Stars, coaches and media shyt on diluted 90s NBA, in real time

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I told the other poster, Kobe rook year he only averages 8 points again, regardless how you look at it, he average 8 points,

You just strenghten my point, if he was limited to a role, WHAT THE fukk DO YOU THINK THOSE OTHER PLAYERS WILL BE LIMITED TO??? Those other players in this league, may NOT EVEN fukkING PLAY DUMB DUMB.

Why are you continuing to use rookie Kobe as a scale, when I've told you that he was the youngest guard ever draft, only had HS experience and was behind two established guards? How is that relevant to Luka and Steph, who were older and had much more experience, and could've easily been drafted to lottery teams who didn't have established guards?

I keep asking you this question, but you seem to have trouble providing a counterargument.

It does NOT strengthen your point. It completely undermines it. Or are you going to tell me that Kobe averaged more points than any other rookie in their respective 1st seasons during the 90s?

Lionel Collins and Derrick Coleman averaged 18 ppg during their rookie reasons in the 90s
Larry Johnson averaged 19 ppg during his rookie season in the 90s
Christian Laettner averaged 18 ppg during his rookie season in the 90s
Walt Williams averaged 17 ppg during his rookie season in the 90s
Jamal Mashburn averaged 19 ppg during his rookie seaosn in the 90s
Isaiah Rider averaged 17 ppg during his rookie seaosn in the 90s
Jerry Stackhouse and Damon Stoudamire averaged 19 ppg during their rookie seasons in the 90s
Shareef Abdur-Rahim averaged 19 ppg during his rookie season in the 90s
Stephon Marbury averaged 16 ppg during his rookie season in the 90s
Keith van Horn averaged 20 ppg during his rookie season in the 90s
Vince Carter averaged 18 ppg during his rookie season in the 90s
Steve Francis averaged 18 ppg during his rookie season in the 90s***.

And that's just a brief list. There are many more rookies who were cast into main scoring roles during their respective rookie seasons.

Why are you trying to frame this as if Kobe was the standard for all rookies during the 90s? Why do you keep conveniently ignoring it was because of his age and lack of experience as to why he didn't have a starting role, that was not reflective of all rookies during the 90s?

Rather more to the point here, why are you pretending like players don't develop into greater roles?

If 5-10, 150lbs Michael Adams could develop into a player where he averaged 26 ppg and 10 assists during the 90s, why couldn't Luka and Steph develop into doing the same? Mark Price had a All-NBA/All-Star career in the 90s, why couldn't Steph, who was a bigger, better version of him, develop into at least doing the same?

There's quite literally players all throughout the 90s who dominanted, where the better versions of them exist in today's game, and yet you've somehow convinced yourself they couldn't at least replicate what their inferior models did.


Put Luka back in the 90s, where offenses were almost entirely designed around ISOs, because the rules dictated you couldn't use help defenders, and he'd murder that era.

He would just ISO teams to death back then, and there'd be nothing they could do about it.

6-7, 230-240lb wing who had handles better than 99.999999% of the 90s, and who no fear, no matter the situation, would just be unfair.

He's someone who'd be more dominant back then than he would now, because there was nobody that size back then who could do what he does on offense. The only hope teams today have in limiting him is situating bodies all in his vicinity, to give him multiple obstacles to navigate around, and different defensive looks to worry about, but in the 90s, where he just had to worry about one defender, he'd either shoot over or bully them (if they were smaller), or dribble right past them (if they were bigger).

Give him the whistle that MJ got during the 90s, and instead of him crying for not getting calls, he'd be crying from laughter after getting calls if players just as so much breathed on him.

You think a 17, 18-year-old Luka will get to put up 10-20 shots a game??

Do you think a Rook Steph will get to put up 10- 20 shots a game over 82 games in the 90s?

Yes.

A 19-year-old Luka and 21-year-old Steph could put up a volume of shots that would be relative to a starting role on a team.

But again, what do their roles as rookies have to do with the overarching point of the argument? If they didn't have main roles in their rookie seasons, then they would've developed into have greater roles, just like every other star did during that time.

I'm going to keep bringing up Michael Adams here, until it marinates through your fragmented neuron ass brain -

He was 5'10, 150lbs soaking wet on a stormy day, and he developed into having a season averaging 26 ppg and 10 assists during the 90s.

Let me repeat that - Michael Adams averaged 26 ppg and 10 assists in the 90s.

Let me say it again - a 5-10, 150lb player averaged 26 points and and 10 assist during the Big Bad Ass 90s.

Give me one legitimate reason as to why Steph and Luka couldn't just as easily do the same? You going to tell me now that Michael Adams is a better player than them now? You're going to tell me 5-10, 150lbs Michael Adams would be a more dominant player than Steph and Luka in today's league? 5-10, 150lbs Michael Adams averaging 40 ppg in today's game, is he?

I haven't even factor in the RULES and other parameters such as 1-3 dribbles and you have to get up off the ball, the quality of shots, etc,

What is this bullshyt you're talking about?

1-3 dribbles and you have to get up off the ball?

How does this make any sense to you when offenses were ISO heavy back then? The 5-second rule didn't come into effect until 1999, which meant players like Barkley all throughout the 90s could take 20 dribbles backing down their primary defender in the low post and not be whistled for it.

The quality of shots?

You mean like Iverson chucking up whatever he wanted? You mean like cats taking long 2s for the hell of it, because the 3-pt shot was looked at as the Devil?

IT was a different game in the 90s, nikkas are not putting up 20-23 shots per game in a 82 game season unless your name was MJ

What the fukk does needing to put up 20-23 shots have to do with anything? You don't need to put up that many shots to be a star.

Furthermore, here are just some of the players who put up 20+ shots across a season during the 90s:

Tom Chambers
Bernard King
Michael Adams (there's that 5-10, 150lb lil ass muh'fukka's name again)
Patrick Ewing
Chris Mullin
Tim Hardaway
DRob
Nique
Jamal Mashburn
Antonie Walker
Iverson
Vince Carter

And that's not counting players like Joe Dumars who averaged 19 shots during the 90s, or in 2001 when Jerry Stackhouse averaged 24 shots.

 

[fifth column]

So true….. But the expansion era did water down the league….That’s why the bulls were so dominant….. but a lot of people get mad when you bring that up

Dominant is one thing but 2 3peats in 8 years is

 

[fifth column]

Your dad a fukkin idiot

His dumb ass expected jordan to beat teams with multiple all stars while having NONE. Bulls had the 3rd worst record in the nba in 1984 but was expected to beat the damn Celtics or pistons who been to multiple ecf/finals with multiple all stars . Nba has the dumbest fans on the planet

That is it

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Now you mentioned Expansion Teams,

Shut up breh, the product wasn't diluted, that's your opinion. ALL teams replace players, bring in ALL type of players, players who played and players who did not play on other teams to fill in their roster. That shyt you're saying now is what you wanna interject yourself to try and better your stance.

Other players were already playing on other teams, what are you even talking about?

More like what the fukk are you talking about?

The product was diluted in the 90s, that is an unadulterated fact. It can not be disputed. Say for argument's sake, today's league added six teams over the course of 8 years, the NBA product would become diluted too, although in that instance, today's league would be less diluted than the 90s because the talent pool is significantly deeper than it was back then. It would be much more manageable to spread out the talent today than it was in the 90s.

That's six teams worth of players that otherwise wouldn't have played if those six teams weren't added in the 90s. If those six new teams didn't exist during that period, than the best of the best of those players would be on all the other teams, and those teams would be stronger as a result.

How do you not comprehend something as simple as this? Why do you have trouble with understanding basic ass shyt?

Furthermore, you're someone who was all up in that KG thread, saying his opinion holds sovereignty over all because he played the game, yet here you are in this thread where Rodman, Barkley and Bird (and NBA coaches) are saying the 90s was diluted and you're disagreeing with them. NBA players know more than you, right? Why should your opinion be treated more highly than players who played the game at the highest level? Or doesn't that apply here, because their opinions don't fit your confirmation bias?

A rookie steph coming from Davidson in 1995 is NOT getting drafted in that 1995 draft class, nor that 1996 draft class.
A rookie Luka coming from across seas in 1995 is NOT getting draft ahead of NOBODY in that 1995 draft class, nor that 1996 draft class

See what I like to do is put things in order, I wanna go through the whole process and let you see what the fukk it is, Davidson Step entering into the 1995 draft class coming from Davidson is not going to any Expansion Team nor is Overseas 17, 18-year-old Luka,

He won't be picked high in the drafts, that's the first thing, and two, in the 90s, Blue Blood schools were the schools that sent college players to the NBA.

You're not putting shyt in order.

Why are you cherry-picking 1995 and 1996 for?

There are plenty of other years they could've been drafted to play during the 90s. They could've been drafted in 1985 and still played during the 90s. They could've easily been drafted in the latter rounds/stages of the '95 draft and still been stars. You do realize players in the 90s drafted outside of the lottery still managed to be dominant, right?

Stop thinking shyt has to be so damn linear and restrictive with success in the NBA. It doesn't work like that, especially with generational talent like Luka and Steph who would've forced themselves into star roles no matter what. It doesn't matter the era, they would've been stars, regardless.

Why do you constantly do this? You take an outlier and use it as the standard. You're only erroding your own argument with this extremism. Just like you did with Kobe's rookie year, despite other rookies during the 90s having starting roles and/or main scoring roles. You have to take everything in a general state, you don't just go and cherry-pick the hardest set of parameters for Luka and Steph to reach.

I could just as easily do that with MJ, and draft him to the 2005 Charlotte Bobcats, and he has to stay there for the remainder of his career, no matter what. Would he be just as dominant and win just as many titles in that situation? Given that he won't, I guess that must mean, MJ ain't shyt, right?

Let me just blow up your whole shyt right now.

You ready?

Now dig -

Scottie Pippen was one of the biggest stars of the 90s.

You know his story coming into the league?

He was a walk-on at a NAIA program, and ended up getting drafted 5th overall. A muh'fukken walk-on at a NAIA school. Marinate on that. Nevermind the Blue Blood schools that you foolishly think had the entire monopoly of the lottery picks; Pippen didn't even attend a NCAA program. Not only that, but he wasn't even recognized enough to be a regular. He had try out as a walk-on.

Yet you seem to think, players like Steph and Luka, who had far greater coverage coming into the league (in relation to the time), wouldn't be drafted high, and couldn't turn into stars as a result?

Karl Malone came out of Louisiana Tech and was a star throughout the 90s
Robert Parish came out of Centenary College of Louisiana and was a star throughout the 80s (and playing through the 90s)
Larry Bird came out of Indiana State and was a star throughout the 80s (and playing through the 90s).

Then you had players like Mark Price, who was drafted in the second round, who ended up having a All-NBA/All-Star career in the 90s. Mark Price achieved that success, but you're telling me a bigger version with a superior skillset, in Steph, couldn't be great during that era?

Nearly every single point you've tried to argue during this exchange has been debunked, ran over, spat on, pissed on and left for dead.

I'm not talking about 4 championship Step or Luke NOW, I'm starting from them entering into college and them coming outta of college.. Let's put shyt into order and see how shyt will be, which is what I did in the thread already.

And I'm going to end it on this note, with a player reference that kills your whole position; the same player whom I've be spamming over and over and getting a bucket against you everytime -

Michael Adams.

If that muh'fukka can end up being someone who can average 26 ppg and 10 assist during the 90s, then that's all the proof you need Steph and Luka could be just as dominant back then as they are now, if not more (especially in Luka's case).

 

[fifth column]

More like what the fukk are you talking about?

The product was diluted in the 90s, that is an unadulterated fact. It can not be disputed. Say for argument's sake, today's league added six teams over the course of 8 years, the NBA product would become diluted too, although in that instance, today's league would be less diluted than the 90s because the talent pool is significantly deeper than it was back then. It would be much more manageable to spread out the talent today than it was in the 90s.

That's six teams worth of players that otherwise wouldn't have played if those six teams weren't added in the 90s. If those six new teams didn't exist during that period, than the best of the best of those players would be on all the other teams, and those teams would be stronger as a result.

How do you not comprehend something as simple as this? Why do you have trouble with understanding basic ass shyt?

Furthermore, you're someone who was all up in that KG thread, saying his opinion holds sovereignty over all because he played the game, yet here you are in this thread where Rodman, Barkley and Bird (and NBA coaches) are saying the 90s was diluted and you're disagreeing with them. NBA players know more than you, right? Why should your opinion be treated more highly than players who played the game at the highest level? Or doesn't that apply here, because their opinions don't fit your confirmation bias?

You're not putting shyt in order.

Why are you cherry-picking 1995 and 1996 for?

There are plenty of other years they could've been drafted to play during the 90s. They could've been drafted in 1985 and still played during the 90s. They could've easily been drafted in the latter rounds/stages of the '95 draft and still been stars. You do realize players in the 90s drafted outside of the lottery still managed to be dominant, right?

Stop thinking shyt has to be so damn linear and restrictive with success in the NBA. It doesn't work like that, especially with generational talent like Luka and Steph who would've forced themselves into star roles no matter what. It doesn't matter the era, they would've been stars, regardless.

Why do you constantly do this? You take an outlier and use it as the standard. You're only erroding your own argument with this extremism. Just like you did with Kobe's rookie year, despite other rookies during the 90s having starting roles and/or main scoring roles. You have to take everything in a general state, you don't just go and cherry-pick the hardest set of parameters for Luka and Steph to reach.

I could just as easily do that with MJ, and draft him to the 2005 Charlotte Bobcats, and he has to stay there for the remainder of his career, no matter what. Would he be just as dominant and win just as many titles in that situation? Given that he won't, I guess that must mean, MJ ain't shyt, right?

Let me just blow up your whole shyt right now.

You ready?

Now dig -

Scottie Pippen was one of the biggest stars of the 90s.

You know his story coming into the league?

He was a walk-on at a NAIA program, and ended up getting drafted 5th overall. A muh'fukken walk-on at a NAIA school. Marinate on that. Nevermind the Blue Blood schools that you foolishly think had the entire monopoly of the lottery picks; Pippen didn't even attend a NCAA program. Not only that, but he wasn't even recognized enough to be a regular. He had try out as a walk-on.

Yet you seem to think, players like Steph and Luka, who had far greater coverage coming into the league (in relation to the time), wouldn't be drafted high, and couldn't turn into stars as a result?

Karl Malone came out of Louisiana Tech and was a star throughout the 90s
Robert Parish came out of Centenary College of Louisiana and was a star throughout the 80s (and playing through the 90s)
Larry Bird came out of Indiana State and was a star throughout the 80s (and playing through the 90s).

Then you had players like Mark Price, who was drafted in the second round, who ended up having a All-NBA/All-Star career in the 90s. Mark Price achieved that success, but you're telling me a bigger version with a superior skillset, in Steph, couldn't be great during that era?

Nearly every single point you've tried to argue during this exchange has been debunked, ran over, spat on, pissed on and left for dead.



And I'm going to end it on this note, with a player reference that kills your whole position; the same player whom I've be spamming over and over and getting a bucket against you everytime -

Michael Adams.

If that muh'fukka can end up being someone who can average 26 ppg and 10 assist during the 90s, then that's all the proof you need Steph and Luka could be just as dominant back then as they are now, if not more (especially in Luka's case).

What were the 6 teams that the NBA added in the 90s?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

What were the 6 teams that the NBA added in the 90s?

From 1989 to 1996, they added Hornets, Heat, T'Wolves, Magic, Raptors and Grizzlies.

Surely, as someone who's stuck in the 90s as much as you make out to be, you'd know this. Unless, of course, you're going to argue about semantics that 1989 is not the 90s.

 

[NO-BadAzz]

More like what the fukk are you talking about?

The product was diluted in the 90s, that is an unadulterated fact. It can not be disputed. Say for argument's sake, today's league added six teams over the course of 8 years, the NBA product would become diluted too, although in that instance, today's league would be less diluted than the 90s because the talent pool is significantly deeper than it was back then. It would be much more manageable to spread out the talent today than it was in the 90s.

That's six teams worth of players that otherwise wouldn't have played if those six teams weren't added in the 90s. If those six new teams didn't exist during that period, than the best of the best of those players would be on all the other teams, and those teams would be stronger as a result.

How do you not comprehend something as simple as this? Why do you have trouble with understanding basic ass shyt?

Furthermore, you're someone who was all up in that KG thread, saying his opinion holds sovereignty over all because he played the game, yet here you are in this thread where Rodman, Barkley and Bird (and NBA coaches) are saying the 90s was diluted and you're disagreeing with them. NBA players know more than you, right? Why should your opinion be treated more highly than players who played the game at the highest level? Or doesn't that apply here, because their opinions don't fit your confirmation bias?

You're not putting shyt in order.

Why are you cherry-picking 1995 and 1996 for?

There are plenty of other years they could've been drafted to play during the 90s. They could've been drafted in 1985 and still played during the 90s. They could've easily been drafted in the latter rounds/stages of the '95 draft and still been stars. You do realize players in the 90s drafted outside of the lottery still managed to be dominant, right?

Stop thinking shyt has to be so damn linear and restrictive with success in the NBA. It doesn't work like that, especially with generational talent like Luka and Steph who would've forced themselves into star roles no matter what. It doesn't matter the era, they would've been stars, regardless.

Why do you constantly do this? You take an outlier and use it as the standard. You're only erroding your own argument with this extremism. Just like you did with Kobe's rookie year, despite other rookies during the 90s having starting roles and/or main scoring roles. You have to take everything in a general state, you don't just go and cherry-pick the hardest set of parameters for Luka and Steph to reach.

I could just as easily do that with MJ, and draft him to the 2005 Charlotte Bobcats, and he has to stay there for the remainder of his career, no matter what. Would he be just as dominant and win just as many titles in that situation? Given that he won't, I guess that must mean, MJ ain't shyt, right?

Let me just blow up your whole shyt right now.

You ready?

Now dig -

Scottie Pippen was one of the biggest stars of the 90s.

You know his story coming into the league?

He was a walk-on at a NAIA program, and ended up getting drafted 5th overall. A muh'fukken walk-on at a NAIA school. Marinate on that. Nevermind the Blue Blood schools that you foolishly think had the entire monopoly of the lottery picks; Pippen didn't even attend a NCAA program. Not only that, but he wasn't even recognized enough to be a regular. He had try out as a walk-on.

Yet you seem to think, players like Steph and Luka, who had far greater coverage coming into the league (in relation to the time), wouldn't be drafted high, and couldn't turn into stars as a result?

Karl Malone came out of Louisiana Tech and was a star throughout the 90s
Robert Parish came out of Centenary College of Louisiana and was a star throughout the 80s (and playing through the 90s)
Larry Bird came out of Indiana State and was a star throughout the 80s (and playing through the 90s).

Then you had players like Mark Price, who was drafted in the second round, who ended up having a All-NBA/All-Star career in the 90s. Mark Price achieved that success, but you're telling me a bigger version with a superior skillset, in Steph, couldn't be great during that era?

Nearly every single point you've tried to argue during this exchange has been debunked, ran over, spat on, pissed on and left for dead.



And I'm going to end it on this note, with a player reference that kills your whole position; the same player whom I've be spamming over and over and getting a bucket against you everytime -

Michael Adams.

If that muh'fukka can end up being someone who can average 26 ppg and 10 assist during the 90s, then that's all the proof you need Steph and Luka could be just as dominant back then as they are now, if not more (especially in Luka's case).

Breh you just shot your own self in the head again, and I can keep picking that goofy shyt apart that you are standing every single time, you make it easy each time you post dumb shyt....

You keep bringing up these players, like Michael Adams and Keke to try and strengthen your stance when you're only proving my point as to what I've been saying, If these dudes that you wanna try and compare to Steph to are putting up numbers in a league that had way stricter rules than what the rules Curry and Luka are playing with, then it's HARDER TO PUT UP THESE NUMBERS WHICH MAKE THESE DUDES MUCH SPECIAL THAN STEPH, THATS WHY THEY STAND OUT.

You mentioned skinny ass Reggie, but you didn't mention buddy toughness, which he has way more than Steph and Luka combined. Reggie got off by having the rules of hand checking, bumping, Big Men chucking when he's coming off picks, holding and grabbing, and many more other things, with limited 3-point attempts than what these dudes are taking today. Steve Kerr "spot up" Craig Hodges "spot up" Dale Curry "spot up"

Steph would be the same thing, Steph has no quickness, "just like his dad didn't have any" Steph can't play defense, "just like his dad didn't" and Steph has no athleticism "just like his dad"


I'm about to make you use your left side of the brain, If Dale Curry was a great shooter, and he had better measurables and skills than a ROOK STEPH, why the hell Dale Curry didn't pan out to be a Steph??? Why didn't Dale Curry average 30? He was a great shooter, he has the same skills as ROOK, 1st -3year STEPH??
Tell us smart guy why Dale Curry, who had a cold ass shot in the league in the 90s wasn't featured in the offense??

Dale Curry in the 90s has the same measurables "He may be a bit bigger" than ROOK Steph, 1st year Steph, 2nd year Steph and 3rd year Steph had.
Dale Curry in the 90s was better than ROOK STEPH - 3rd Year STEPH. So why the fukk wasn't Dale Curry averaging 20-30 points in an 82 season game for his Career?? Why was Dale Curry designated to a specific role?

TELL US

But you think ROOK Steph is going to put up numbers?? You really think a team in the 90s is going to allow ROOK Steph to put up 13 - 20 shots a game??


Let's do this, Like I said I like to keep things in order and reality

You mentioned Mark Price, Terrell Brandon and a few more guards. Their ROOK Seasons, through their 3rd season in the league, How many shots did they put up a game over a 82 Game season?? How many 3 point attempts were taken by these players?? I tell you it was less than what Curry's and these other players currently are taking.
Mark Price was a "spot up shooter" (Who I said Curry would be in the 90s) and Terrell Brandon could create is shot off the dribble with a defender on him (I also said Curry can't do this, Curry cannot create his own shot) Never seen Curry through a 82 season do a pull dribble pull up, 2 dribble pull up like a Melo, That's not in Curry's game,


These players that YOU pulled up put up numbers in the 80s, and 90s and had to withstand the hand checking, defenders pushing up on you while dribbling (bodying you), limiting your freedom of movement without a foul being called, these players in the 80s and 90s were able to get their points off without dribbling the air outta the ball, 1 dribble pull up jumpers, etc, and then they had to drive to the lane and score buckets over 7footers, 6'10 PF, sometimes 2 in the lane, brute PFs, and also they didn't have to take 3 to 4, 3 pointers a game to get their points, they didn't have to run the shot clock down to 3 to get your shot off, they did this shyt in a league like this for 82 games for x amount of years at their size, they are special players. They would DESTROY in the league.

 

[NO-BadAzz]

More like what the fukk are you talking about?

The product was diluted in the 90s, that is an unadulterated fact. It can not be disputed. Say for argument's sake, today's league added six teams over the course of 8 years, the NBA product would become diluted too, although in that instance, today's league would be less diluted than the 90s because the talent pool is significantly deeper than it was back then. It would be much more manageable to spread out the talent today than it was in the 90s.

That's six teams worth of players that otherwise wouldn't have played if those six teams weren't added in the 90s. If those six new teams didn't exist during that period, than the best of the best of those players would be on all the other teams, and those teams would be stronger as a result.

How do you not comprehend something as simple as this? Why do you have trouble with understanding basic ass shyt?

Furthermore, you're someone who was all up in that KG thread, saying his opinion holds sovereignty over all because he played the game, yet here you are in this thread where Rodman, Barkley and Bird (and NBA coaches) are saying the 90s was diluted and you're disagreeing with them. NBA players know more than you, right? Why should your opinion be treated more highly than players who played the game at the highest level? Or doesn't that apply here, because their opinions don't fit your confirmation bias?

You're not putting shyt in order.

Why are you cherry-picking 1995 and 1996 for?

There are plenty of other years they could've been drafted to play during the 90s. They could've been drafted in 1985 and still played during the 90s. They could've easily been drafted in the latter rounds/stages of the '95 draft and still been stars. You do realize players in the 90s drafted outside of the lottery still managed to be dominant, right?

Stop thinking shyt has to be so damn linear and restrictive with success in the NBA. It doesn't work like that, especially with generational talent like Luka and Steph who would've forced themselves into star roles no matter what. It doesn't matter the era, they would've been stars, regardless.

Why do you constantly do this? You take an outlier and use it as the standard. You're only erroding your own argument with this extremism. Just like you did with Kobe's rookie year, despite other rookies during the 90s having starting roles and/or main scoring roles. You have to take everything in a general state, you don't just go and cherry-pick the hardest set of parameters for Luka and Steph to reach.

I could just as easily do that with MJ, and draft him to the 2005 Charlotte Bobcats, and he has to stay there for the remainder of his career, no matter what. Would he be just as dominant and win just as many titles in that situation? Given that he won't, I guess that must mean, MJ ain't shyt, right?

Let me just blow up your whole shyt right now.

You ready?

Now dig -

Scottie Pippen was one of the biggest stars of the 90s.

You know his story coming into the league?

He was a walk-on at a NAIA program, and ended up getting drafted 5th overall. A muh'fukken walk-on at a NAIA school. Marinate on that. Nevermind the Blue Blood schools that you foolishly think had the entire monopoly of the lottery picks; Pippen didn't even attend a NCAA program. Not only that, but he wasn't even recognized enough to be a regular. He had try out as a walk-on.

Yet you seem to think, players like Steph and Luka, who had far greater coverage coming into the league (in relation to the time), wouldn't be drafted high, and couldn't turn into stars as a result?

Karl Malone came out of Louisiana Tech and was a star throughout the 90s
Robert Parish came out of Centenary College of Louisiana and was a star throughout the 80s (and playing through the 90s)
Larry Bird came out of Indiana State and was a star throughout the 80s (and playing through the 90s).

Then you had players like Mark Price, who was drafted in the second round, who ended up having a All-NBA/All-Star career in the 90s. Mark Price achieved that success, but you're telling me a bigger version with a superior skillset, in Steph, couldn't be great during that era?

Nearly every single point you've tried to argue during this exchange has been debunked, ran over, spat on, pissed on and left for dead.



And I'm going to end it on this note, with a player reference that kills your whole position; the same player whom I've be spamming over and over and getting a bucket against you everytime -

Michael Adams.

If that muh'fukka can end up being someone who can average 26 ppg and 10 assist during the 90s, then that's all the proof you need Steph and Luka could be just as dominant back then as they are now, if not more (especially in Luka's case).

Dale Curry, played for the Hornets, had a great shot, Dale Curry is a much better player than Rook Steph, "But you think Rook Steph would get his shyt off, average 20 points a game. I said Steph would be like a BJ Armstrong, Steve Kerr.

So tell me something, If Dale Curry who had a great ass shot, pretty much has the same skillset as ROOK STEPH - 2nd year Steph and 3rd Year Steph, tell me something what option was Dale Curry when he played for the Hornets in the 90s??


Tell me something, if Dale Curry is pretty much a bigger size guard, played the 3, why wasn't he the Man??? Why didn't he make x amount of All-Stars??


Also, you mentioned something about Joker being Top 3 and I said to you, that Joker wouldn't even make it in the 90s let alone be the Joker who he is today.

When Joker gets into the league, which was Center dominated in the early 90s, ROOK JOKER, who is he stopping? Who is ROOK Joker, 2nd year, 3rd Joker Starting over in the league??

Is ROOK Joker dominating Shaq?? David Robinson, Hakeem, Ewing, Smits, Glen Robinson, etc?? You mentioned something about some shytty move he does, will that shyt work on the Centers in the 90s for ROOK Joker, 2nd year Joker, 3rd year joker??

I don't think so, The boy wouldn't give Brian Big Country Reeves a challenge

 

[NO-BadAzz]

More like what the fukk are you talking about?

The product was diluted in the 90s, that is an unadulterated fact. It can not be disputed. Say for argument's sake, today's league added six teams over the course of 8 years, the NBA product would become diluted too, although in that instance, today's league would be less diluted than the 90s because the talent pool is significantly deeper than it was back then. It would be much more manageable to spread out the talent today than it was in the 90s.

That's six teams worth of players that otherwise wouldn't have played if those six teams weren't added in the 90s. If those six new teams didn't exist during that period, than the best of the best of those players would be on all the other teams, and those teams would be stronger as a result.

How do you not comprehend something as simple as this? Why do you have trouble with understanding basic ass shyt?

Furthermore, you're someone who was all up in that KG thread, saying his opinion holds sovereignty over all because he played the game, yet here you are in this thread where Rodman, Barkley and Bird (and NBA coaches) are saying the 90s was diluted and you're disagreeing with them. NBA players know more than you, right? Why should your opinion be treated more highly than players who played the game at the highest level? Or doesn't that apply here, because their opinions don't fit your confirmation bias?

You're not putting shyt in order.

Why are you cherry-picking 1995 and 1996 for?

There are plenty of other years they could've been drafted to play during the 90s. They could've been drafted in 1985 and still played during the 90s. They could've easily been drafted in the latter rounds/stages of the '95 draft and still been stars. You do realize players in the 90s drafted outside of the lottery still managed to be dominant, right?

Stop thinking shyt has to be so damn linear and restrictive with success in the NBA. It doesn't work like that, especially with generational talent like Luka and Steph who would've forced themselves into star roles no matter what. It doesn't matter the era, they would've been stars, regardless.

Why do you constantly do this? You take an outlier and use it as the standard. You're only erroding your own argument with this extremism. Just like you did with Kobe's rookie year, despite other rookies during the 90s having starting roles and/or main scoring roles. You have to take everything in a general state, you don't just go and cherry-pick the hardest set of parameters for Luka and Steph to reach.

I could just as easily do that with MJ, and draft him to the 2005 Charlotte Bobcats, and he has to stay there for the remainder of his career, no matter what. Would he be just as dominant and win just as many titles in that situation? Given that he won't, I guess that must mean, MJ ain't shyt, right?

Let me just blow up your whole shyt right now.

You ready?

Now dig -

Scottie Pippen was one of the biggest stars of the 90s.

You know his story coming into the league?

He was a walk-on at a NAIA program, and ended up getting drafted 5th overall. A muh'fukken walk-on at a NAIA school. Marinate on that. Nevermind the Blue Blood schools that you foolishly think had the entire monopoly of the lottery picks; Pippen didn't even attend a NCAA program. Not only that, but he wasn't even recognized enough to be a regular. He had try out as a walk-on.

Yet you seem to think, players like Steph and Luka, who had far greater coverage coming into the league (in relation to the time), wouldn't be drafted high, and couldn't turn into stars as a result?

Karl Malone came out of Louisiana Tech and was a star throughout the 90s
Robert Parish came out of Centenary College of Louisiana and was a star throughout the 80s (and playing through the 90s)
Larry Bird came out of Indiana State and was a star throughout the 80s (and playing through the 90s).

Then you had players like Mark Price, who was drafted in the second round, who ended up having a All-NBA/All-Star career in the 90s. Mark Price achieved that success, but you're telling me a bigger version with a superior skillset, in Steph, couldn't be great during that era?

Nearly every single point you've tried to argue during this exchange has been debunked, ran over, spat on, pissed on and left for dead.



And I'm going to end it on this note, with a player reference that kills your whole position; the same player whom I've be spamming over and over and getting a bucket against you everytime -

Michael Adams.

If that muh'fukka can end up being someone who can average 26 ppg and 10 assist during the 90s, then that's all the proof you need Steph and Luka could be just as dominant back then as they are now, if not more (especially in Luka's case).

I used those years because the expansion teams came into play that year/decade, I even asked your goofy ass would Orlando take Steph or17, 18 year old Luka over a Shaq or Penny with their pick, they were a new team in the 90s, YOU brought up expansion teams and I'm walking your silly ass down to see if Steph or Luka would be taken by these Expansion Teams that came into play, You do know they had draft picks....

You're more than welcome to use the years of 97, 98, 99, Will Steph or Luka be drafted by these Expansion Teams over the players they picked in "real time" ?? The answer is fukk No and before you say some goofy shyt like ole they'll be picked up because these teams would have to fill a roster, I want you to go on their roster in any year and name the other rookies, 17 - 18 years old on that team , along with their picks. You wanna cry about why I wanna use that 95 and 96 draft class because your silly ass know aint no dayum way in hell, a Steph or 18 year Luka is getting drafted lol, Clown shyt, Why you wanna use 95 and 96, nikka you said the goofy shyt about expansion teams, and I wanna bring the goofy shyt into reality and make you see how silly the shyt you are saying sounds by asking you logical questions.

I've been telling your goofy ass for the past 7 days now, these dudes wouldn't have even been drafted in the 90s because of the talent of players coming out of college and HS in the 90s.
You goofy nikka, look at the size of Karl Malone and what he did at that school to get noticed, Scottie Pippen size and Look what he did there nikka, Larry Bird size etc
GMs were looking for players with the measurables that could play and put up numbers nikka. You think GMs were looking for nikkas like Curry at small schools? if so, list the players who has the 'same measurables' as Curry to get drafted in the 90s from a school like a Davidson, since you think this was the case in the 90s

I bet you think everybody played on the AAU circuit like they do now, you think any and everybody could play on a AAU team.

nikka MARK PRICE PLAYED FOR GEORGIA TECH AN ACC SCHOOL AND HE PUT UP NUMBERS IN A CONFERENCE THAT WAS TOUGH PLAYING WITH THOSE RULES,
YOU LEFT OUT WHAT SCHOOL HE CAME FROM DUMMY, You aint that stupid, He played against superior talent at G. Tech. In the 90s, Teams were taking PG/SG from Blue Blood schools or schools that had notoriety, You took your ass all the way back to the 80s to find a PG to try and help your stance and that didn't help because the motherfukker played in the ACC nikka, he played against TOP GUARDS/COMPETITION and put up numbers,

 

[NO-BadAzz]

More like what the fukk are you talking about?

The product was diluted in the 90s, that is an unadulterated fact. It can not be disputed. Say for argument's sake, today's league added six teams over the course of 8 years, the NBA product would become diluted too, although in that instance, today's league would be less diluted than the 90s because the talent pool is significantly deeper than it was back then. It would be much more manageable to spread out the talent today than it was in the 90s.

That's six teams worth of players that otherwise wouldn't have played if those six teams weren't added in the 90s. If those six new teams didn't exist during that period, than the best of the best of those players would be on all the other teams, and those teams would be stronger as a result.

How do you not comprehend something as simple as this? Why do you have trouble with understanding basic ass shyt?

Furthermore, you're someone who was all up in that KG thread, saying his opinion holds sovereignty over all because he played the game, yet here you are in this thread where Rodman, Barkley and Bird (and NBA coaches) are saying the 90s was diluted and you're disagreeing with them. NBA players know more than you, right? Why should your opinion be treated more highly than players who played the game at the highest level? Or doesn't that apply here, because their opinions don't fit your confirmation bias?

You're not putting shyt in order.

Why are you cherry-picking 1995 and 1996 for?

There are plenty of other years they could've been drafted to play during the 90s. They could've been drafted in 1985 and still played during the 90s. They could've easily been drafted in the latter rounds/stages of the '95 draft and still been stars. You do realize players in the 90s drafted outside of the lottery still managed to be dominant, right?

Stop thinking shyt has to be so damn linear and restrictive with success in the NBA. It doesn't work like that, especially with generational talent like Luka and Steph who would've forced themselves into star roles no matter what. It doesn't matter the era, they would've been stars, regardless.

Why do you constantly do this? You take an outlier and use it as the standard. You're only erroding your own argument with this extremism. Just like you did with Kobe's rookie year, despite other rookies during the 90s having starting roles and/or main scoring roles. You have to take everything in a general state, you don't just go and cherry-pick the hardest set of parameters for Luka and Steph to reach.

I could just as easily do that with MJ, and draft him to the 2005 Charlotte Bobcats, and he has to stay there for the remainder of his career, no matter what. Would he be just as dominant and win just as many titles in that situation? Given that he won't, I guess that must mean, MJ ain't shyt, right?

Let me just blow up your whole shyt right now.

You ready?

Now dig -

Scottie Pippen was one of the biggest stars of the 90s.

You know his story coming into the league?

He was a walk-on at a NAIA program, and ended up getting drafted 5th overall. A muh'fukken walk-on at a NAIA school. Marinate on that. Nevermind the Blue Blood schools that you foolishly think had the entire monopoly of the lottery picks; Pippen didn't even attend a NCAA program. Not only that, but he wasn't even recognized enough to be a regular. He had try out as a walk-on.

Yet you seem to think, players like Steph and Luka, who had far greater coverage coming into the league (in relation to the time), wouldn't be drafted high, and couldn't turn into stars as a result?

Karl Malone came out of Louisiana Tech and was a star throughout the 90s
Robert Parish came out of Centenary College of Louisiana and was a star throughout the 80s (and playing through the 90s)
Larry Bird came out of Indiana State and was a star throughout the 80s (and playing through the 90s).

Then you had players like Mark Price, who was drafted in the second round, who ended up having a All-NBA/All-Star career in the 90s. Mark Price achieved that success, but you're telling me a bigger version with a superior skillset, in Steph, couldn't be great during that era?

Nearly every single point you've tried to argue during this exchange has been debunked, ran over, spat on, pissed on and left for dead.



And I'm going to end it on this note, with a player reference that kills your whole position; the same player whom I've be spamming over and over and getting a bucket against you everytime -

Michael Adams.

If that muh'fukka can end up being someone who can average 26 ppg and 10 assist during the 90s, then that's all the proof you need Steph and Luka could be just as dominant back then as they are now, if not more (especially in Luka's case).

nikka, You wanna shift the topic about the "status" of the league and I'm not going to let you.

The original topic was that the current dudes, half of them wouldn't play if not majority of them. I stuck to that topic, you brought up how the league had expansion teams, how it was diluted, added commentary to try and change the scope of the topic to try and help your stance.

I stayed and am staying on topic, would these TOP players of today have the career that they are having NOW and I said NO THE fukk THEY WOULDN'T, and I explained why so, told you what kind of player that they would be because of x, y, and z.

I don't care if the league was diluted or not, if it was, or if it wasn't, THESE nikka NOW WOULDN"T BE WHO THEY ARE IF THEY PLAYED IN THE 90s.

Stay on topic, you are trying to change of the scope of the topic because you have nothing to stand on but fantasy shyt, made up parameters about nikkas minutes and saying shyt like nikkas didn't have post moves, and I've been telling your silly ass that the same post moves that Joker has he's gotten from the past Big Men who played. You think Joker came up with the shyt all by himself smh Silly shyt. I should have stopped replying to yo ass then.

You've been running and throwing shyt at the wall, and I've been on yo ass poking holes in that shyt and making you realized that the goofy shyt you've been saying is in your head and it's not reality nor logical.

I told yo silly ass Kobe, highly touted player coming into the league with hype only average 8 pgg in his ROOK year, he said he had to get stronger because of the league, you wanna say he was limited and he needed to be on a sorry team so we could see him get his points, nikka shut up. Kevin Garnett average 10 points in his rookie year and he was on the Timberwolves? That team was sorry what's your excuse to that?? I know "oh he wasn't the number 1 option" Ok dummy, if he wasn't the number 1 option on a sorry team, and he had hype coming into the league, what the fukk makes you think that a ROOK Steph or a 17, 18 year old Luka, Joker, Tatum, Lillard, Harden or any other them nikkas you think would come into this league and automatic score 20 ppg? when the motherfukkers who were much talented didn't do so.

How many shots do you think KG and Kobe were puttin, Gibert were putting up in a game their ROOK year in the 90s?? 20 shots huh, like in today's game you silly ass nikka huh, that's right.

Why did KG only average 10 points a game his ROOK year over a 82 game season?? He was on a sad ass team right?? I can name many more players lol,
Dummy but yet you in here trying to say that a 17, 18-year-old Luka or a ROOK steph would come into the league average 18-20 points, tear shyt up in a league with grown men, have a big ass role when there are dudes who were more talented than both these players, one couldn't crack double digits and the other barely cracked double digits when they came into the league. Gilbert Arenas average 10 his rook year...but yet you wanna tell us, that a ROOK Steph or 17, 18-year-old Luka would dominate because you're hanging your head on the league being diluted.

The league was diluted and these talented ass players only average 10 points, Kobe 8,

Boy just bleed out breh.

 

[fifth column]

From 1989 to 1996, they added Hornets, Heat, T'Wolves, Magic, Raptors and Grizzlies.

Surely, as someone who's stuck in the 90s as much as you make out to be, you'd know this. Unless, of course, you're going to argue about semantics that 1989 is not the 90s.

Only 2 teams were added in the 90s, the Raptors and Grizzlies were added in 95. The Hornets and Heat were 88 and Magic and Twolves were 89.

Keep writing your narratives though

 

[NO-BadAzz]

I love this shyt, Let me break this down again, I got some time

nikka that list you named Rooks, 80/90% are big men on that list, Curry is NOT a big man, Lillard is NOT a big man,

Your baby Joker (Top 3 of ALL TIME) HE ONLY AVERAGE 10 POINTS IN THIS CURRENT LEAGUE BUT YOU WANNA TELL US THAT HE WOULD DOMINATE IN THE 90S?

Scoring PGs are on that list, A scoring PG in the 90s had to be able to create your own shot, take dudes off the dribble with your quickness, and score at the rim/in the lane,, have a mid game package. These dudes "just like a said about Terrell Brandon" could create their own shot off the dribble,
The guards you have on that list, their athleticism is far greater than a ROOK or Current Curry. A ROOK Curry, 2nd year Curry "if he plays" or 3rd year Curry is not taking guards off the dribble in the 90s, with the rules, getting space/separation, Also those guards on that list are much stronger than a ROOK Curry, 2nd year, 3rd year Curry.

A.I. vs ROOK Curry, because you have him on the list, let me break that down... During the course of a 82 game season, who you think is getting buckets in 1s in the 90s, a ROOK Curry or a ROOK .A.I?? Who has the skill set to blow by you, create their own shot, finish around the rim, take contact, A ROOK CURRY or 95 A.I.

A.I. no question. That's like you asking me if Dale Curry can be in a Scoring PG in the 90s, Dale Curry has the same skill set, as a ROOK Curry, Can Dale Curry blow by defenders?? fukk No, spot up shooter, ROOK Curry, 2nd year Curry, and 3rd year Curry is not taking guards in the 90s off the dribble with his quickness, he's a Steve Kerr, BJ Armstrong at best caliber in those year.

Breh Steph and Luka are NOT putting up volume shots on any 90s team, Again what ROOKIE player or Players in the 90s not named MJ put up Volume shots over the course of a 82 game season, you can look it up NOW, if players weren't doing it back then, what the fukk makes you think these 2 Rookies will get to do so when they land on a NBA team. The shots that they are taking NOW, they won't be taking in their Rookie year or 2nd year, if they even get playing time.
nikka you are living in fantasy world, I'm in reality and using logic to debate and kill your shyt, you are trying to 'fit' today's game/style and current status of the player into the 90s and I won't let you that's why you trying your best to make a stance, using such and such and what ifs and it could happen shyt You keep saying why I'm using this and using that, I'm using the reality logic that trumps everything you're saying.

Ok, you want me to stop using Kobe, Kevin Garnett, Gilbert Arenas only average 10 their ROOK year. Joker only average 10 points in his Rookie year in this Era, but you expect us to believe he's putting up higher numbers his rookie years with a Center dominated league with harsher rules smh. Silly man, Just silly, again logic and reality, something that you tend to use or have.


Breh the lane was clogged, the spacing wasn't there, you had bigger bodies to tend to, hand checking, defenders bodying you and you are not getting a foul, more intensity, Adams, Iverson, Price doing all these things are special, that's shows you the level of their game. Curry, Luka need space to operate, they cannot create/separation with the rules of the 90s being put in place. Quickness was needed and a ROOK Steph or 17, 18-year-old HAS NONE.
Mark Price was a spot shooter with a middy, he was a "true" PG, Steph is NOT A TRUE PG, he cannot run a NBA offense in the 90s and still get off.
He's not taking you off the dribble with those rules in place, not enough to average what he's averaging now, again, he's a good BJ Armstrong or Steve Kerr, that's all I'm saying.


See you keep doing it again lol, Luka with handles etc, breh you can only show off your handles when you are in "space" and doing 1 on 1s, that shyt wasn't being done in the 90s from a guy that slow. Luka has No quickness, 17-18 year old Luka is getting ate up. Breh go look at what Jordan and Pippen did to Tony Kukco in the USA game, that should tell you everything you need to fukking know. Luka has the same quickness as a Toni Kukuc. Listen to what Tony said after the game when he played against Jordan and Pippen.

Tony had to adjusted to the brute of the game and he never really did, he became a shooter, he rarely dribbled the air outta the ball and he rarely took you off the dribble, he wasn't a 1 on 1 player, because he had no quickness, Luke has size but no quickness to blow by anybody in the 90s, He's getting grabbed and chucked, that there over a 82 game season will kill his mental

A young Artest is locking Luka down breh and he's not even a 90s player.

Second of all, Luka, Steph not staying on the floor long enough for them to even pan out, They'll be in foul trouble expecially Luka and Steph the way they play defense like they currently do. Those PGs that you have on that list will have 2 fouls on Steph witin the first 5 minutes of the game

Them dudes not letting Steph get 30 on them, they making Steph play defense, Luka too, Luka will have to guard, Play a Bonzi, or a Pippen and you think Pip and them dudes not trying to put 3 fouls on Luka in before halftime, you are smoking crack. Steph, rookie, 17, 18-year-old Luka not getting off like you think they would, I told you that I didn't think they would even make a NBA roster, but for shyts and giggles, them dudes would constantly be in foul trouble because they are NOT great on ball defenders


Breh did they put up 20 plus shots in their rookie year and most on that list are big men/3 men?

 

[Braman]

Chickens coming home to roost

And I predicted this damn near a decade ago. The genesis is Kobe fans. Once Bron started to pass Kobe that’s when the desperate, irrational, disingenuous sports analysis took off. Bc in order to deny the overt slap you in your face greatness of Lebron, you had to be obtuse, nonsensical, anecdotal, be wildly and subjectively dismissive —-‘that was Wade’s team, Kyrie saved him, Ray Allen saved him, the East was weak’ ‘

Once nggas started that shyt, I told my whole group chat full of Kobe fans bruh if you put ANY player in that type of microscope you can diminish ANYthing. And here we are. Getback season

shyt that don’t even make sense ‘Pippen won without Jordan but Jordan was nothing without Pippen ‘

And I’m an old head and Jordan is still (clearly) goat but nah they deserve this.

These youngins gon exult Bron the way us old cats exulted Jordan. And they gon use those same dismissive tactics. If you think the Bron goat talk is bad now wait til 10 years from now

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

You keep bringing up these players, like Michael Adams and Keke to try and strengthen your stance when you're only proving my point as to what I've been saying, If these dudes that you wanna try and compare to Steph to are putting up numbers in a league that had way stricter rules than what the rules Curry and Luka are playing with, then it's HARDER TO PUT UP THESE NUMBERS WHICH MAKE THESE DUDES MUCH SPECIAL THAN STEPH, THATS WHY THEY STAND OUT.

Did you just say Michael Adams and Kiki Vandeweghe are more special than Luka and Steph, with a straight face?

Only on TheColi will you see some cat claim that Michael Adams and Kiki Vandeweghe are better than Steph and Luka.

I really shouldn't even be surprised you've come to that conclusion. That just might be the single-most deranged hoops take I've read on this board. Lord have mercy. There's not a cotdamn chance in hell you've watched either of those guys play. I bet you hadn't even heard of them prior to me mentioning them.

You mentioned skinny ass Reggie, but you didn't mention buddy toughness, which he has way more than Steph and Luka combined. Reggie got off by having the rules of hand checking, bumping, Big Men chucking when he's coming off picks, holding and grabbing, and many more other things, with limited 3-point attempts than what these dudes are taking today. Steve Kerr "spot up" Craig Hodges "spot up" Dale Curry "spot up"

Muh'fukka you did NOT watch Reggie play.



Out of all the jumpshots he made during his career-high 57-point game, there was only ONE time where he was slightly pulled coming off a pick, and it was the barest of touches. It didn't obstruct him, at all. Every single other jump shot where he's running off screens, he doesn't get pulled or held. There's not one instance where he's hand-checked. Not once. The only times he's ever bumped are in the paint (and on a post-up), and the contact is no more physical than you see today.

Most of his jumpshots are open because his primary defender doesn't even make a concerted effort to contest his shots. Most of the time he comes off a screen and there's nobody in his shooting vicinity.


- Just look at his first field goal against the Bulls at 0.17sec - MJ gets lost behind a screen and doesn't even bother to contest, he actually just runs down the other end of the floor as Reggie is taking the shot.
- Look at 0.38sec - Reggie gets a foul called on Levingston who actually tries to avoid touching Reggie; it's one of the softest foul calls you'll ever see (you'll even see on replay that Levingston actually doesn't even touch his shooting arm, the foul is called because he grazes Reggie as he's trying to move away).
- Look at 0.55sec - this just might be poorest excuse for perimeter defense in existence. Somehow, his defender is caught ball-watching, but simultaneously can't process the ball is actually going right by him to Reggie, and he just stands there, doing absolutely nothing. He watches Reggie drive baseline for an uncontested layup. Inexcusable defense.
- Look at 1.03sec - Reggie gets a steal, runs the fastbreak and MJ legit doesn't even try to play defense on him. He literally runs away from Reggie with his hands up. It results in an uncontested layup. And you wanna know the funny thing about this? After this bucket the broadcaster literally says "everything is a layup drill for Indiana", as if not a lick of defense is being played by the Bulls.
- Look at 1.50sec - Reggie gets another steal, and the Bulls just look at him running the length of the floor for another uncontested bucket.
- Look at 2.11sec - another possession where MJ gets caught behind a screen, and doesn't even show any urgency to contest Reggie's shot. It results in a wide-open jumper.
- Look at 2.27 sec - yet another possession where MJ gets caught behind a screen, resulting in Reggie getting an open offensive rebound and tip-in.
- Look at 3.16sed - and another possession where MJ loses he gets caught ball-watching, and Reggie cuts to the rim for an uncontested layup. This is one of the most inexcusable displays of defense you'll see.
- Look at 3.25sec - wide-open 3-pt shot because the Bulls get lost on defense.
- Look at 3.44sec - Hodges get caught ball-watching, Reggie makes a backdoor cut and gets an uncontested layup.
- Look at 4.20sec - Bulls don't get back in transition and Reggie gets an uncontested layup.

This is one of the most horrendous, non-physical displays of defense you'll see from a team. No pulling or holding him coming off screens; no hand-checking; no contesting his jumpshots; letting him drive and cut to the hoop for easy scoring opportunities. Reggie legit faced little-to-no resistance on almost all of his buckets. And the funny thing about this is, the Bulls ended up being the NBA champs at the end of this season. Go figure.

That game is worth its own thread. It dispels so many false narratives about 90s defense and MJ's defense.

Steph would be the same thing, Steph has no quickness, "just like his dad didn't have any" Steph can't play defense, "just like his dad didn't" and Steph has no athleticism "just like his dad"

Steph is Reggie on steroids coming off the ball.

Everything that Reggie did when cutting, running off picks, and general off-ball movement, Steph took to the next level, and then some. He cuts harder, he's faster, he's more agile, he turns corners quicker, he bounces at more precise angles, gets around picks more fluidly, bumps off defenders better (due to his lower center of gravity and strength), is more creative in getting free because he's defended more closely.


Just look at what Steph has to do to get off a shot, and then you compare that to the Reggie games above.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I'm about to make you use your left side of the brain, If Dale Curry was a great shooter, and he had better measurables and skills than a ROOK STEPH, why the hell Dale Curry didn't pan out to be a Steph??? Why didn't Dale Curry average 30? He was a great shooter, he has the same skills as ROOK, 1st -3year STEPH??
Tell us smart guy why Dale Curry, who had a cold ass shot in the league in the 90s wasn't featured in the offense??

Dale Curry in the 90s has the same measurables "He may be a bit bigger" than ROOK Steph, 1st year Steph, 2nd year Steph and 3rd year Steph had.
Dale Curry in the 90s was better than ROOK STEPH - 3rd Year STEPH. So why the fukk wasn't Dale Curry averaging 20-30 points in an 82 season game for his Career?? Why was Dale Curry designated to a specific role?

TELL US

But you think ROOK Steph is going to put up numbers?? You really think a team in the 90s is going to allow ROOK Steph to put up 13 - 20 shots a game??

Oh look, another player you've never seen play.



Dell wasn't even remotely in the same stratosphere as a prospect.

Do you even realize how transparent you are with your complete lack of knowledge around hoops? You think just because Dell is Steph's pops, that he should've had the same career relative to his time in the league? Ask yourself why didn't Seth pan out then in this era, if Steph is so good? Why is Seth no more than a role player, when Steph is a superstar? Seth is a great shooter, so how come he isn't a superstar?

How come Brent Barry was just a role player, when his pops, Rick, was a superstar during the 70s? How come Joe Bryant was just a role player, when his son was a superstar? How come Danny Schayes wast just a role player, when his pops, Dolph, was a superstar? How come Jalen Brunson is a star, and his pops, Rick, was no more than a role player? How come LeBron is a superstar, and his son, will be no more than a role player? Why was Blake Griffin a superstar, and his brother, Taylor, no more than a fringe NBA talent?

If it was as simple as you're just so disingenously trying to claim, then we'd easily be able to project who'd become stars and who won't. You know nothing else but to debate in bad faith.

Mark Price was a "spot up shooter"

And this is why you need to bow out out of this discussion before you further embarrass yourself.

Mark Price was NOT a spot-up shooter.



You have no cotdamn idea of what you're talking about.

Mark Price was one of the best ball-handlers during the 90s; he generated his own shots. He was one of the first PGs who revolutionized the position, being able to create his own shot and create offense for his teammates at a high-level. He wasn't no cotdamn spot-up shooter, in any sense of the term. How many times are you gonna get exposed for your complete lack of knowledge, pounding on your chest, acting like you know what you're talking about?

and Terrell Brandon could create is shot off the dribble with a defender on him (I also said Curry can't do this, Curry cannot create his own shot) Never seen Curry through a 82 season do a pull dribble pull up, 2 dribble pull up like a Melo, That's not in Curry's game,

How many more lies are you going to tell?