s eyes anymore. If you average 30 a game you can be a deplorable defender and give up 30 on the other end and people still think you’re great. Haven’t been able to figure that out at all. Not just for Steph but players like lebron even.

At one point in the evolution of football, I'm sure people uttered the phrase "Yeah, he can run the ball, but where can you put him on defense?"

Point is not to diminish defense, but to say that greatness always has the element of time brought into it. Games and they way they are played evolve.

26 minutes ago, BADGERVOL said:

I’d expand that to include there’s never been someone who can shoot, dribble, and have that quick of a release ever. He actually isn’t all that amazing of an “athlete” but dang his skill set is like no one I’ve seen or watched before past or present.

Best I can come up with is he has the shooting ability of Bird with the quickness of Iverson.

2 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Agree 100%. It’s debateable if he’s the best player of this generation, but nobody has impacted the way the game is played more than Steph Curry in a really long time. 

He's also unique in the sense that there's nobody to really compare him to stylistically. Jordan-Kobe, Magic-LeBron, etc.  There have been dead-eye shooters, there have been lightning quick point guards, but being off the charts at both hasn't (IMO) happened.

I don't use this word lightly, but Curry's 2nd half was Jordanesque.

9 hours ago, Billingsley99 said:

I know for sure you have watched more OKC games than I have and probably more NBA games as well. Let's play a little game.

20 seconds left in the game the team I list is down 2 taking the ball out at half court. Tell me whose hands will the ball be in at the top of key when the game is on the line for each of these teams. 

 

Lakers 

Celtics

Bucks

Raptors 

Trail blazers 

Rockets

Thunder

 

59 minutes ago, Billingsley99 said:

I think he needed to ride Lebrons coattails a little more. More times than not it's harder to be Batman than it is to be Robin. Ask PG😀

Depends on who your Batman is. 

8 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Bucks - Nuggets! 

Bucknugget sounds like a Shakespearean insult. "Thou art a daft bucknugget!"

7 minutes ago, Billingsley99 said:

I cannot stand the Dan Lebatard show but was forced to listen to a minute and actually laughed. Someone on the show when talking about Jokic for the Nuggets said, " Its amazing watching a loaf of white  bread dominating the NBA playoffs." 

On a side note 1070 the Fan lost an avid listener when they added that show to the lineup. 

LeBatard himself grates on me, but the show isn't without its hilarious moments:

Text message received by Draymond Green from his mother: "Just go out there and play the game.  Shut up."

Draymond Green's mom is ok in my book. 

2 hours ago, IU Scott said:

I think the perfect number is around 50-60 games.  The one year after a strike the season was 50 games long at to me that was about the right amount of games.  I also think they need to shorten the layoffs as well because I don't think it should take 2.5 months to play the playoffs  If I was in charge of the NBA I would contract 6 teams because I think the rosters right now is watered down with talent.  We have to many teams where you are lucky to have a couple of really good players and the talent is to dispersed unless you are a team that can get multiple superstars to come to your team. 

I look at a team like the Pacers who right now are stuck in the middle where they are to good to get high draft picks but not good enough to compete for a championship.

I think a realistic possibility is going back to the best of 5 opening round.  It's not very often that 1st round series go the full 7 (this year, one went 6 and one went 7).  In terms of revenue, there's only 3 total games that could have aired on TV.  Cuts down on travel, cuts down on the cushion needed when scheduling the 2nd round, and allows the 2nd round to start that much earlier. 

Edit: And by "realistic", I mean worth discussing, not that anyone is actively talking about it.

Bucks are making Bahston look less than good.

And is it me, or is this team Harry Carey's nightmare? Antetomounmpo. Ilyasova. Mirotic. Connaughton. There aren't that many consonants in a can of alphabet soup.

2 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Agree, and that was a very good hire 

And a very dumb firing by Atlanta.

1 minute ago, BADGERVOL said:

Are you thinking, in game adjustments, team assembly, and player development to name three?

i agree the Bucks are DO fortunate...plus being from a small market team he is not afraid to compete with the big boys from some place like Milwaukee 

And just overall approach and attitude. Nothing flashy, nothing superfluous.

Giannis has a little more natural sizzle than Duncan, but part of that is just personality. He could play as a hell of a lot bigger showboat than he does.

Only thing missing is Pop's occasional sarcastic but valid barbs at the media...lol.

1 hour ago, BADGERVOL said:

I love the Bucks calm and business like demeanor. If you watch the press conferences every guy is on the same page. They really believe it’s all about them focusing on themselves and each doing what their job is. And their bench seems to all have an edge to them.

Budenholzer spent nearly 2 decades under Popovich. It shows. In more than one way.

1 minute ago, BADGERVOL said:

Did he say that? If he didn’t that would fit perfect for him. It’s SO true.

Haha...no, totally made up, but I have a feeling he wouldn't disagree. He'd have Curry's shooting numbers.

11 hours ago, BADGERVOL said:

Let’s flip this tangent convo...what would the increased offensive rules mean to some of the players of that past if they got to play in them? What could Magic do when almost no one can physically touch him? Jordan? Thomas? Omg...Thomas...Dominique?!

"Guys can barely touch me and I'll see a zone half the time? Sign me the hell up." - Reggie Miller

Just because I haven't heard his name mentioned all that much this postseason, but all due credit to Budenholzer. Yeah, he's got a well stocked toolbox to work with, but he's pushing most of the right buttons both tactically and personnel-wise.