was the overall defense of the nba stronger in the 80s (pick a year)?
were the wing defenders better in the 80s?
were the wing defenders better in the 80s?
Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
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!!!
Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
do you not realize that the NBA has gone through multiple expansions? Charlotte, Orlando, Toronto and the Grizzlies. That spreads 56! players out to new teams, imagine Tracy Mcgrady and Mike Miller on the Spurs with Duncan, Robinson and Parker! imagine Pao Gasol, Shane Battier, Mike Miller, Jason Williams, Stromile Swift, Lorenzen Wright and Wesley Person on the Boston Celtics!! imagine Baron Davis, Jamal Mashburn and David Wesley on the Lakers!!
Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
You just proved his (and everybody else who says the league is diluted) point.
Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
no, talent and defense are not neccesarily the same thing, the superstars of the leauge are more spread out but overall defense is still better then back in the 80's.
Buddy I never said that defense today is much better than in the 80's. The Lakers ability to cause turnovers was what makde them champs...read my post...defense wins championships. Teams ran because the offense was more spread and yes I agree that the points were better in the 80's and early 90's than today and that had a huge part for it. My post was simply explaining that the emphasis on defense is higher. I believe like you that teams in general were much better in the 80's because although they did not play as tough defense as teams of today except for the Pistons, Knicks, and Bulls in 80's n early 90's they played an overall better game.Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
I seem to remember the Lakers putting a team out on the floor at times that had no player smaller than 6'9 and trapping teams to death. Even they got the ball over halfcourt they were working against the clock. Bad shots and turnovers were caused because of it and easy transition buckets when you have the Magic man leading the break.
The Kings and Mavs are a team of chuckers. They don't compare to the elite of the 80's.
They played uptempo because there were real PG's and Centers playing back then Bball Doctor. They COULD run because they had the personell to start the break and run the break. Today we have a whole lot of the middle man (finishers) but no igniters and facillitators.
Defenses have got a little more sophisticated especially with the zone, but in no way is it better than what we had in the 80's. It might actually be worse because players don't come into the league with the fundamentals anymore.
Teams don't run anymore because they aren't as deep as they used to be. It would blow your mind to know some of the teams and their lineups couldn't even get into the playoffs.
thank you voice of reason.Originally posted by <b>Bball_Doctor</b>!
Buddy I never said that defense today is much better than in the 80's. The Lakers ability to cause turnovers was what makde them champs...read my post...defense wins championships. Teams ran because the offense was more spread and yes I agree that the points were better in the 80's and early 90's than today and that had a huge part for it. My post was simply explaining that the emphasis on defense is higher. I believe like you that teams in general were much better in the 80's because although they did not play as tough defense as teams of today except for the Pistons, Knicks, and Bulls in 80's n early 90's they played an overall better game.
I'm still waiting for you to respond to my post from page 2. I obviously can't convince you with the evidence I have provided, so why don't you try and convince me? And yes, compared to the teams from the 80's the Kings and Mavs are chuckers. The 2 best teams would be a far cry from the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, etc...of the 80's. They may be trying harder, but they still fall far short of those teams in terms of defense.Originally posted by <b>SkywalkerAC</b>!
thank you voice of reason.
bud,
please don't tell me that you think the mavs and the kings are just teams of chuckers. they are probably the two most exciting teams to watch right now and are two of the only teams that are playing the style that you are (rightly) enamoured with. at the same time, sacramento has really turned up their level of defense in past years and dallas is trying to follow suit (with some results). i know you're not a hater like golgor.
so, are you still not convinced (its a damn hard job) that today's defense is a little stronger on average? that today's players (especially wings) are better defenders on average? if not, please explain how the defense was better and how the defenders were better (naming off a few defenders isn't going to cut it) instead of trying to come up with reasons to explain the astronomically high scoring.
so you're now only comparing the best teams of these eras? what does defense have to do with being "chuckers"? or am i misinterpreting that word.Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
I'm still waiting for you to respond to my post from page 2. I obviously can't convince you with the evidence I have provided, so why don't you try and convince me? And yes, compared to the teams from the 80's the Kings and Mavs are chuckers. The 2 best teams would be a far cry from the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, etc...of the 80's. They may be trying harder, but they still fall far short of those teams in terms of defense.
you did a decent job of arguing why scores may have been higher. i just don't see good defenses allowing over 100 points per game, i'm sorry. perimeter defenders have come a LONG way since the 80s but the center position is probably defensively weaker. however, there are still many good defensive big men in the game. the style of the game has changed- less fast breaks, more halfcourt, a greater dedication to defense.Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
I'm basically showing that lower scores nowadays doesn't translate to better defense, just a dilution in talent and a focus on the highlight reels. Why do you think the international players are taking over this league? Because they are learning the fundamentals and are better shooters because of it.
Obviously you didn't watch the NBA in the 80's, because if you did we wouldn't even be having this conversation. So you are looking for great one on one defenders? Is that what makes todays NBA better in your opinion? I bet you have never even heard of a guy named T.R. Dunn, have you? Great on ball defender and played the lanes better than most defenders today.
How about Alvin Robertson? Averaged over 3 steals a game for several seasons. Even recorded a triple double with 10 steals one game.
Ever hear of Michael Cooper? Kevin McHale? 2 of the best defenders at their positions EVER. How about Robert Reid? Great one on one defender. Mo Cheeks? Johnny Moore? Nate McMillan?
Remember when guys like Swen Nater, Mark Eaton, Kareem, Parish, Ewing, Moses, Artis Gilmore, Ralph Sampson, Olojawaun, and Bol were clogging lanes?
Do ANY of these names sound familiar?
But the argument isn't about individual defenders is it? It's team defense. Teams had more than one star to contend with back in the day and far more fundamentally sound players. To take a page from Golgors book let's look at the Jazz. A decent team when Stockton and Malone were young and more capable. As the league became more diluted they went to the Finals as old men. You don't see the correlation there? I have more examples if you would like.
There will always be players fighting for 10 day contracts, I can't believe you even said that.
Many players today have great midrange games huh? Name them. Let's see how many you can come up with, and remember I will call you out if you try and bullisht me. 3's out of necessity huh? I don't think so. Not after watching a 7 footer like Wallace shoot 12 last night. He could have his way with the Laker frontline, but he chose to jack up ill advised 3 after ill advised 3. Teams shoot the 3 more because they only need to shoot 33% to score as much as a team shooting 50% inside the arc. Too bad most coaches don't see the flaws in that philosophy. One of which is that you get no FT attempts jacking 3's. But that's for another thread.
Anybody else see the flaws in this paragraph? PG's fashion themselves after Kidd do they? Like Francis? Marbury? Nash? Arenas? Which ones are you talking about? The guys I watch nowadays miss the open man far too much and try to be far to fancy on fast breaks. How many lobs do you see missed a game? I see quite a few. Bounce passes off the glass? I see that quite often without the desired result.
They aren't fast breaking because the PG position is pretty thin these days. We have a ton of undersized SG's playing the position though. Francis and Marbury are perfect examples of that. I watch them play quite often and I can't believe how often they miss the open man or try and do everything themselves. No more great centers or even legitimate big men anymore. How is the fastbreak ignited? From a big man blocking and controlling a shot, or a defensive rebound with a great outlet.
You feel that defenders are quicker and bigger and stronger? Name a few and I'll name some that are quicker, bigger, or stronger. Your ignorance doesn't allow you to see it. Name ONE defender today that is a better low post defender than Kevin McHale. Name a better one on one defender than Michael Cooper. Show me your list of shotblockers from today and I'll show you a longer list from the 80's.
7 footers should never be as far from the hoop as he finds himself at times. 7 footers big men, not skinny men that can do it all. But that's my own personal preference.
You give me a choice of Tim Duncan or the do it all KG, I take Duncan 10 times out of 10.
again with your individual comparison.Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
This is how I'm gonna close this argument.
The present NBA team with the best record are the Dallas Mavericks, a team with virtually NO INSIDE GAME(Van exel is their best post player), the weakest front line defense I've seen in my years of watching basketball, their perimeter D maybe even Worse. Aside from Michael Finley this team is one of the most unathletic in the last 10 years and they play a fast break game that many times settles for shooting bad 3 pointers.
What are their averages???
103ppg and allow 93ppg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If this soft as tissue paper team can pull this off, there is no DOUBT that the 80's teams would absolutely OWN the present NBA.
Nuff said.
and you keep on trying to take this argument in different directions, it's about DEFENSE.Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
This is how I'm gonna close this argument.
The present NBA team with the best record are the Dallas Mavericks, a team with virtually NO INSIDE GAME(Van exel is their best post player), the weakest front line defense I've seen in my years of watching basketball, their perimeter D maybe even Worse. Aside from Michael Finley this team is one of the most unathletic in the last 10 years and they play a fast break game that many times settles for shooting bad 3 pointers.
What are their averages???
103ppg and allow 93ppg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If this soft as tissue paper team can pull this off, there is no DOUBT that the 80's teams would absolutely OWN the present NBA.
Nuff said.
van exel isn't the mavs best post up player ....its nowitski hands down ...and has anyone ever wondered if the defenses in the 80s were so much better .....why were the pistons of the late 80s the reason basketball is in its state today , with slow down offenses and pyhsical grinding defenders it would appear to me that the league wouldn't have changed at the end of the decade and throughout the 90s until today for an inferior style of playOriginally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
This is how I'm gonna close this argument.
The present NBA team with the best record are the Dallas Mavericks, a team with virtually NO INSIDE GAME(Van exel is their best post player), the weakest front line defense I've seen in my years of watching basketball, their perimeter D maybe even Worse. Aside from Michael Finley this team is one of the most unathletic in the last 10 years and they play a fast break game that many times settles for shooting bad 3 pointers.
What are their averages???
103ppg and allow 93ppg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If this soft as tissue paper team can pull this off, there is no DOUBT that the 80's teams would absolutely OWN the present NBA.
Nuff said.
not only is this crap, it's crap that has NOTHING to do with this defense argument.Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
I' say this again, the Dallas freakin Mavericks are the best team the present NBA has to offer and they would be just an average team by 80's standards.
They can run, shoot and SCORE on anybody in the present NBA and with what:
1. 3 offensive ONLY midgets a PG
2. The weakest front line for a contending team maybe in HISTORY with Bradley, Nowtzky and Lafrentz. All of them are allergic to the paint on BOTH sides of the ball.
3. A 2-guard in Finley that is one of the worst defenders in the league.
4. And finaly role players like Najera, Bell and Griffin who can only score on the fast break or open jumpers.
The 80's Hawks, Cavs, Jazz, Nuggets and Mavs were ALL better than this sorry team and they didn't even get close to sniffing a title.
Face it the league is WATERED DOWN, WHY?
29 teams, high salaries, weak drafts and a HARD CAP!