How do we reach the next level ?

I'll say it again the biggest problem with this team is they play zero defense

Only the kings and blazers are worse

Lillard is just so good he bails Portland out


The 2 stars ingram and zion need to take the lead on defense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I would love to pull up that original thread because it felt at the time like there was 3 of us (at most) really against it, 60 percent saying it was fine, 20 percent who didnt like it at first but talked themselves into it being fine within two days, and 20 percent who liked it. I want to see receipts

---

What bothered me the most is they brought in players that would hinder the development of the younger guys. People tried to say that they would be vet leaders, but not playing 30 minutes a game. I would have loved to start Jax and NAW from day one. I could almost guarantee the record would be better or at least the same. Jax is better than Adams and Kira and NAW have been as good if not better than Bledsoe. Bledsoe had a good game yesterday, but I?m assuming that?s a one time event. It?s just mind boggling how they keep on trying to speed things up by slowing things down. You can?t develop players when the locker room has guys that clearly do not want to be a part of it. Every year people think progress is made but somehow the Pels finish with a below 500 record. If you ask me, that?s not development. Basketball is not an individual sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fedupfan

What bothered me the most is they brought in players that would hinder the development of the younger guys. People tried to say that they would be vet leaders, but not playing 30 minutes a game. I would have loved to start Jax and NAW from day one. I could almost guarantee the record would be better or at least the same. Jax is better than Adams and Kira and NAW have been as good if not better than Bledsoe. Bledsoe had a good game yesterday, but I?m assuming that?s a one time event. It?s just mind boggling how they keep on trying to speed things up by slowing things down. You can?t develop players when the locker room has guys that clearly do not want to be a part of it. Every year people think progress is made but somehow the Pels finish with a below 500 record. If you ask me, that?s not development. Basketball is not an individual sport.

---

i get people saying the adams trade was bad in their opinion....thats fine....saying jax is better than adams right now is just not true at all....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fedupfan

What bothered me the most is they brought in players that would hinder the development of the younger guys. People tried to say that they would be vet leaders, but not playing 30 minutes a game. I would have loved to start Jax and NAW from day one. I could almost guarantee the record would be better or at least the same. Jax is better than Adams and Kira and NAW have been as good if not better than Bledsoe. Bledsoe had a good game yesterday, but I?m assuming that?s a one time event. It?s just mind boggling how they keep on trying to speed things up by slowing things down. You can?t develop players when the locker room has guys that clearly do not want to be a part of it. Every year people think progress is made but somehow the Pels finish with a below 500 record. If you ask me, that?s not development. Basketball is not an individual sport.

---

I dont agree with that. Starting a guy who isnt ready could destroy his confidence and/or reinforce bad habits. I am not a fan of that unless they are an elite prospect.

I am a fan of bringing in vets to start ahead of them and mentor but you dont have to give up assets for those guys, and the smart teams get assets for those guys. THAT is the issue.

LOL

Draymond Green on Kevin Durant's "The ETCs" podcast: "They soft as hell. I've found myself trying to talk sh*t to some of these young dudes that won't talk. And they're like trying to be a friend. That's what these young dudes do nowadays. I don't understand it."

— Drew Shiller (@DrewShiller) April 8, 2021

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I wouldnt have hated this record the last two years if we accumulated assets and didnt give any away. Again, like OKC. But we made buyer moves (Favors, JJ, Adams) and while all were small, they added up. Could have taken the same cap space and taken on Iggy or Horford, etc and gained picks instead of sending out a first and 4 seconds for Favors and Adams (not to mention the seconds you could have got for Hill)

If we were really rebuilding and had an extra two firsts and six seconds in the chamber by using that cap space differently, then I would have ZERO problem with where we are record wise and development wise. But we made buyer moves. We gave up assets. We pushed up right against the tax and couldnt use the MLE or BAE. All that for what? Two non-playoff seasons. You could have accomplished that without giving up picks.

Its a failure by any and all measures the last two years. The best thing you could say is that Zion has improved, but the reality is that a talent like that would have always been elite regardless of the situation his first two years. Would be much nicer to have him and way more flexibility and picks to add talent around him, wouldnt it?

---

Absolutely!!

Management has no idea how to build around Zion.

1. In year one they opted to pickup Utah's placeholder at PF to play center next to the team's newly acquired cornerstone.

Sam Quin of 247 Sports had this to say about Favors when the trade was made:

"Favors is an old-school power forward. He is not a rim-protector, so he struggles to play center on defense, and he doesn’t really stretch the floor, so keeping him on the floor offensively is a challenge at power forward. Favors is the dreaded tweener."

The cost to the franchise for this mistake? Two second round draft picks ('21 and '23, both via GS), so we haven't even to begun to pay for him yet. Let that sink in. So where is Favors today? Back where he started. We were absolutely fleeced by the Jazz.

2. In year one we also had a player who expressed an interest in remaining in New Orleans, Julius Randle. After enjoying the the best year in his career the year before, he and his wife were ready to sign up. Julius would have been a more reasonable sidekick to Zion and BI than what we've 'enjoyed'. But we let him walk, offer-less, and with no remuneration at all. Se La Vie!!!

3. Trajan found Nikola Melli 5,000 miles away in Europe. Christian Wood was in our gym working out with the team. Had we waved half the money we waved at Melli, Wood would be a Pelican today (he was just looking for a home to stick). Instead, Melli is history, and Wood is elsewhere on the brink of stardom.

4. In year one we recognized that we needed shooting. So we must have contacted the folks at AARP and they suggested a two year deal with the declining JJ Redick. We leaped at the opportunity and happily coughed up 13.5MM per year for two years for his services (Is there any doubt that some Pelican RFA will be matched this summer).

5. To their credit, management initially negotiated a good deal for Jrue Holiday this year, but then screwed themselves by letting OKC unload Steven Adams on their terms to the Pelicans. I find it very difficult to criticize Adams' play as his play is representative of the NBA I grew up with, but this isn't the 1980's or 1990's, so....

Today's premier centers are not named Laimbeer, Jabbar, Parish, Olajuwon, Shaq, Ewing, or even Whittington. Today's five has to face the basket and display the quickness necessary to defend in space. Just the other night we were torched by Kelly Olynyk because our "bigs" are so feeble defensively in space. Is there a need for me to say that when our 5's are totally neglected by defenses that another defender clogs the lane making life more difficult for # 1 (and #14 for that matter).

How we ever got taken by OKC defies logic. Don't forget, that Adams also cost the Pelicans their best defender not named Holiday, too...Kendrich Williams.

6. Should I even mention the trade of the # 4 pick in the 2019 draft for the 8th and 17th picks. No I think I won't.

Although I wasn't thrilled with the hiring of SVG, I have to be real. This mess is Griff's and Trajan's. I'll wait until summer to ask for management's heads; but then again, I'm a softy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13 - 3

LOL

Draymond Green on Kevin Durant's "The ETCs" podcast: "They soft as hell. I've found myself trying to talk sh*t to some of these young dudes that won't talk. And they're like trying to be a friend. That's what these young dudes do nowadays. I don't understand it."

— Drew Shiller (@DrewShiller) April 8, 2021

---

for context-

KD asked Draymond if he wants to coach when he's done playing. Draymond's response: "I don't think I will. The lack of competitiveness in players bothers me more than anything. I don't know how I would handle that as a coach." https://t.co/mpfQmGRMMr

— Drew Shiller (@DrewShiller) April 8, 2021

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13 - 3

LOL

Draymond Green on Kevin Durant's "The ETCs" podcast: "They soft as hell. I've found myself trying to talk sh*t to some of these young dudes that won't talk. And they're like trying to be a friend. That's what these young dudes do nowadays. I don't understand it."

— Drew Shiller (@DrewShiller) April 8, 2021

---

Yeah for real, these new kids are always trying to be friends. They're the type to cry on the phone in the parking lot after a finals loss to try and recruit other superstars to come and save them, rather than truly believing in the spirit of competition. Draymond would never be so buddy-buddy with the other teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Yeah for real, these new kids are always trying to be friends. They're the type to cry on the phone in the parking lot after a finals loss to try and recruit other superstars to come and save them, rather than truly believing in the spirit of competition. Draymond would never be so buddy-buddy with the other teams.

---

lol..i like it lol.....

its just crazy how people forget their own stuff lol smdh...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I dont agree with that. Starting a guy who isnt ready could destroy his confidence and/or reinforce bad habits. I am not a fan of that unless they are an elite prospect.

I am a fan of bringing in vets to start ahead of them and mentor but you dont have to give up assets for those guys, and the smart teams get assets for those guys. THAT is the issue.

---

Can't disagree. Griffin put such a premium on the need for veterans as "culture builders" (unlike, say, Memphis) that he over paid for their services and neglected other needs on the roster. I'm ok with the formula (though I don't think it's essential), but Griffin was not a value shopper. It's almost like the blank-check assurance granted by Gayle B spilled over into the talent evaluation process.

Worse, the veterans Griffin brought in didn't really inject the maturity, IQ and grit into Pels culture that Griffin claimed they would nor did they help the team compete for the post-season right away despite efforts by the league to help the Pelicans along. In short, Griffin got very little for his (or Gayle's) money on the talent front. Now we are left with a mish-mash of a roster that can't do the two things most essential in the modern game--shoot the 3 and defend the 3--and it's killed us all year...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Yeah for real, these new kids are always trying to be friends. They're the type to cry on the phone in the parking lot after a finals loss to try and recruit other superstars to come and save them, rather than truly believing in the spirit of competition. Draymond would never be so buddy-buddy with the other teams.

---

It's like everyone saying "Kids these days." Hell, people back in Jordan's era would say Draymond is soft for being a 3pt shooting big or something absurd.

Everything is relative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eman5805

It's like everyone saying "Kids these days." Hell, people back in Jordan's era would say Draymond is soft for being a 3pt shooting big or something absurd.

Everything is relative.

---

Absolutely. The game changes over time, in terms of on-court play but also the culture surrounding it. People whining about the kids these days or the softness of the modern game or the death of the midrange or whatever the latest old-man-yells-at-cloud story is are just stuck in the mud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Absolutely. The game changes over time, in terms of on-court play but also the culture surrounding it. People whining about the kids these days or the softness of the modern game or the death of the midrange or whatever the latest old-man-yells-at-cloud story is are just stuck in the mud.

---

I can agree with this, but as a Pelicans fan, seeing the lack of communication, accountability, and defensive intensity followed by "fit wears" celebration after tough losses just don't groove with me me. Hell, my little twin brothers who are 21( which is the current generation) hate the players "easy going all shucks" quiet good guy nature of this team because the by product is complacency and majority focusing on offensive highlight reels instead of prioritizing what ever it takes to win games.

Draymond sucks at communicating, but it's a reason why it's hard to filter out at least 5 alphas or vocal leaders in this draft class.

There is a reason why young teams do not win championships.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes the pelicans have practiced poor asset management but we still have plenty. The only thing that really matters from a Basketball ops standpoint is the only thing that ever mattered for small market teams: Nailing your draft picks. Which we haven't done yet. Trying to accumulate assets for a big cash in trade isn't realistic. Id be willing to bet OKC will use those picks mostly in trade ups and kicking the can down the road so they can have a continuous source of cheap talent in their competitive years, which is still smart and worth doing.

That being said the lack of the culture reset does concern me. We brought in Adams and SVG to fix this and they haven't. But this is a weird year, so I think giving them a pass is understandable and you don't need to crucify fans for reaching the bargaining and acceptance stages, if you want to be miserable and a masochist forcing yourself to follow a team you hate that's on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelifan

Yes the pelicans have practiced poor asset management but we still have plenty. The only thing that really matters from a Basketball ops standpoint is the only thing that ever mattered for small market teams: Nailing your draft picks. Which we haven't done yet. Trying to accumulate assets for a big cash in trade isn't realistic. Id be willing to bet OKC will use those picks mostly in trade ups and kicking the can down the road so they can have a continuous source of cheap talent in their competitive years, which is still smart and worth doing.

That being said the lack of the culture reset does concern me. We brought in Adams and SVG to fix this and they haven't. But this is a weird year, so I think giving them a pass is understandable and you don't need to crucify fans for reaching the bargaining and acceptance stages, if you want to be miserable and a masochist forcing yourself to follow a team you hate that's on you.

---

Some of this I agree with, but to say that we still have plenty of X so throwing away X isnt a big - thats a bad argument. Every asset matters ESPECIALLY when you are a small market. Pick 30 could be Festus Ezili and pick 35 could be Draymond Green. Casually throwing away pick 35 because you already had pick 7 and 30 in that draft would mean no title for the Warriors. The more picks you have the better chance you have to trade up from 15 to 10 when a guy you had in the top 3 is inexplicably falling.

Throwing away picks for Favors and Adams - and not using the cap space instead to take on players and picks was a mistake. We just dont know how big yet and likely never will because we cant know what doesnt happen. But the process was poor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverfoxx

I can agree with this, but as a Pelicans fan, seeing the lack of communication, accountability, and defensive intensity followed by "fit wears" celebration after tough losses just don't groove with me me. Hell, my little twin brothers who are 21( which is the current generation) hate the players "easy going all shucks" quiet good guy nature of this team because the by product is complacency and majority focusing on offensive highlight reels instead of prioritizing what ever it takes to win games.

Draymond sucks at communicating, but it's a reason why it's hard to filter out at least 5 alphas or vocal leaders in this draft class.

---

There are issues with this team, particularly, and with youth in general, but I don't think it's a ''kids these days are just too soft'' issue, honestly. Again, the man making this argument is a dude who cried on the phone to a rival in the parking lot after a loss, so if competition died and everyone wants to be friends, that happened a long time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Some of this I agree with, but to say that we still have plenty of X so throwing away X isnt a big - thats a bad argument. Every asset matters ESPECIALLY when you are a small market. Pick 30 could be Festus Ezili and pick 35 could be Draymond Green. Casually throwing away pick 35 because you already had pick 7 and 30 in that draft would mean no title for the Warriors. The more picks you have the better chance you have to trade up from 15 to 10 when a guy you had in the top 3 is inexplicably falling.

Throwing away picks for Favors and Adams - and not using the cap space instead to take on players and picks was a mistake. We just dont know how big yet and likely never will because we cant know what doesnt happen. But the process was poor

---

Throwing away picks is obviously terrible, but I'm ok with overpaying for vet leadership if its the right guys. Igoudala and Bogut were invaluable to GS's transformation. The issue is its exponentially hard to find those guys who can actually turn a lockerroom around. And its not an exact science outside of maybe Chris Paul, you're mostly throwing stuff at the wall and hoping it sticks. We've tried at least 5 guys that seemed like the type at this point and they've all flopped. If we had one player who could help this team with the mental errors and effort level and stop bad habits at the root so we can actually play up to our talent level of once, I'd pay 5-10 late firsts and early 2nds for that. Wouldn't you?

So yes considering you can get vets more shrewdly than we have and you never know for sure which ones will work, maybe its better to just not try, and accept which ever ones come with picks attached. But finding those vets does a lot for your young team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelifan

Throwing away picks is obviously terrible, but I'm ok with overpaying for vet leadership if its the right guys. Igoudala and Bogut were invaluable to GS's transformation. The issue is its exponentially hard to find those guys who can actually turn a lockerroom around. And its not an exact science outside of maybe Chris Paul, you're mostly throwing stuff at the wall and hoping it sticks. We've tried at least 5 guys that seemed like the type at this point and they've all flopped. If we had one player who could help this team with the mental errors and effort level and stop bad habits at the root so we can actually play up to our talent level of once, I'd pay 5-10 late firsts and early 2nds for that. Wouldn't you?

So yes considering you can get vets more shrewdly than we have and you never know for sure which ones will work, maybe its better to just not try, and accept which ever ones come with picks attached. But finding those vets does a lot for your young team.

---

Jarrett Jack was actually the first leader of those teams and really helped those guys when they were young. And cost them very little. Then, when you are ready to make the next step, you go pay for the Iggy's. Memphis has gotten solid locker room guys without giving up assets for them. There are plenty around the league, but yeah if you can get an elite one like CP3 - give up assets. But Derrick Favors isnt changing cultures and JJ or Adams clearly arent either. They help, sure, but not so much more than a guy who could have been had for a fraction of the cost or assets. My buddy in Atlanta says that Solomon Hill and Tony Snell have been invaluable for them. Two guys that they were just given and cost them little to nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Absolutely. The game changes over time, in terms of on-court play but also the culture surrounding it. People whining about the kids these days or the softness of the modern game or the death of the midrange or whatever the latest old-man-yells-at-cloud story is are just stuck in the mud.

---

Today's players have maximized the benefit of the three point line. There are more long distance shooters today by far than there ever has been in the league. And it makes sense. The only strange thing is how long it took the NBA to evolve into what we have today. Now that doesn't mean I have to enjoy todays game more than other eras.

Just because players today better maximize the set up of the court doesn't in my opinion make for a more enjoyable game. Personally I prefer a mix of inside and outside play, and I appreciate guys who could score all over the court. I don't think constant screening actions around the three point arc or guys passing up layups to kick it back out to three point shooters is a really enjoyable brand of basketball. Just like I didn't like the ugly Heat Knicks games of the 90's, I think both are too one dimensional.

But I fully understand why it's happened. It doesn't mean I have to like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freyfamilyreuni

Today's players have maximized the benefit of the three point line. There are more long distance shooters today by far than there ever has been in the league. And it makes sense. The only strange thing is how long it took the NBA to evolve into what we have today. Now that doesn't mean I have to enjoy todays game more than other eras.

But I fully understand why it's happened. It doesn't mean I have to like it.

---

Nobody's saying you have to like it, but there's a difference between saying ''this is not my aesthetic preference'' - which is fine - and saying ''the modern game is soft and the midrange is dead and these players could never cut it back in MY day!'' which is complete nonsense.

Watched an interview of Wilt Chamberlain on Conan the other day and he said that MJ would be benched and wouldnt be able to get into the paint if he traveled back to "his day"

Every generation seems to think the new generation wouldnt be good in their generation and the new generation is soft/play a less "real" form of basketball.

One day, Steph Curry and Kevin Durant will be talking about how the players in the 2040s wouldnt make it in their day and what they are playing isnt "real basketball

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Nobody's saying you have to like it, but there's a difference between saying ''this is not my aesthetic preference'' - which is fine - and saying ''the modern game is soft and the midrange is dead and these players could never cut it back in MY day!'' which is complete nonsense.

---

The players today would probably succeed very well in my favorite era of basketball. It would be like todays teams playing the pelicans for every game. They'd give up a lot of paint points, but they'd end up outscoring every team from the three point line so severly it would make up for it. Now if you stick todays players back in the 60's or 70's it would be a different story. Take away the three point line and the type of play we see today would look pretty comical.

Every future generation would destroy the past ones. In every sport. I dont think Babe Ruth would bat .200 if you took todays players back to his time or brought him forward to ours and he is the most dominant player of all time in any sport. Guys from today would go back to the 60s and drain 25 footers with ease, unguarded. And if those guys came out to contest, they would blow by them. The best defender in that time would have tless lateral mobility and speed than Brandon Ingram. I would say an average team like the Bulls would beat the champion Celtics by 40 or 50.

Which is why I am always a fan of measuring a guy only against his era and then saying he is better than a guy in another era based on how much better he is than the guys in his era. So, even though Babe Ruth couldnt bad .200 today, he is better than Mike Trout because he hit more home runs than entire teams when he played. Trout couldnt possibly do that. So, Babe Ruth is the best player of all time, even though Trout would be 5x better than him if you transported Babe to today

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Every future generation would destroy the past ones. In every sport. I dont think Babe Ruth would bat .200 if you took todays players back to his time or brought him forward to ours and he is the most dominant player of all time in any sport. Guys from today would go back to the 60s and drain 25 footers with ease, unguarded. And if those guys came out to contest, they would blow by them. The best defender in that time would have tless lateral mobility and speed than Brandon Ingram. I would say an average team like the Bulls would beat the champion Celtics by 40 or 50.

Which is why I am always a fan of measuring a guy only against his era and then saying he is better than a guy in another era based on how much better he is than the guys in his era. So, even though Babe Ruth couldnt bad .200 today, he is better than Mike Trout because he hit more home runs than entire teams when he played. Trout couldnt possibly do that. So, Babe Ruth is the best player of all time, even though Trout would be 5x better than him if you transported Babe to today

---

Ha, you're probably right. Those slow white guys in the 60's would be shell shocked, and as for the 70's players, well... let's just say, today's players would probably be a lot more sober on the court.

(I still think these darn kids today, would be absolutely lost without a three point line).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Yeah for real, these new kids are always trying to be friends. They're the type to cry on the phone in the parking lot after a finals loss to try and recruit other superstars to come and save them, rather than truly believing in the spirit of competition. Draymond would never be so buddy-buddy with the other teams.

---

If you watched Clippers vs Suns last night you saw good hard nose basketball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13 - 3

If you watched Clippers vs Suns last night you saw good hard nose basketball.

---

And yet, the Clippers (who won) made 18 threes. In the year 2000, only 2 teams in the league (the Bucks and Celtics) even attempted that many threes in a game, let alone made that many. The same people who are making the ''good ol' days'' argument would, at good portion of the time, call that Clippers Suns game a 3pt shootout chuck-fest with no ''real'' basketball just because we didn't get to see Ivica Zubac post up 28 times.

Plus the rules of the game aren’t the same. Handchecking isn’t a thing now. Gary Payton isn’t the same player today or he’d need to adapt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eman5805

Plus the rules of the game aren’t the same. Handchecking isn’t a thing now. Gary Payton isn’t the same player today or he’d need to adapt.

---

For real. The rules have changed a lot, in ways that make it harder for players in certain ways and easier in others.

Harder, for example, in that illegal defense rules no longer exist in the same way and therefore defenses can key in on individual players and scheme a lot more fluidly than they used to be able to do. Triple teaming, for example, is mostly a post-2000 thing that players just didn't really have to deal with much in the 80s and 90s.

Easier, for another example, in that rules regarding travelling and palming are massively loosened up from the way they were even 30 years ago, let alone back in the 60s.

People called Bob Cousy a ball-handling wizard at the time but you look at clips of him today and he's kind of whatever. A lot of that is just due to rule changes: things that players do today, or that Iverson was doing in the late 90s, simply would have been called as palming violations when Cousy was active.

Of course, if Cousy was born in 1990 and was playing today, he would have grown up with modern rules and styles and his play would reflect that. But if you just teleported prime Cousy into today's NBA and asked him to play his game from then, he'd be dreadful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Every future generation would destroy the past ones. In every sport. I dont think Babe Ruth would bat .200 if you took todays players back to his time or brought him forward to ours and he is the most dominant player of all time in any sport. Guys from today would go back to the 60s and drain 25 footers with ease, unguarded. And if those guys came out to contest, they would blow by them. The best defender in that time would have tless lateral mobility and speed than Brandon Ingram. I would say an average team like the Bulls would beat the champion Celtics by 40 or 50.

Which is why I am always a fan of measuring a guy only against his era and then saying he is better than a guy in another era based on how much better he is than the guys in his era. So, even though Babe Ruth couldnt bad .200 today, he is better than Mike Trout because he hit more home runs than entire teams when he played. Trout couldnt possibly do that. So, Babe Ruth is the best player of all time, even though Trout would be 5x better than him if you transported Babe to today

---

To a large measure, Mac, I agree with you; however the game is far different from the days of the Boston dynasty and before. A 35% shooter from three is a hot commodity in 2020's; in the days of yore, a 35% shooter from three point line would be on the pines because there was no three. Traveling was a violation of the rules and not an a routine occurrence. The notion of 'continuation' didn't exist. A euro-step would have been deemed traveling and not a staple of the game as it is today. A three second lane did exist at one point in the NBA (Sorry Shaq). The bonus situation would not be an automatic two free throws, but a one and one (A guy like Adams could never close a game in the 60's). Being able to play both ends of the court was an absolute requirement in the 60's and 70's...not so much today (this, alone, wipes out half the current league).

So I don't necessarily think today's player translates well , as a rule, into the NBA basketball in the 60's and 70's (there are always exceptions). On the other hand, the same can be said of the players of yesterday playing in today's NBA (again there would be exceptions...one was named Maravich).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

To a large measure, Mac, I agree with you; however the game is far different from the days of the Boston dynasty and before. A 35% shooter from three is a hot commodity in 2020's; in the days of yore, a 35% shooter from three point line would be on the pines because there was no three. .

---

I agree with much of what you say, in regards to the rules changes meaning modern players would be officiated harshly in the past and would therefore lose an advantage.

However, the idea that a 35% shooter in the days of yore would be on the pines is just absurd.

Here's the First Team All NBA in 1960, and their fg%s:

- Elgin Baylor - 42.4%FG
- Wilt Chamberlain - 46.1%FG
- Bob Cousy - 38.4% FG
- Bob Pettit - 43.8% FG
- Gene Shue - 41.9% FG

Dolph Schayes made All NBA Second Team and he shot 40.1% from the floor that year, and shot 38% from the floor for his career.

Bob Cousy in particular never shot better than 39.7% from the floor, and had 5 seasons shooting under 37% from the floor. Yet he was a Hall of Famer, a 13x All Star, won an MVP award, and was 12x All NBA.

All-star appearances in the 1959-60 season included Dick Garmaker, who shot 39.6% from the floor, Hot Rod Hundley, who shot 35.8% from the floor, and Chuck Noble, who shot 35.7% from the floor.

If you could shoot reliably at 35% in 1959-60, not only were you not destined to be glued to the pines, you could be an All-Star.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I agree with much of what you say, in regards to the rules changes meaning modern players would be officiated harshly in the past and would therefore lose an advantage.

However, the idea that a 35% shooter in the days of yore would be on the pines is just absurd.

Here's the First Team All NBA in 1960, and their fg%s:

- Elgin Baylor - 42.4%FG
- Wilt Chamberlain - 46.1%FG
- Bob Cousy - 38.4% FG
- Bob Pettit - 43.8% FG
- Gene Shue - 41.9% FG

Dolph Schayes made All NBA Second Team and he shot 40.1% from the floor that year, and shot 38% from the floor for his career.

Bob Cousy in particular never shot better than 39.7% from the floor, and had 5 seasons shooting under 37% from the floor. Yet he was a Hall of Famer, a 13x All Star, won an MVP award, and was 12x All NBA.

All-star appearances in the 1959-60 season included Dick Garmaker, who shot 39.6% from the floor, Hot Rod Hundley, who shot 35.8% from the floor, and Chuck Noble, who shot 35.7% from the floor.

If you could shoot reliably at 35% in 1959-60, not only were you not destined to be glued to the pines, you could be an All-Star.

---

All the players you mentioned played in an era where defense was premier, today's stars...not so much. Challenge today's players with the defenses of yesterday and they would not shoot the same numbers. Sorry if that's incomprehensible to you. It just is what it is.

Put Bailey Howell or Dave DeBusschere (or Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Bobby Jones Ron Artest, or Larry Bird in later years) on Kevin Durant instead of Brandon Ingram or Zion Williamson and incorporate yesterday's rules. If we could do that, I'd bet a dollar to your donut that there would be a negative impact on Durant's Numbers. But, maybe you feel differently.

Bottom line: A 35% shooter in 2020's would not positively translate to yesterday (especially with no three point line).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

All the players you mentioned played in an era where defense was premier, today's stars...not so much. Challenge today's players with the defenses of yesterday and they would not shoot the same numbers. Sorry if that's incomprehensible to you. It just is what it is.

Put Bailey Howell or Dave DeBusschere (or Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Bobby Jones Ron Artest, or Larry Bird in later years) on Kevin Durant instead of Brandon Ingram or Zion Williamson and incorporate yesterday's rules. If we could do that, I'd bet a dollar to you donut that there would be a negative impact on Durant's Numbers. But, maybe you feel differently.

Bottom line: A 35% shooter in 2020's would not positively translate to yesterday (especially with no three point line).

---

I mean, if your argument is that the average PF/C from 1959 is guarding Zion and doing a better job than, say, Rudy Gobert does today then you're welcome to it. I'd no more argue with that than I'd argue with the man claiming he's Napoleon.

If you can shoot 35% from 25 feet, you can go back to 1960 and shoot 35% from 25 feet and be scoring 2 points on each shot, which yes is less value than today's shots from the same distance but guess what? All-Stars at the time only shot 35% at the damn rim. So you'd be as efficient as some All-Stars were in terms of pure scoring and you'd be scoring the same number of points as they were, and you'd be doing it from a place that guys at the time had no idea how to guard.

Of course the absolute cream of the crop elite defenders from that period, like your Bill Russells, would very probably still cause trouble for a modern player. My point is not that if you put an average player in 1959-60 he'd suddenly be the greatest player of all time, but your average ''solid'' defender in 1959 is getting smoked by damn near anyone on an NBA roster today. Most modern players are just better at the game than guys were back then. That's not a knock on those players: the game evolves. Today's players will look like scrubs (for the most part, again, a few outliers) compared to the average player in 2070.

That's how sports work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I mean, if your argument is that the average PF/C from 1959 is guarding Zion and doing a better job than, say, Rudy Gobert does today then you're welcome to it. I'd no more argue with that than I'd argue with the man claiming he's Napoleon.

If you can shoot 35% from 25 feet, you can go back to 1960 and shoot 35% from 25 feet and be scoring 2 points on each shot, which yes is less value than today's shots from the same distance but guess what? All-Stars at the time only shot 35% at the damn rim. So you'd be as efficient as some All-Stars were in terms of pure scoring and you'd be scoring the same number of points as they were, and you'd be doing it from a place that guys at the time had no idea how to guard.

Of course the absolute cream of the crop elite defenders from that period, like your Bill Russells, would very probably still cause trouble for a modern player. My point is not that if you put an average player in 1959-60 he'd suddenly be the greatest player of all time, but your average ''solid'' defender in 1959 is getting smoked by damn near anyone on an NBA roster today. Most modern players are just better at the game than guys were back then. That's not a knock on those players: the game evolves. Today's players will look like scrubs (for the most part, again, a few outliers) compared to the average player in 2070.

That's how sports work.

---

You picked 1960 not me. In 1960, there were exactly eight NBA teams. The league had not yet been watered down by expansion (which plays massively to the advantage of today's player). Every night you played against good players. In 1960, Oscar Robertson's Royals (a team that included Jack Twyman and Wayne Embry) ended up in last place in the eastern conference. That's three Hall of Famers that ended up in last place.

You simply did not face any Zion Williamson's or Brandon Ingram's defensively back then. Another way of looking at it is to say, how many of today's players (the one's guarding Kevin Durant today) would even be playing in that eight team league, If that's not good enough for you, even by today's standard's pare down today's league to include only eight teams and man them with the best 120 players (15 players on each team) and tell me that Durant's numbers wouldn't suffer.

BTW: I'd gladly put Bill Russel on Zion and bet you he wouldn't enjoy the numbers he gets today.

The funny thing about mediocre and bad basketball teams, is that the natural inclination from the fanbase is to supremely overrate all of the players, while also being livid that the team is so bad.

— Brady Klopfer (@BradyKlopferNBA) April 10, 2021

So much this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

The funny thing about mediocre and bad basketball teams, is that the natural inclination from the fanbase is to supremely overrate all of the players, while also being livid that the team is so bad.

— Brady Klopfer (@BradyKlopferNBA) April 10, 2021

So much this

---

I couldn't agree more.

In fact some, even overvalue a poor team's so-called "superstars", huh?

Would you?

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...dnt-see-coming

I wouldnt give up nearly anything of value for KAT. Not the skill set I want or the attitude/motor I want either. Also, I am thinking I want a vertical spacing center over a stretch center on offense next to Zion (not even counting the defense, just offense with regard to this preference). A center outside the 3 point line will just get left to clog the paint for Zion. At least if the center is in the paint, he can screen for Zion like Adams does or catch a lob if the guy leaves him.

I dont like the Beal fit, but I still might trade for him. I hate the KAT fit. Ideally, I am waiting to cash in my chips for a hybrid forward who can defend, slash, playmake, and hit the open 3 comes available. Which might be the hardest thing to acquire in the league, but that is what I am waiting for. Otherwise I will build internally

[QUOTE=MichaelMcNamara;1553649] At least if the center is in the paint, he can screen for Zion like Adams does or catch a lob if the guy leaves him.

alot of people on the board dont understand how adams screening or walling players off so zion can score at the rim alot......now if we can find a cheaper center that can do those things and spread some money elsewhere then thats a win all around...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6warddude

At least if the center is in the paint, he can screen for Zion like Adams does or catch a lob if the guy leaves him.

alot of people on the board dont understand how adams screening or walling players off so zion can score at the rim alot......now if we can find a cheaper center that can do those things and spread some money elsewhere then thats a win all around...

---

There's a fella in Milwaukee (somewhat similar to Zion) who thrives with a stretch 5. In fact, it benefits him so well that he's found himself in the League MVP talk each of the last three years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

There's a fella in Milwaukee (somewhat similar to Zion) who thrives with a stretch 5. In fact, it benefits him so well that he's found himself in the League MVP talk each of the last three years.

---

i might be killing my own argument but come playoffs times teams build a wall and limited that player and that player has shooters around him...

a stretch 5 maybe good for zion but im just adding that a center adams caliber would not hurt zion in the paint....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I wouldnt give up nearly anything of value for KAT. Not the skill set I want or the attitude/motor I want either. Also, I am thinking I want a vertical spacing center over a stretch center on offense next to Zion (not even counting the defense, just offense with regard to this preference). A center outside the 3 point line will just get left to clog the paint for Zion. At least if the center is in the paint, he can screen for Zion like Adams does or catch a lob if the guy leaves him.

I dont like the Beal fit, but I still might trade for him. I hate the KAT fit. Ideally, I am waiting to cash in my chips for a hybrid forward who can defend, slash, playmake, and hit the open 3 comes available. Which might be the hardest thing to acquire in the league, but that is what I am waiting for. Otherwise I will build internally

---

DeAndre Hunter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AusPel

DeAndre Hunter?

---

I was thinking Pascal Siakam. He's not shooting particularly well from 3 this year, but I recall him being able to hit open shots semi-regularly at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eman5805

I was thinking Pascal Siakam. He's not shooting particularly well from 3 this year, but I recall him being able to hit open shots semi-regularly at least.

---

Siakam's shooting by year:

16-17: 14.3% (0.1 a game)
17-18: 22% (1.6 a game)
18-19: 36.9% (2.7 a game)
19-20: 35.9% (6.1 a game)
20-21: 28.8% (4.3 a game).

Career 32.5% 3pt shooter

How'd he do when open by 3 feet or more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eman5805

I was thinking Pascal Siakam. He's not shooting particularly well from 3 this year, but I recall him being able to hit open shots semi-regularly at least.

---

I like Siakam as a player, but not at his salary. He still has 3 years/$107 million remaining.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNiNSI-l...=1bmf75zpo507p

Had me rolling lol. But I honestly feel bad for Russ, I love his game individually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hornetzplaya

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNiNSI-l...=1bmf75zpo507p

Had me rolling lol. But I honestly feel bad for Russ, I love his game individually.

---

Russel is one of the nicest professionals you ever would want to meet. While I am not in love with his game, I really hope he realizes all his goals. There is nothing 'plastic' about this young man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hornetzplaya

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNiNSI-l...=1bmf75zpo507p

Had me rolling lol. But I honestly feel bad for Russ, I love his game individually.

---

Westbrook seems like a good guy, and for all of his massive flaws as a player he never shortchanges his teammates or the fans on his effort. Dude just goes out there and kills himself trying. Whatever else is true, you have to respect that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hornetzplaya

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNiNSI-l...=1bmf75zpo507p

Had me rolling lol. But I honestly feel bad for Russ, I love his game individually.

---

That is how the tank works.Trust the Process