The Unpopular Opinion thread

[wwharton]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

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.

This is similar to the discussion we were having earlier in this thread. I think TMagic has me even more convinced of my argument before... it's an impossible comparison. It's a HUGE assumption that a player would make HOF level use of the advances in technology, fitness and training. We know Russell was arguably the best ever at doing what he did against players back then. That doesn't mean we know for sure he'd be the best ever at doing what he'd need to do to compete today. Just like we can't assume that 60's Kobe wouldn't find a HOFer to model his game after to a level that wills him to be an all star.

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

Last time you made this argument I wrote a list of all the players that either left the same year as Lebron, or were hurt most of the next year when they only won 19 games. You had no reply.

Players had to adjust even in the olympics. Because the international refs werent letting them get away with the same "carrying" and "traveling" that all players supposedly do all the time in the nba.

That supports his point though. Players had to adjust... they did, very quickly. And have been wildly successful in the Olympics.

[OkayC]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

This is similar to the discussion we were having earlier in this thread. I think TMagic has me even more convinced of my argument before... it's an impossible comparison. It's a HUGE assumption that a player would make HOF level use of the advances in technology, fitness and training. We know Russell was arguably the best ever at doing what he did against players back then. That doesn't mean we know for sure he'd be the best ever at doing what he'd need to do to compete today. Just like we can't assume that 60's Kobe wouldn't find a HOFer to model his game after to a level that wills him to be an all star.



Last time you made this argument I wrote a list of all the players that either left the same year as Lebron, or were hurt most of the next year when they only won 19 games. You had no reply.



That supports his point though. Players had to adjust... they did, very quickly. And have been wildly successful in the Olympics.

I know i was agreeing with oj

[wwharton]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

I know i was agreeing with oj

My bad, that would've been the smart assumption to make.

[Scofield]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

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 agree with you in principle but you are definitely overstating things a bit. That clip is so popular now because it resonates even against today's standards. Do we see people posting clips of Cousy dribbling around in the half court? No because its a dated look. But we still marvel at what someone like Maravich did because his handle and creativity are still comparable to what we see today. What Russell did there is definitely impressive

Poor defensive teams still have the kind of breakdown we see in that clip. And if any player today literally jumped over someone on the way to the basket, the clip would be well on the way to a couple hundred thousand views on YouTube in short order. And deservedly so.

Also, Russell became who he was because of his mind. First and foremost. His athleticism was secondary to his success (as it is for the vast majority of all time greats). And KB has "****" on a lot of people but none of them anywhere near what Oscar Robertson was. Even if you were using hyperbole thatd be going too far. ("an Oscar Robertson" LOL. like he was some typical player during that era)

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

[lilteapot]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

Michael Jordan isn't significantly better at anything in terms of basketball than Lebron James

[turty11]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

hes not better at anything other than the killer metnality.

lebron is the GOAT

[OkayC]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

hes not better at anything other than the killer metnality.

lebron is the GOAT

Must......resist.....urge

[ojandpizza]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

I mean, I wasn't around at the time, so I'm going based on what I've read and the limited footage that is out there, but he could have been every bit as dominant as Wilt if he wanted to from what I heard, but he chose to not focus on numbers in favor of winning, that's why his teams were so much more successful than Wilt's teams (and Wilt had some teams that were just as good as those Celtic teams on paper). He was a freak too. 6'10" and 220 pounds (very big for the time) he had freakishly long arms and was an amazing athlete from what I've read and seen.



I think Bill Russell would be a lot like Anthony Davis today., but about 382% better.

He was a 5-time MVP back when the players voted for the winner, so he was clearly respected by his peers as one of the best of the era, he was a 12-time all star and 11 time All-NBA player in 14 years as a player so he was among the best players to get voted on those teams so consistently. He was probably looked at the same way people look at Duncan. He wasn't the typical 'superstar' a la Kobe and LeBron in this era, but when you look at how great he was and how consistent he has been, you realize he probably was the greatest player of the era, or at least you could make the argument for it (the late 50's and 60's for Russell, and the Post-Jordan era for Duncan).

Granted, I don't know for sure, I wasn't there, but that's how I would imagine he was perceived by what he accomplished, what I've read, and what I've heard.

Also, we have to account that if he played today he would have been brought up in today modern technological era with better medical and fitness technology and methods so he would be an even better athlete now.

I mean I value Bill's legacy in the league very highly. I think when we did the top 10 thing I placed him 5th behind MJ, Kareem, Magic, Bird.. But a large part of what made me put him there was due to his championship pedigree, the MVPs, the leadership, the respect from his peers, etc..

But the way you said it, he would be a "top 3 player" in today's league, I'm just not sure.. Because how good is he individually, I mean if he weren't to win 11 championships where would we value or rank him??? Which is why I asked you the question was he even considered a top 3 player individually in his own era?

I could easily see people saying Baylor, Wilt, Pettit, Oscar, West, Hondo were all better individual players than Bill was. I obviously didn't get to watch that era of basketball so I can't really say, but it seems like aside from a leadership aspect those guys could have easily been considered "better" than Bill.. Unfortunately there isn't anything from a more modern era to compare it to, because there isn't one player/team dominating all the championships. And even though I believe those players could have been better individually I don't value them as highly as far as "all time" goes because Bill was the dominant champion.

I'm also not sold on him being just tons better than Anthony Davis.. The game is much different now, Davis has a much more polished offensive game, he's a better ball handler, he's taller, he's longer, they weigh the same (wow), he can handle the ball better, etc..

Russell's greatest strength was that Boston would try to force offensive players to him for him to block the shot. When Russell's career was young, and he was playing in the late 50's he really was a freak. There wasn't players to match his size and athleticism combination.. Compared to how many jump shots players take now as opposed to being funneled into the lane his role defensively would vastly change... And I don't 2nd guess his amazing defense or timing at all, but how many great shot blockers are there in the league now, much less that are a mere 6'9"? I'm also assuming he would play PF, which he didn't possess the shooting touch, or balling handling skills that's almost necessary for the position in today's league.

I've heard that Bill could have been more dominant offensively, but I don't buy it.. I do believe his unselfish nature and being the true definition of a "team player" somewhat hindered his ability to have a higher ppg total, but just from watching games and clips I've saw it's pretty apparent he didn't have a strong offensive game at all..

It's reflected pretty clearly in his number as well.. His FG% is horrible for a big man, especially for one who at the time was amongst the biggest, strongest, most athletic players in the world.. He had years where he needed 15 shots just to get his 16 points.. And this is all playing 40+ minutes per game mind you. You put him at 36, which is around the norm for starters in today's league, and he drops from a career 15 and 22, to 12.8 and 19.. Also a pretty poor free throw shooter.

When you look at his strengths you see the type of mold that a player like Rodman, or Ben Wallace, even Reggie Evans, the type of strengths they have.. Not trying to compare Russell with those guys, that's not what I'm saying at all. I obviously would think he could be much, much better than them.. But there just isn't much room for a dominant rebounder, and good defensive player to be a top 3 player in the league. And Bill just didn't have the skills to be a big scoring, or dominant offensive player.

His rebounding, while I'm sure would still be impressive, would be nowhere close to what it was in his time. Teams were taking 30+ more shots per game during that time period. 30 more shots per team, that's 60ish more shots per game. 60 more chances of a big man from that era getting a rebound, 30 more chances for players to get an assist, 30 more chances to block a shot. There is a reason all their stats are so bloated.. Not to mention Bill would go from huge and a freak athlete to average or normal by today's standards.. Offenses were by no means structured, all these extra shots at a frantic pace, so many players with piss poor field goal percentages. For example, looking through some of Bill's celtics teams there were years where not one player would shoot over 45%.. Players shoot that well now just from the three point line. Even the most average post players in today's league are more efficient scorers inside than Bill.. Actually than even Wilt but I don't want to drift that far off this topic. But you get the idea as to why there was so many players pulling down 15-25 boards per game.

Basically what I'm saying is it's very difficult to compare across eras. Bill's place in history and his greatness remains regardless of what he would do in any other era. But I do think some guys were better off in their time than they would be in others.. And I do believe that it's Bill's winning pedigree and being the best player/leader on the best team that makes him the best player of that era.. I think individually, head to head, prime vs. prime, there are a few guys I could see people considering better than Bill from that era.

Also there is always the argument that he would have modern medicine, modern training, would have learned from watching other greats, which could have resulted in a better shooting touch or better ball handling, etc etc.. But I really hate those types of comparisons.. Because then we are no longer comparing Bill Russell to Anthony Davis (or whoever), we are comparing some hypothetical player that never existed. I think it's easier to keep players who they were if we must compare eras, or easier just to not compare players who started their careers 60 years apart.. But that's all just my opinion.

[TMagic]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

Agree with pretty much everything you said here OJ.

[702]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

Bumping this thread to say...

Curry/Thompson/Iggy/Dray/Bogut is the best 5 man unit in the NBA.

Provides shooting, defense, passing, and speed. Good enough rebounding not to get killed there, and only big issue is an elite post scorer vs. Dray, but even then don't think that's a huge deal at all.

[jpshua15]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

I would rather have Kyle Lowry than Rondo, Kyrie, Lillard, etc.

[BraedenG33]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

I still believe in Ricky Rubio and I think he will probably get around 10 million a year in free agency next year. I think he is a really good player. People forget, he seems like he's been around forever since he started getting notoriety around 16, but he's only 23 years old. He still has room to improve and what he brings to the table very few point guards do. He's one of the 3 best passers in the league at the point guard position, and he's also an elite defender, which very few people realize.

[ehh]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

Bumping this thread to say...

Curry/Thompson/Iggy/Dray/Bogut is the best 5 man unit in the NBA.

Provides shooting, defense, passing, and speed. Good enough rebounding not to get killed there, and only big issue is an elite post scorer vs. Dray, but even then don't think that's a huge deal at all.

They may be well rounded but I can't see how they're the best, mainly because there's no true superstar in there.

[702]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

They may be well rounded but I can't see how they're the best, mainly because there's no true superstar in there.

Steph is a superstar. He's one of the 5 best offensive players in the league.

[702]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

For me at least Steph isn't a superstar. He'd be a high profile star, but not the top of the top

Debating definitions honestly. Steph can carry an offense, that's what matters.