On July 13 2012 05:03 XaI)CyRiC wrote: Barkeley was certainly an athletic freak, but it's not like he would be the only one on the floor in such a matchup. Lebron is arguably everything he was but better. Melo is at least physically capable of guarding Barkeley due to his size and strength (underrated IMO), and would just as tough a cover on the other end for Barkeley (who was no defensive ace himself either).
This paragraph made me laugh so hard, I spit coffee onto my keyboard .
I agree that Melo is a tough check 1-on-1 (for anyone, as many NBA players are), but Barkley and Melo don't belong in the same conversation.
Just for the sake of argument, care to explain why?
The idea that Melo could stop anyone, let alone Charles freaking Barkley was the main thing that activated my LOL valve.
I was listening to some sports talk radio yesterday. Apparently someone asked MJ about Kobe's statements re: 1992 dream team. MJ's response, much like mine, was to double over in laughter.
MJ's response, like yours, does nothing to convince anyone who has put any real thought into it. It's easy to just laugh off the assertion, but he doesn't convince me simply because he's the GOAT and he says so.
I agree with him in that Kobe was off about pointing to the Dream Team's age since they weren't THAT old, but I'm sure Kobe, like many others, probably made that comment because the Dream Team just felt older. Magic was far from his prime due to HIV and having taken a year off. Bird could barely play because of his back. Stockton was injured. Mullin was never the type of athlete that could compare to who is on the 2008/12 teams, etc.
As for Kobe arguing that 2008/12 had better overall athleticism, there's no question that's true. From top to bottom, the 2008 and 2012 squads have elite athleticism that only few of the 1992 team could compare to. The 1992 team's best athletes were arguably Jordan, Barkley, Pippen and Robinson. Maybe Drexler. I've already talked about Magic, Bird, Stockton and Mullin. Ewing and Malone were slow compared to the 2008/12 players, and wouldn't have had a significant size/strength advantage against the 2008/12 bigs. So you've got 4 or 5 elite athletes against at least twice that number on the 2008/12 teams... and Lebron.
Jordan arguing that the 1992 team was "smarter" is just silly. More experienced yeah, but there's no support at all for smarter. The game advanced so much between 1992 and 2008, and the game has become so much more sophisticated. The new generation didn't suddenly forget everything taught to them by the previous generations. If anything they learned from them and added to it. Coaches who coached in both eras have all consistently said that the game is so much more complex and sophisticated now than back then. This is just old man talk, and it carries absolutely no weight.
Anyone who "doubles over in laughter" over the assertion or argues that there's "no comparison" between the 1992 team and the 2008/12 teams is just living in the past and off of players' legacies. All of the facts make it either a close contest or an advantage to the 2008/12 teams.
On July 14 2012 02:33 XaI)CyRiC wrote: If you want to go back to what even brought this up, i.e. 1992 team vs. 2008/12 teams, Barkley being an athletic freak would not have any sort of significant advantage for the 1992 team. Both the 2008 and 2012 teams have plenty of athletic freaks, and have several players who were/are physically capable of guarding Barkley while also being tough covers for him on the other end.
If you think these teams have anyone beyond LBJ that could come close to stopping Charles in 1992, there's no point in us arguing.
We're not even arguing because you're not presenting any facts or logical reasoning. Conclusive statements do not an argument make. I've explained why Barkley would have been guardable by the 2008/12 squads. I've yet to hear you refute or address any of my points.
T.T ..... I had a thoughful-but-incomplete post around 5 meaty paragraphs in about the olympics debate and I had to CTRL+C it, b/c I knew I had to refresh page when I posted it b/c TL would remake me log in. I had to take care of some work really quick though and I instinctively CTRL+C something else and erased all my "hard" work! =( So annoyed, and I have failed the thread today. Smoke break for me.
On July 14 2012 04:19 MassHysteria wrote: good move since he was got injured at season's end right? Or did he come back before the season ended? Not sure..
On July 14 2012 05:02 slyboogie wrote: Javale Mcgee got 5 years / 50 million. I don't want to hear about big-man contracts anymore.
Are the NBA GM/ Owners that retarded or the player's agents that good at negotiation? Net Fans should feel alot better about Lopez's contact that is for sure....
Mcgee might be dumb, but he isn't THAT bad. It's not like he has an attitude problem, and I can't imagine him making dumb plays like that once he's got more experience.
On July 14 2012 02:33 XaI)CyRiC wrote: If you want to go back to what even brought this up, i.e. 1992 team vs. 2008/12 teams, Barkley being an athletic freak would not have any sort of significant advantage for the 1992 team. Both the 2008 and 2012 teams have plenty of athletic freaks, and have several players who were/are physically capable of guarding Barkley while also being tough covers for him on the other end.
If you think these teams have anyone beyond LBJ that could come close to stopping Charles in 1992, there's no point in us arguing.
and this is why no one takes anything you say seriously.
Seriously, everyone looked like a god in the early 1990s because defense was so unorganized. Not to say they weren't good, but people are delusional if they think the players from the 1992 dream team could put up similar numbers if they played in today's league with modern rules and player conditioning.
Don't even mention anything about tougher defense because of handchecking allowed, etc. When games like this one (final score 140-133 LOL) can actually happen during the playoffs, you know defensive sets were nonexistent back then.
On July 14 2012 05:02 slyboogie wrote: Javale Mcgee got 5 years / 50 million. I don't want to hear about big-man contracts anymore.
Are the NBA GM/ Owners that retarded or the player's agents that good at negotiation? Net Fans should feel alot better about Lopez's contact that is for sure....
Problem is 7 footers are rare in the NBA. It seems like, once you hit that magical mark, your value skyrockets because of it.
Man I have no sympathy for the owners come time for the next CBA. They complain their asses off about bad contracts but continue to sign them year by year. It's maddening.
Even more maddening is that we have over a decade of evidence showing height is truly irrelevant as opposed to skill set. Of the top 20 players in the league most are PGs and Wings, with bigs that can do more than just post up littered in. This is why some teams continue to win, and some suffer the same fate every year.
A lot of the bigs are getting thinner and faster too. Even love decided to lose weight and he wasn't particularly too big to begin with. And yeah, defense was atrocious back then. Everything was either man to man or the occasional double team. That's about it.
I think McGee's contract isnt horrible. Lock him in through his "prime" and never worry about a center for 10 mil a year? That's not even bad. Him and Faried make up a scary core that will develop for sure.
Anyways, these contracts aren't even worth being complained about, being shocked about or, really, even talked about. It's been the norm for a decade? A decade and a half? You will simply never get a "value" signing off of a big. The market has been set since forever. It's not even "right" or "wrong," if you want gas in your car, you pay $3.89 a gallon.
Wings are getting stronger but big men being less refined is also a big reason I think. If the kids growing up today watch wing players dominate, specially after Jordan, then they don't practice what traditional big men used to do while growing up. If the game is changing, then the people training the next generation of players just trains them to adapt to what is happening. So if coaches see that players coming are much better suited for an up-tempo, fast style, and it is also the style that is being promoted by the NBA, then the coaches understand it would be dumb to spend resources trying to get a player to develop post moves.
It is not that wing players dominate, but big men today are just less skilled in general when it comes to post moves and being able to control a game. And if they do have the post moves, they aren't at the point where they understand it enough where they can make teams pay strictly on that. It is much harder to develop a big, who isn't that smart to begin with, and teach him how to have his team dominate primaly off of his post moves. It is a little bit like soccer in which you understand where the pass is going 2 or 3 passes before it gets there, and it takes most guys a while to master that if they have not grown up with it. Plus, it is not only harder to teach but there are so many players being quick and athletic that it is just easier to instill a game plan that takes advantage of that. This seemingly making the bigs look even worse because now they just become role players on many teams.
The NBA has noticed that it benefits from having a faster, more athletic style of game and it has set to promote that in the last decade or so. The reason (imo) that we see wing players dominating (which is true that they are) is due to the fact that coaches/players/basketball-minds have refined the skillsets and techniques of those positions to a higher degree. Jordan helped spark a revolution in this sense. Everyone tried to be the next Jordan. Players tried to imitate him, coaches studied him and tried to see what they could teach, and a large focus went to studying how to become a better SG (or wing). We see effects of this in how Forwards and PG today a lot of times trandscend the traditional skillset associated with that position.
TLDR: I don't completely disagree with height being irrelevant as opposed to skillset but I do disagree with the last decade being evidence of this. It is just that the the skillset for bigs to be able to dominate post-wise is harder to master, less fun to watch, and has not been the focus of the last few generations of players and the coaches/teachers teaching the players. The style of NBA play has changed, and as sad for me as it is to say, an NBA team going back to a post-dominated offense does seem retro and counter-progressive. I do think that with the right personnel, it could be brought back, but at the same time, finding that right personnel is where the major problem is at now. Edit: I realized that I guess you could have meant post-up or big man moves as being part of "skillset", in which case I apologize for not making sense. I am still annoyed at losing the giant post I had typed earlier ><.
On July 14 2012 08:04 slyboogie wrote: Yeah, I wouldn't say "develop for sure."
Anyways, these contracts aren't even worth being complained about, being shocked about or, really, even talked about. It's been the norm for a decade? A decade and a half? You will simply never get a "value" signing off of a big. The market has been set since forever. It's not even "right" or "wrong," if you want gas in your car, you pay $3.89 a gallon.
3.89 a gallon is a steal for everyone living outside of America, just sayin.
EPT
.
