fifth column
Superstar
Luka > Lebron with stats so far in his career so who knows
KG (in response to Ant Man)- "If im being honest, I don't think anyone in this generation could've played 20 years ago"
- Thread starter Jplaya2023
- Start date
What does Bron have to do with this? You just can't help yourself.
I'm going to break this down for your remedial ass real slow, so that you can understand.
KG has already said players of his generation couldn't play in this era. Let me repeat - KG has already said players of his generation couldn't play in this era.
I have posted the link twice in this thread now to show you -
Kevin Garnett says players from his generation couldn't play in the modern NBA
Wow, actual praise for the current NBA from a former playerwww.cbssports.com
Why do you keep ignoring this?
Do you not see how he has contradicted his initial position on this by saying the opposite? Why do you only take what he said when it suits your position? Do you not understand that if someone is contradicting themselves like this then their opinion shouldn't really be trusted on the matter, at face value, and that further investigation should be had as to why they're saying players from their generation couldn't play today, but then in the next breath saying players from today couldn't play back then.
What the fukk are you even talking about now? Players from this generation, dominating this era? What? Can you not read?
These are two contradicting opinions that KG has on this topic:
"I don't think guys from 20 years ago could play this game," Garnett said.
"If im being honest, I don't think anyone in this generation could've played 20 years ago"
He went from praising this era, to then doing a complete 180 and shytting on it.
How many times to I need to reiterate this to you before you understand the problem here?
Breh.
Answer this:
Let me be direct with your goofy ass.
I'm talking to YOU and what YOUR answer will be since you know basketball.
Would Allen Iverson dominate in this current era? Yes or No
Would Shaq average MORE or Less points in this Era?
Last edited:
havoc
Superstar
The players from the past did not use hand checking frequently in every possession. If you watch 48 minutes of any old school basketball, you would see hand checking frequently used on the low post area of the court. You might see it on the mid post ( but not often) when offensive player set their backs toward the basket. However, you are not going see defenders pressing an offense player with hand checking on a full court press. It was rare. Point guards often took the inbound pass and walked freely crossing the half court without encountering pressure from the defense.
If you put modern players in the past with their perimeter arsenal they would have easier time to score because the perimeter defense isn't as intense as the modern defense.
Last edited:
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
Dude is turning into Scotty Pippen with his double talking ass
I don't think he'd be the star attraction like he was back in the day.
He came up during a period where his toughness was revered, his inefficiency was largely glossed over because of his aesthetic and because the game was not in a particularly good state at the time that comparatively, there wasn't a whole lot of guards who stood out to push him into the background.
He was face of that generation during the early 2000s, and that carried a whole lot of weight that wouldn't be as relevant today. His toughness would be acknowledgled, but nobody would be heralding it; his handle would be acknowledged, but given there's plenty of guards who're just as good (some even better), it wouldn't be treated as admirably. His scoring would be acknowledgled, but if he didn't win anything, he'd just be lost in the noise of all the ring talk.
Over the last 5-10 years we've had:
Steph
Luka
Harden
Westbrook
Kyrie
Shai
Dame
Booker
Ant
CP3
Klay
LaVine
Mitchell
Beal
etc.
That's what he'd be competing with. Not just from a competitive standpoint, but for attention too. Someone like Dame who's been an All-NBA/All-Star for many years, is really a footnote in the superstardom of the last decade, because of how many talented and accomplished guards there's been. I mentioned in another thread that Iverson's image benefited greatly from that 2001 Finals run, but nobody would pay that any mind if that's all he did today.
Futhermore, because he was a limited playmaker and because he was a limited outside shooter, that would put him at a significant disadvantage where you have greater shooters and better playmakers at the guard position, and he simply wouldn't be as dominant as them. Being able to shoot while simultaneously orchestrate the offense is much more essential now than it was back then. And he wasn't particularly great at either. One of the reasons why Larry Brown moved him out of the PG position in the first place was because of his inability to run the offense. His defensive shortcomings would be a lot more exposed than they were too, and he'd be at the center of every switch, particularly in the playoffs - that would certainly affect his team's success a lot more than it did back in the day. He'd need a greater support cast than the one he had in Philly, in almost every aspect.
He'd certainly still be a dominant scorer (in a regular season capacity), especially with the benefit of greater spacing, but if he didn't do anything with it in the postseason, he'd be looked at as another Dame.
He'd average relatively the same.
He wouldn't be playing the same amount of minutes he did back then (his minutes would be capped at around 30-34), he'd have a far greater defensive workload today (exerting more energy), he'd be targetted in the PnR (given his reluctance to defend out on the perimeter), all of which would all lead to fewer offensive possessions because of time and stamina.
Teams wouldn't be able to contain him, so when he did get the ball, he'd score just as effortlessly as he did back then.
As a scorer, he wouldn't be any more (or less) dominant than he was back then, because he'd dominate any era in that area of the game.
Let me just put that into perspective:
Luka led the league last season averaging 34 ppg
He averaged 37.5 minutes
He made 11.5 field goals per game (4.1 of these field goals were 3-pointers)
He made 6.8 out of his 8.7 FT attempts (78%)
He controlled the ball for 8.3 minutes per game (#2 in the league).
During Shaq's 30 ppg season, he averaged 40 minutes with 21 field goal attempts (10 FTA), now, because he wouldn't be playing 40 minutes today, it would mean he wouldn't be putting up the same volume of shots to accumulate those 30 points. What he would need to do is complete fewer shots at a higher percentage, in order to reach that mark, which needless to say, is entirely possible, but unless he just miraciously became a better FT shooter, then teams would purposefully send him to the line (like they did back then), instead of giving him easy opporunities to score, which would mean he'd just up scoring relatively the same amount of points.
The only way where he'd score more points today is if he shot more 3s and/or shot better from the line.
Any hope of you holding your own hand anytime soon, cause cats have had to put up with your stupid ass thoughts for a minute now.
Last edited:
I don't think he'd be the star attraction like he was back in the day.
He came up during a period where his toughness was revered, his inefficiency was largely glossed over because of his aesthetic and because the game was not in a particularly good state at the time that comparatively, there wasn't a whole lot of guards who stood out to push him into the background.
He was face of that generation during the early 2000s, and that carried a whole lot of weight that wouldn't be as relevant today. His toughness would be acknowledgled, but nobody would be heralding it; his handle would be acknowledged, but given there's plenty of guards who're just as good (some even better), it wouldn't be treated as admirably. His scoring would be acknowledgled, but if he didn't win anything, he'd just be lost in the noise of all the ring talk.
Over the last 5-10 years we've had:
Steph
Luka
Harden
Westbrook
Kyrie
Shai
Dame
Booker
Ant
CP3
Klay
LaVine
Mitchell
Beal
etc.
That's what he'd be competing with. Not just from a competitive standpoint, but for attention too. Someone like Dame who's been an All-NBA/All-Star for many years, is really a footnote in the superstardom of the last decade, because of how many talented and accomplished guards there's been. I mentioned in another thread that Iverson's image benefited greatly from that 2001 Finals run, but nobody would pay that any mind if that's all he did today.
Futhermore, because he was a limited playmaker and because he was a limited outside shooter, that would put him at a significant disadvantage where you have greater shooters and better playmakers at the guard position, and he simply wouldn't be as dominant as them. Being able to shoot while simultaneously orchestrate the offense is much more essential now than it was back then. And he wasn't particularly great at either. One of the reasons why Larry Brown moved him out of the PG position in the first place was because of his inability to run the offense. His defensive shortcomings would be a lot more exposed than they were too, and he'd be at the center of every switch, particularly in the playoffs - that would certainly affect his team's success a lot more than it did back in the day. He'd need a greater support cast than the one he had in Philly, in almost every aspect.
He'd certainly still be a dominant scorer (in a regular season capacity), especially with the benefit of greater spacing, but if he didn't do anything with it in the postseason, he'd be looked at as another Dame.
He'd average relatively the same.
He wouldn't be playing the same amount of minutes he did back then (his minutes would be capped at around 30-34), he'd have a far greater defensive workload today (exerting more energy), he'd be targetted in the PnR (given his reluctance to defend out on the perimeter), all of which would all lead to fewer offensive possessions because of time and stamina.
Teams wouldn't be able to contain him, so when he did get the ball, he'd score just as effortlessly as he did back then.
As a scorer, he wouldn't be any more (or less) dominant than he was back then, because he'd dominate any era in that area of the game.
Let me just put that into perspective:
Luka led the league last season averaging 34 ppg
He averaged 37.5 minutes
He made 11.5 field goals per game (4.1 of these field goals were 3-pointers)
He made 6.8 out of his 8.7 FT attempts (78%)
He controlled the ball for 8.3 minutes per game (#2 in the league).
During Shaq's 30 ppg season, he averaged 40 minutes with 21 field goal attempts (10 FTA), now, because he wouldn't be playing 40 minutes today, it would mean he wouldn't be putting up the same volume of shots to accumulate those 30 points. What he would need to do is complete fewer shots at a higher percentage, in order to reach that mark, which needless to say, is entirely possible, but unless he just miraciously became a better FT shooter, then teams would purposefully send him to the line (like they did back then), instead of giving him easy opporunities to score, which would mean he'd just up scoring relatively the same amount of points.
The only way where he'd score more points today is if he shot more 3s and/or shot better from the line.
Any hope of you holding your own hand anytime soon, cause cats have had to put up with your stupid ass thoughts for a minute now.
Noone could stay in front of A.I. in the 90s but you expect us to believe that he can not increase his scoring when there are LESS defenders in this current Era.
The freedom of movement is allowed and there are not shot blockers in this league?
A.I. scoring will increase.
All of those guards you named are not defensive players.
The whole tough persona that glared so much with him was because of his size playing in that Era.. The beating he took in that Era which is why YOU highlighted his toughness, is something neither one of those guards you posted along with Luke do not have.
They wouldn't have survived many 82 games in that 90s Era.
Folks talk on A.I. toughness because of his size playing at a high level. Not many his size could have do such because of the level of physicality of the league back then. This makes A.I. toughness shine so brightly because he did it for many seasons.
These dudes in this Era are not tough especially Luka. Ain't no toughness in any of these dudes.
A.I. was a trendsetter, his game will outshine the likes of many that you named. A.I. prime was something special to watch. Hell Rook A.I. would be a problem in this league.
As far as Shaq, Orlando Magic Shaq was more athletic than Lakers Shaq and him in Orlando could run the floor. He was a force and he didn't have many post moves. It was when he got to the Lakers where he became unstoppable. The top Centers who were in that Era your elite defenders could NOT stop him but you are saying that Shaq wouldn't dominate in this Era.
Breh smh.
No Center or anybody is matching up with Orlando Shaq nor Lakers Shaq. Nobody
His numbers would increase in this league.
If Joker can be a 2 or 3x MVP in this league and he's nowhere near Prime Shaq and he's putting up numbers, you expect us to believe Shaq wouldn't dominate in this league or put up huge numbers night in and night out.
As far as the PNR, you do know teams run PNR with Joker and Embid and they don't show either, the play drop which was what Shaq did in the 90s, he never got exposed because of that.
Teams just didn't start running PNR in 2017 breh. PNR been around. Shaq saw PNR along with David Robinson, Hakeem etc. They all say this scheme and they were OK. Shaq would be fine
Breh you need to do a little more thinking about what you stand on because you don't make any sense.
Last edited:
Breh. You are really agreeing with what I'm saying about the players in the 90s.
You posted and article about KG saying the 90s players wouldn't dominate but here you are saying otherwise which is why I don't even understand what was your intent of posting that article.
You yourself is basically saying that players would dominate but you want to add in something that may hinder them because you think the game is played differently but you have players who are somewhat in resemblance of the 90s players who are thriving in this soft ass league Now.
Joker and those guards you named.
Joker is thriving and those guards.
KG said players in THIS current Era couldn't dominate as such like they are doing NoW. That's the topic and I agree with that topic
You posting an article with him saying something off topic makes no sense when you just wrote a whole page and half on how 2 players from that Era would average their average in the current era.
You are all over the place breh. Tiptoeing the line to save face
You posted and article about KG saying the 90s players wouldn't dominate but here you are saying otherwise which is why I don't even understand what was your intent of posting that article.
You yourself is basically saying that players would dominate but you want to add in something that may hinder them because you think the game is played differently but you have players who are somewhat in resemblance of the 90s players who are thriving in this soft ass league Now.
Joker and those guards you named.
Joker is thriving and those guards.
KG said players in THIS current Era couldn't dominate as such like they are doing NoW. That's the topic and I agree with that topic
You posting an article with him saying something off topic makes no sense when you just wrote a whole page and half on how 2 players from that Era would average their average in the current era.
You are all over the place breh. Tiptoeing the line to save face
When A.I. scored 33 ppg in 2006, he averaged 43 minutes that season - under no circumstances would he be averaging those minutes today, so right off the bat, he's already at a disadvantage to score more. The last player to average 40+ minutes was Monta back in 2011, which is nearly 15 years ago, so you can see how much the game has changed since then.
Regardless of that, scoring more points, in a vacuum, is a red herring, it doesn't automatically mean he's any better or worse (if he scores more or less).
The fact that you think it does is why you're struggling through this discussion.
What you should be looking at and concerned with is what type of player he is in relation to what is relevant today, and like I've already mentioned in my previous post, the best guards in today's game are the ones who can shoot and playmake at an elite level, both of which A.I. wasn't particularly great at, so you've got to ask yourself, what would change now?
He was a flashy guard, with not a whole lot of substance, who operated on sheer will, whose style and prescence didn't result in anything meaningful from a winning perspective.
For argument's sake, let's say he'd score more today, if that were the case, than the team he was on would likely be stuck in the lottery. If he's monopolizing the ball to where he's scoring more than 33 ppg, than the offense of his team would only be a cheap thrill. There would be no chemistry or continuity becuase he'd be chucking up shots and not playmaking, and it wouldn't be a particularly productive offense because he'd largely be getting his points by the way of 2s and not 3s. He wouldn't have the size advatange like Embiid, Shai and Luka do either, to score effectively on those type of shots either. The large majority of defenders he'd be up against would all be much bigger and longer, and that would affect how efficient he was.
If you think he's averaging 35+, he'd most likely be taking the relatively the same amount of shots to get those points. If he was exerting that much energy on offense, how will he survive on defense, when he's constantly abused in switches and running all around the perimeter to defend 3-pt shooting?
No competitive team today would ever put A.I. in that position in the first place.
And what does them not being defensive players have anything to do with it? Neither was A.I.
I'm mentioning those players because those are the ones who he is competing against for the spotlight. There are a greater amount of high quality combo guards today than there was when he dominated back in the early-to-mid 2000s. How is he supposed to be more dominant today when he'll have more competition? How is he supposed to be more dominant today when there are guards who're better than him?
And what does toughness have to do with anything? Toughness going to win him championships? Toughness gonna make up for his lack of shooting and playmaking?
Ain't it funny how the only trait of A.I.'s you've touched on is his toughness, speaking in superhero sensationalism, around the figure that he cut, rather than anything to do with his actual ability and how it would translate over to the now. The fact that you keep reiterating this point around him being tougher than Luka as if that means anything, when he wasn't on Luka's level as a player, is hilarious.
Luka is a definitively better player, in almost every sense, and because he's much bigger than A.I. and because he's a better shooter and a better playmaker, A.I. wouldn't stand a chance of beating him out of the spotlight that he's currently in. Which is funny because, Kyrie is more in line with what the type of player A.I. would be today, and Kyrie is Luka's sidekick.
Go figure.
I literally told you -
"Teams wouldn't be able to contain him, so when he did get the ball, he'd score just as effortlessly as he did back then.
As a scorer, he wouldn't be any more (or less) dominant than he was back then, because he'd dominate any era in that area of the game."
Yet here you are, once again, misrepresenting my argument, saying that I believe he wouldn't be dominant.
Furthermore, can you tell me the top centers, who were also the elite defenders during his time when he played for the Lakers? Which top centers did he dominate during the playoffs of that three-peat? MacCulloch? One-foot-in-the-grave Smitts? Mutumbo, who could only play one side of the floor?
As great as Shaq was, his competition wasn't shyt back then, so pretending like it was anything but that as reason to suggest that he'd be more dominant today, is unadulterated nonsense. He'd have to work much harder on defense in this era, and that would affect how productive he was on offense.
The fact you think Jokic isn't near prime Shaq, is troubling here. It shows you don't know what you're watching.
Shaq got exposed plenty of times being reluctant to defend perimeter actions when he was on the Lakers, and that was a period where 3-pt shooting wasn't as prominant as it was now. You can only use drop coverage in certain situations, it's not the Excalibur where you can swing it on every possession. We've seen how much Jokic and Embiid get drained by defending out on the perimeter against guards and wings. Never mind the fact that Shaq would need to defend stretch bigs, so he can't play drop in those instances.
I vividly remember Shaq making a comment on a TNT segment a few years ago where he even admitted that he would treat defense with a lick and a promise if he had to run out to the 3-pt line all the time.
Except I'm doing anything but.
You're so far removed from reality on this matter, I couldn't possibly be in more disagreement.
My g, there's no way on God's green Earth you can still be this oblivious to why I posted that article.
You came out and directly said, KG's opinion on this shouldn't be questioned, and that folks need to stop acting like they know than someone who played in the NBA. And yet KG contradicted himself, by taking the stance that players from 20 years ago couldn't dominate today, and then in the next breath said that today's players couldn't dominate 20 years ago.
You can't simultaneously hold both those positions because they're at odds with one another.
So all that shyt you were talking about KG's opinion holds sovereignty above everyone else's, can't possibly be true, because he's not consistent with what he's saying.
Can you comphrehend this?
I'm not posting that article because I agree/disagree with what he's saying. I'm pointing out he's contradicting himself. Everyone else in this thread except for you can understand this.
It's not something that is off topic. He's literally discussing the same exact topic. Nxgga, what the fukk is wrong with you?
"I don't think guys from 20 years ago could play this game," Garnett said. - from the article I posted
"If im being honest, I don't think anyone in this generation could've played 20 years ago" - from this thread.
He's literally talking about the same cotdamn thing.
Which begs the question, why do you conveniently hold one statement in higher regard than the other?
Joker? Is seeing a Prime Shaq?? Dude stop it...I can name 10 Centers/Big Men that can do the same thing in this Era that Joker can do. It shows me that you did not watch Big Men in the 90s 2000s
Let's do it like that because a Tim Duncan, KG, Jermaine O'Neal all would be playing the 5 position in this current Era.
You act as Hakeem didn't have moves or put up numbers, act an ass, you act as if David Robinson didn't put up numbers. The boy went for 70. Has Joker done that?? Karl Marlone even though he played the 4 because in that Era teams went with 2 Bigs, if Karl Marlone in his prime played today he would be putting up the same numbers in the same offense Joker plays in, Chris Webber played in a similar style offense and he did the SAME thing as Joker. Joker gets his assist because the current game allows for shooters to shot more 3 pointers, those options were not the case in the 90s because most Bigs lived on the block. The big men in the 90s 6'10, 7ft cats did the same thing as Joker, put the ball into the basket and rebound.
These bigs with the exception of maybe a Webber played below the FT line on the block and got theirs. Big Men in the 90s were doing just the same as what Joker is doing now, nothing is impressive about what Joker is doing.
See why you are losing in this discussion is what women do, you want to use parameters to prove your points, Ole he wouldn't be playing x amount of mins or such and such would be getting killed in PNR, but when it comes to making a case for the current players averaging more in the 90s, there are no parameters, you don't bring up any parameters or variables, you go right into breaking down how much so and so average per minute just because they are doing it NOW.
You don't even take into consideration of the rules in the 90s, the physical brute of the players. The style of offense teams ran, the limit shots available for 3 point attempts but yet you broke down how A.I. wouldn't do this or that and how Shaq would struggle with x y and z.
With the rules in the 90s, them nikkas not getting that shyt off. Coaches are not letting Luka dribble out the dayum ball..you can't do that as a 18 year old Rook full of Vets on a team in the 90s. You not hosting up 6 3s a game for a 82 game season in the 90s, just like you said the game is different with mins and all that other shyt, I need yo ass to think that the game is different in the 90s, it goes both ways nikka.
Use those parameters that you dug up that you tried to use to limit the players from the 90s, use the ones I used to limit the current players in this Era. Them nikkas not getting their stats in a league that is very different from the current league we play today.
Thats why you need to study more my G. You the only who is stuck on how dropping nikkas into the 90s thinking that they will play the same and thats NOT going to happen with the RULES of the game. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT WAS A THING
That's why I just smh becuase even with all of the parameters you try and use to help your stance, you bring yo ass back around to my stance which states that the players in the 90s can dominant in this current Era no matter how many parameters you try and put into the equation to support your stance.
I just laugh at you try breh that's why it's so easy for me to chop the bullshyt you spew and try and throw at the wall.
At the end of the day because you have your view and I have mines and it won't change, it definitely won't change by reading the struggling shyt you've posted, the cats in the 90s especially the 2 that I name would dominant these soft ass players of today.
You don't even take into consideration of the rules in the 90s, the physical brute of the players. The style of offense teams ran, the limit shots available for 3 point attempts but yet you broke down how A.I. wouldn't do this or that and how Shaq would struggle with x y and z.
With the rules in the 90s, them nikkas not getting that shyt off. Coaches are not letting Luka dribble out the dayum ball..you can't do that as a 18 year old Rook full of Vets on a team in the 90s. You not hosting up 6 3s a game for a 82 game season in the 90s, just like you said the game is different with mins and all that other shyt, I need yo ass to think that the game is different in the 90s, it goes both ways nikka.
Use those parameters that you dug up that you tried to use to limit the players from the 90s, use the ones I used to limit the current players in this Era. Them nikkas not getting their stats in a league that is very different from the current league we play today.
Thats why you need to study more my G. You the only who is stuck on how dropping nikkas into the 90s thinking that they will play the same and thats NOT going to happen with the RULES of the game. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT WAS A THING
That's why I just smh becuase even with all of the parameters you try and use to help your stance, you bring yo ass back around to my stance which states that the players in the 90s can dominant in this current Era no matter how many parameters you try and put into the equation to support your stance.
I just laugh at you try breh that's why it's so easy for me to chop the bullshyt you spew and try and throw at the wall.
At the end of the day because you have your view and I have mines and it won't change, it definitely won't change by reading the struggling shyt you've posted, the cats in the 90s especially the 2 that I name would dominant these soft ass players of today.
Last edited:
IsThatBrothaMouzone?
Superstar
Current players being dropped back in the 90s (based on their peak):
LeBron (Miami version) - he's a more physically gifted Magic Johnson and played better defense. Who exactly is gonna guard him that is fast enough AND strong enough? Breh was a step or two slower than AI but 10 lbs heavier than Karl Malone. He's HOF in any era.
KD - he would be like early 00s Dirk but a little more athletic yet not as strong. All Star caliber. 20+ ppg. Shooters shoot and he's 6'11".
Steph - he would have the biggest adjustment because there were soooo many guards that could get buckets and Steph would be more exposed on defense with the old rules. If he's playing for Don Nelson...like those early 00s Mavs teams, he'd be some kind of Nash/Van Exel type breh. Respected, solid player but he ain't leading anyone to 4 rings.
Jokic/Giannis/Embiid etc - still good players but they'd have fewer nights off to coast. Flip side is the game was better suited for bigs.
LeBron (Miami version) - he's a more physically gifted Magic Johnson and played better defense. Who exactly is gonna guard him that is fast enough AND strong enough? Breh was a step or two slower than AI but 10 lbs heavier than Karl Malone. He's HOF in any era.
KD - he would be like early 00s Dirk but a little more athletic yet not as strong. All Star caliber. 20+ ppg. Shooters shoot and he's 6'11".
Steph - he would have the biggest adjustment because there were soooo many guards that could get buckets and Steph would be more exposed on defense with the old rules. If he's playing for Don Nelson...like those early 00s Mavs teams, he'd be some kind of Nash/Van Exel type breh. Respected, solid player but he ain't leading anyone to 4 rings.
Jokic/Giannis/Embiid etc - still good players but they'd have fewer nights off to coast. Flip side is the game was better suited for bigs.