defense: 80s vs today - Page 3 - Basketball Forum : Professional and College Basketball Forums

kflo · 02-23-2003, 07:36 AM

if any of the guys you're talking about were in today's nba, you'd lump them all together and say they suck too. duncan's just a better all-around player than mchale was at his peak. mchale was a great player, but to think that he'd be differentiating himself from duncan today where you would be saying that mchale is a throwback player and the best player in the nba compared to all these current scrubs is a joke.

woolridge? you can't really be taken seriously. a typical 80s player who could score and didn't care about anything else. flourished on an awful 1991 nuggets team that scored 129 ppg and gave up much more (20-62). you litterally must be smokin talking about woolridge and reminiscing about the glory years of the nba. he represented what was wrong with the 80s. to compare him to duncan and garnett? well, that's doesn't show much understanding of the game, imo.

MemphisX · 02-23-2003, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Teams in the 80's had at least 1-3 players with a solid midrange jumper and game. The poster that pointed out the PG's, nice work. The points back then were a lot stronger. So were the centers. You don't think that makes a difference in how a team is able to score Skywalker?

Really. Other than the top 4-5 teams name these teams that had 3 players with solid mid range jumpers.....

You guys need to watch some ESPN Classic...80% of the players in the 80's would be in the CBA. Just look at the heights of the starters in the 80's. A player like Mashburn would be elite in the 80's.

Another big difference is the coaches are more controlling now. Call to many plays and that means fewer possesions and fewer fast breaks.

golgor · 02-23-2003, 09:34 AM

How about Chicago???

Had Paxon, Jordan, Hodges and Pippen

Finished one place above the bottom in Central Division in 87-88

How about Milwaukee???:

Ricky Pierce, Moncrief, Green, Mike Dunleavy , all 50% or better shooters

How about Dallas??:

Dantley, Harper, Blackman, Shrempf, Perkins, Agguire, with all these didn't make the playoffs that same year

How about Indiana??:

Had Reggie, Chuck Person, Smits, Fleming, finished dead last winning only 28 games

How about Sonics??:

Had Dale Ellis, Mc Millan,Mc Key ,and Threatt

How about Portland?? with Porter, Drexler, Wandeweghe, didn't make playoffs either.

All teams with three or more very good mid range shooters, most above 50% and most of these teams didn't make playoffs or even finished last in their divisions circa 87 and 88.

Satisfied now?????

And what's height have to do with anything here.

Just means they lie more about that just like they do about everything else today

Players I know personally since I spent time with former Yugo team

Kukoc listed at 6 - 11 is 6 - 9 1/2

Divac listed at 7- 1 is 6 - 11 1/4

Stojakovic is 6 -7 1/2 listed at 6- 10

Some others I know from reliable sources

Duncan 6 - 10 1/2 they list him at 7 - 0

Garnett same

Novitzki 6 - 9 1/2 listed at 7 feet

Sabonis 7 - 1 listed at 7 -3 or even 7-4

Shaq 6 - 11 listed at 7 -1

You aren't really that stupid to believe listed height of players?

And about Woolridge, that was my point. He was a very big athletic guy who could score at his team's expense. Just like most players today. One exception, he did shoot around 55% in his prime, better than 99% of players today.

MemphisX · 02-23-2003, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by golgor!
How about Chicago???

Had Paxon, Jordan, Hodges and Pippen

Finished one place above the bottom in Central Division in 87-88

How about Milwaukee???:

Ricky Pierce, Moncrief, Green, Mike Dunleavy , all 50% or better shooters

How about Dallas??:

Dantley, Harper, Blackman, Shrempf, Perkins, Agguire, with all these didn't make the playoffs that same year

How about Indiana??:

Had Reggie, Chuck Person, Smits, Fleming, finished dead last winning only 28 games

How about Sonics??:

Had Dale Ellis, Mc Millan,Mc Key ,and Threatt

How about Portland?? with Porter, Drexler, Wandeweghe, didn't make playoffs either.

All teams with three or more very good mid range shooters, most above 50% and most of these teams didn't make playoffs or even finished last in their divisions circa 87 and 88.

Satisfied now?????

And what's height have to do with anything here.

Just means they lie more about that just like they do about everything else today

Players I know personally since I spent time with former Yugo team

Kukoc listed at 6 - 11 is 6 - 9 1/2

Divac listed at 7- 1 is 6 - 11 1/4

Stojakovic is 6 -7 1/2 listed at 6- 10

Some others I know from reliable sources

Duncan 6 - 10 1/2 they list him at 7 - 0

Garnett same

Novitzki 6 - 9 1/2 listed at 7 feet

Sabonis 7 - 1 listed at 7 -3 or even 7-4

Shaq 6 - 11 listed at 7 -1

You aren't really that stupid to believe listed height of players?

And about Woolridge, that was my point. He was a very big athletic guy who could score at his team's expense. Just like most players today. One exception, he did shoot around 55% in his prime, better than 99% of players today.

Stupid?

Chicago was 50-32
Milwaukee was 42-40 and a playoff team
Dallas was 53-29
Seattle was 44-38
Portland was 53-29

golgor · 02-23-2003, 10:26 AM

Ok, If you want me to be exact I was looking at 88-89.

That's not the point anyway. None of these were top 80s teams in any year and they all had at least 3 good shooters.

You asked, you got it.

**Jamel Irief** · 02-23-2003, 11:00 AM

golgor, the Lakers would kill Yugoslavia. The beat Vlade and Peja when they were surronded by Webber and Bibby so they would blow them out when they were surronded by Jaric and Radmonavoic. Lakers= world champions.

Quote:

Originally posted by buduan!

Defenses are better because players are better athletes? Are you kidding me? Athleticism has nothing to do with if a player is a great defender or not. Vince Carter is the best athlete in the league, would you call him all league defense? Next you'll be saying players today are better shooters and rebounders because they are more athletic. Shaq is more athletic than Moses Malone isn't he? I would rather have Malone defend or grab rebounds for me if I had to choose. There are about a half dozen centers (probably more) that are better defenders than Shaq or any other center in the league. And Shaq is far more athletic than any of them.

And who told you that teams and coaches didn't watch tape back then? Somebody lied to you. There was extensive scouting done back then, and it wasn't just from asst. coaches traveling to games. They did have VCR's back then.

Athleticism is required for perimeter defense at least. Back in the 80's if you were a horrible athlete and defender but a great shooter you were in the rotation, that's not the case today. Half a dozen centers that are better than Shaq defensively? We are going to disagree on that one. Clifford Robinson is the only one I can think of.

Nobody told me that teams and coaches didn't watch tape back then. I said coaches barely did and players rarely did. That's a fact. The scouting today is MILES ahead of what it was back then.

golgor · 02-23-2003, 11:12 AM

Again you go with they WOULD.

Yougoslavia DID, they don't have to speculate.

And who told you Lakers beat Sacramento. You mean David Starn and his 3 goons in Black and White stripes beat Sacramento?

Today if you are a horrible shooter, passer, athlete, as long as you can Tatoo yourself and rap they give you MVP

JOHNNY_BRAVisimO · 02-23-2003, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MemphisX!

Really. Other than the top 4-5 teams name these teams that had 3 players with solid mid range jumpers.....

You guys need to watch some ESPN Classic...80% of the players in the 80's would be in the CBA. Just look at the heights of the starters in the 80's. A player like Mashburn would be elite in the 80's.

Another big difference is the coaches are more controlling now. Call to many plays and that means fewer possesions and fewer fast breaks.

..

JOHNNY_BRAVisimO · 02-23-2003, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by golgor!
And what the hell are you applauding for?

I listed more than enough crappy teams with more than 3 good shooters.

Or is your reading ability on par with Shaq's free throw shooting?

80% of the players in the NBA back then would be in the CBA right now, fundamental players like fred hoiberg, shane battier, eic piatkowski, michael curry, morris peterson, kerry kittles etc..woud be solid starter in the NBA in the 80s, some even stars.

and what was the average height for a SG back in the 80's? 6'4? graig hodges? jon starks? pffffffffttt... they would be undersized shooting guards today and most likely bench players of playoff teams beause DEFENSE wins championships, not mid range jumers and 'fundamental' shooters

JOHNNY_BRAVisimO · 02-23-2003, 11:40 AM

its also hilarius how you trash KG becaus young kids today want to be like him, KG is THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PLAYER IN THE NBA, just because they talk ebonics dosent mean they dont know the fundamentals.

**Pinball** · 02-23-2003, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by golgor!
Today if you are a horrible shooter, passer, athlete, as long as you can Tatoo yourself and rap they give you MVP

You do know that your token black guy Tim Duncan has won 2 MVPs in the last 4 years right?

Showtime84' · 02-23-2003, 11:50 AM

If Garnett were truly a fundamental player, he would be dominating in the paint and shooting 55%FG like a real 7 footer is supposed to do instead of shooting fade aways, 20 footers and 3 pointers!!!

It's not a good endorsment for the present NBA when the defending 3 time world champions, aside from Shaq and Kobe, have probably the weakest lineup EVER for a championship team.

Horry, Fox and Fisher would be bench players in ANY ERA!!! and yet they're starting for the present "dominant team", PATHETIC.

In the 80's there were 23 teams, low salaries, better drafts and no cap!!! So teams were definetely deeper with quality than they are now.

Today you have a hard cap, sky rocketing salaries, weak drafts and 29 teams!!!

Do the math bro.

JOHNNY_BRAVisimO · 02-23-2003, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Showtime84'!
If Garnett were truly a fundamental player, he would be dominating in the paint and shooting 55%FG like a real 7 footer is supposed to do instead of shooting fade aways, 20 footers and 3 pointers!!!

It's not a good endorsment for the present NBA when the defending 3 time world champions, aside from Shaq and Kobe, have probably the weakest lineup EVER for a championship team.

Horry, Fox and Fisher would be bench players in ANY ERA!!! and yet they're starting for the present "dominant team", PATHETIC.

In the 80's there were 23 teams, low salaries, better drafts and no cap!!! So teams were definetely deeper with quality than they are now.

Today you have a hard cap, sky rocketing salaries, weak drafts and 29 teams!!!

Do the math bro.

about Garnett.... PLEASE, he does EVERYTHING you could ask for a player and you STILL nitpick? NOBODY inthe 80's was as versatile as Kevin Garnett is right now, pippen is probably the closest but even then he was a 90's era player.

about depth... what you hav failed to realize is that the last 12 championships were won by superstars, and some role players. Deep teams are nice, but deep dosent neccesarily mean chapionships, superstars giive you the best chance at a Ring.

Showtime84' · 02-23-2003, 11:58 AM

That shows you how weak the league has become, that a team with 1 or 2 stars combined with 10 or 11 role players can win multiple championships, that was unthinkable in the 80's.

In the 80's you needed multiple stars and DEPHT!!!

JOHNNY_BRAVisimO · 02-23-2003, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Showtime84'!
That shows you how weak the league has become, that a team with 1 or 2 stars combined with 10 or 11 role players can win multiple championships, that was unthinkable in the 80's.

In the 80's you needed multiple stars and DEPHT!!!

i think it has more to do with officiating then anything, the officials back then were 'honest' and called the game right, today they slow the game down and call fouls every other trip down the court, its sad. Superstars get superstar treatment these days more then ever since Jordan. The team with the Superstars will get all the calls and will win the game because the refs are really screwed up these days.

02-23-2003, 11:40 AM	#40 (permalink)
JOHNNY_BRAVisimO Veteran Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Underworld, where the Illuminati reside Posts: 2,182 Rep Power: 858	its also hilarius how you trash KG becaus young kids today want to be like him, KG is THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PLAYER IN THE NBA, just because they talk ebonics dosent mean they dont know the fundamentals. __________________ (Rick Carlisle[2003 Coach of the Year] on the play of Chicago’s Jamal Crawford) "Jamal averaged 30 against us last year when we played them with Detroit. He looks just as good if not better. He's a tremendous player, explosive. He can do a lot of things. He's a piece you can build a franchise around. He played great tonight. He played a lot of minutes, too- 51."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-23-2003, 07:36 AM	#31 (permalink)
kflo All-Star Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 9,527 Rep Power: 5748101	if any of the guys you're talking about were in today's nba, you'd lump them all together and say they suck too. duncan's just a better all-around player than mchale was at his peak. mchale was a great player, but to think that he'd be differentiating himself from duncan today where you would be saying that mchale is a throwback player and the best player in the nba compared to all these current scrubs is a joke. woolridge? you can't really be taken seriously. a typical 80s player who could score and didn't care about anything else. flourished on an awful 1991 nuggets team that scored 129 ppg and gave up much more (20-62). you litterally must be smokin talking about woolridge and reminiscing about the glory years of the nba. he represented what was wrong with the 80s. to compare him to duncan and garnett? well, that's doesn't show much understanding of the game, imo.

02-23-2003, 09:34 AM	#33 (permalink)
golgor Suspended Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 149 Rep Power: 0	How about Chicago??? Had Paxon, Jordan, Hodges and Pippen Finished one place above the bottom in Central Division in 87-88 How about Milwaukee???: Ricky Pierce, Moncrief, Green, Mike Dunleavy , all 50% or better shooters How about Dallas??: Dantley, Harper, Blackman, Shrempf, Perkins, Agguire, with all these didn't make the playoffs that same year How about Indiana??: Had Reggie, Chuck Person, Smits, Fleming, finished dead last winning only 28 games How about Sonics??: Had Dale Ellis, Mc Millan,Mc Key ,and Threatt How about Portland?? with Porter, Drexler, Wandeweghe, didn't make playoffs either. All teams with three or more very good mid range shooters, most above 50% and most of these teams didn't make playoffs or even finished last in their divisions circa 87 and 88. Satisfied now????? And what's height have to do with anything here. Just means they lie more about that just like they do about everything else today Players I know personally since I spent time with former Yugo team Kukoc listed at 6 - 11 is 6 - 9 1/2 Divac listed at 7- 1 is 6 - 11 1/4 Stojakovic is 6 -7 1/2 listed at 6- 10 Some others I know from reliable sources Duncan 6 - 10 1/2 they list him at 7 - 0 Garnett same Novitzki 6 - 9 1/2 listed at 7 feet Sabonis 7 - 1 listed at 7 -3 or even 7-4 Shaq 6 - 11 listed at 7 -1 You aren't really that stupid to believe listed height of players? And about Woolridge, that was my point. He was a very big athletic guy who could score at his team's expense. Just like most players today. One exception, he did shoot around 55% in his prime, better than 99% of players today.

02-23-2003, 10:26 AM	#35 (permalink)
golgor Suspended Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 149 Rep Power: 0	Ok, If you want me to be exact I was looking at 88-89. That's not the point anyway. None of these were top 80s teams in any year and they all had at least 3 good shooters. You asked, you got it.

02-23-2003, 11:12 AM	#37 (permalink)
golgor Suspended Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 149 Rep Power: 0	Again you go with they WOULD. Yougoslavia DID, they don't have to speculate. And who told you Lakers beat Sacramento. You mean David Starn and his 3 goons in Black and White stripes beat Sacramento? Today if you are a horrible shooter, passer, athlete, as long as you can Tatoo yourself and rap they give you MVP

02-23-2003, 11:50 AM	#42 (permalink)
Showtime84' 6th Man Join Date: Oct 2002 Age: 31 Posts: 413 Rep Power: 5377	If Garnett were truly a fundamental player, he would be dominating in the paint and shooting 55%FG like a real 7 footer is supposed to do instead of shooting fade aways, 20 footers and 3 pointers!!! It's not a good endorsment for the present NBA when the defending 3 time world champions, aside from Shaq and Kobe, have probably the weakest lineup EVER for a championship team. Horry, Fox and Fisher would be bench players in ANY ERA!!! and yet they're starting for the present "dominant team", PATHETIC. In the 80's there were 23 teams, low salaries, better drafts and no cap!!! So teams were definetely deeper with quality than they are now. Today you have a hard cap, sky rocketing salaries, weak drafts and 29 teams!!! Do the math bro.

02-23-2003, 11:58 AM	#44 (permalink)
Showtime84' 6th Man Join Date: Oct 2002 Age: 31 Posts: 413 Rep Power: 5377	That shows you how weak the league has become, that a team with 1 or 2 stars combined with 10 or 11 role players can win multiple championships, that was unthinkable in the 80's. In the 80's you needed multiple stars and DEPHT!!!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)