Just for fun: if you could see any player from past eras play in today's NBA, who would you want to see?

[msgkings322]

Shaq as a "limited role post only who gets cooked on D". Whatever you say fella LMAO

It's more correct than what you say chief LMAO. Also backed up by others here who understand the game.

 

[msgkings322]

Surrender? You're arguing that Shaq would be bothered by todays soft as baby food rules and flopping Euro players and bean poles that would try and guard him, that a zone or double team would stop him, and that he couldn't D up in a league that rarely plays defense till the playoffs and at which time the added physicality would play to his favor. That's seriously your argument lol. Surrender? If by hysterical laughter you mean Surrender, then sure lol

You can always tell someone who doesn't know a lick about modern basketball when they trot out this nonsense. Yeah, Shaq's teams would win plenty of games vs teams that don't defend well. That ain't how it looks in the playoffs.

 

[trojanfan12]

Surrender? You're arguing that Shaq would be bothered by todays soft as baby food rules and flopping Euro players and bean poles that would try and guard him, that a zone or double team would stop him, and that he couldn't D up in a league that rarely plays defense till the playoffs and at which time the added physicality would play to his favor. That's seriously your argument lol. Surrender? If by hysterical laughter you mean Surrender, then sure lol

lol

You're not even debating the same thing. You keep reverting back to offense when it's already been said that he'd still be a dominant force on offense.

You have provide exactly zero basketball reasons to explain how he would, for example, defend the number of pick and rolls he'd face every game or how he's going to defend Joker when he's running the offense from the 3-point line.

All you've brought is lame insults of players being "soft", but nothing that actually has anything to do with basketball and how it's played today.

So yes, surrender accepted.

 

[tc1]

LOL.

Worst seasons a #1 pick has ever had?

Go ahead and make up more BS

Incredibly false

Congrats, that is your worst take yet. And you have had some terrible ones.

Find another top pick whose team barely managed to improve, at all. There's about one, in the cohort of players who were supposed to be special.

The Spurs managed to be almost as bad with Wembanyama as they were the previous season when they were intentionally tanking to draft him. No other top pick has managed that ridiculously dubious feat.

 

[msgkings322]

Find another top pick whose team barely managed to improve, at all. There's about one, in the cohort of players who were supposed to be special.

Every #1 pick is 'supposed to be special' or they wouldn't go #1. And there are MANY #1s who had worse rookie seasons than Wemby.

The Spurs managed to be almost as bad with Wembanyama as they were the previous season when they were intentionally tanking to draft him. No other top pick has managed that ridiculously dubious feat.

Putting that as your argument and ignoring the actual statistical output of #1 picks is typically disingenuous for you. But no one can stop you from declaring Wemby a bust.

 

[UK Cowboy]

lol

You're not even debating the same thing. You keep reverting back to offense when it's already been said that he'd still be a dominant force on offense.

You have provide exactly zero basketball reasons to explain how he would, for example, defend the number of pick and rolls he'd face every game or how he's going to defend Joker when he's running the offense from the 3-point line.

All you've brought is lame insults of players being "soft", but nothing that actually has anything to do with basketball and how it's played today.

So yes, surrender accepted.

I would think it's self explanatory. You pretend Shaq has never guarded a good offensive player or no one ever matched him up against a big that can shoot. It's absurd. And you act like all the centers today would wear him out because Lord knows; everyone today plays stifling defense. It's a joke argument

 

[UK Cowboy]

You can always tell someone who doesn't know a lick about modern basketball when they trot out this nonsense. Yeah, Shaq's teams would win plenty of games vs teams that don't defend well. That ain't how it looks in the playoffs.

I know plenty about todays game but I also know the past. You don't. That's the difference

 

[msgkings322]

I know plenty about todays game but I also know the past. You don't. That's the difference

You're of course allowed to type nonsense here but that doesn't make it true.

 

[UK Cowboy]

It's more correct than what you say chief LMAO. Also backed up by others here who understand the game.

You're "backed up by others" LMAO. That's your argument? It's like JD Vance going on CNN and having some babbling chick tell him he's all wrong and she's right because she's backed up by the rest of the CNN panel. Congrats LMAO

 

[UK Cowboy]

You're of course allowed to type nonsense here but that doesn't make it true.

Same to you

 

[msgkings322]

I would think it's self explanatory. You pretend Shaq has never guarded a good offensive player or no one ever matched him up against a big that can shoot. It's absurd. And you act like all the centers today would wear him out because Lord knows; everyone today plays stifling defense. It's a joke argument

You're strawmanning again, a sure sign of a weak argument. trojan didn't say that.

 

[msgkings322]

You're "backed up by others" LMAO. That's your argument? It's like JD Vance going on CNN and having some babbling chick tell him he's all wrong and she's right because she's backed up by the rest of the CNN panel. Congrats LMAO

This board is populated by lots of astute basketball nerds, you're pretty tuned in yourself. Most of them agree with me. I can't stop you from thinking being in a small minority of knowledgeable posters makes you more correct. Have fun with that.

 

[msgkings322]

Same to you

Zing!

 

[UK Cowboy]

This board is populated by lots of astute basketball nerds, you're pretty tuned in yourself. Most of them agree with me. I can't stop you from thinking being in a small minority of knowledgeable posters makes you more correct. Have fun with that.

Son, I have been watching basketball night and day I'm guessing since before you were an itch in your dad's pants. I didn't call Trojan or Lance a dumbass, I totally understand their arguments, I just don't agree with them. But you're argument is the group thinks it and therefore it's right. What if I post HOF players, coaches and scouts with pasts that scan both era's and post their quotes about what Shaq would be today? Then I would have the more qualified panel backing me up. Doesn't make me more right or them more wrong. We are welcome to a different opinion, regardless

 

[trojanfan12]

I would think it's self explanatory. You pretend Shaq has never guarded a good offensive player or no one ever matched him up against a big that can shoot. It's absurd. And you act like all the centers today would wear him out because Lord knows; everyone today plays stifling defense. It's a joke argument

So again, you have no explanation for how Shaq is going to be able to defend the number of pick and rolls he'd face or defend out to the 3-point line or keep from getting beaten off the dribble.

You should quit while you're behind. You probably won't...but you should.

 

[msgkings322]

Son, I have been watching basketball night and day I'm guessing since before you were an itch in your dad's pants. I didn't call Trojan or Lance a dumbass, I totally understand their arguments, I just don't agree with them.

I made similar arguments to them you just don't like how I clown you on the PF, so per usual I get you into pissy emoji mode.

But you're argument is the group thinks it and therefore it's right. What if I post HOF players, coaches and scouts with pasts that scan both era's and post their quotes about what Shaq would be today? Then I would have the more qualified panel backing me up.

That would definitely support your case, it's bizarre you are trying to say having smart people agree with me is bad for my argument. Let's see them...if I cared enough about this I could surely find experts who agree with our side of this too.

Doesn't make me more right or them more wrong. We are welcome to a different opinion, regardless

I've said multiple times now you are entitled to your differing opinion, we just think it's not correct. That's a big part of the fun of sports for us nerds, the arguing.

 

[trojanfan12]

I know plenty about todays game but I also know the past. You don't. That's the difference

Just an fyi, before you try this nonsense with me...I've been following the NBA since 1970. I remember being a kid and getting in trouble because I would sneak out to the living room to watch playoff and championship games at midnight because they were tape delayed.

 

[tc1]

Every #1 pick is 'supposed to be special' or they wouldn't go #1.

No. Some guys are supposed to be generational players. Some guys are just the best available that year -- guys like Risacher, Fultz, Bennett, Bargnani and others.

And there are MANY #1s who had worse rookie seasons than Wemby.

Not with respect to winning games, as I said. There are exceedingly few who have been worse on that score.

Putting that as your argument and ignoring the actual statistical output of #1 picks is typically disingenuous for you.

Who cares about empty stats? That's not what a generational player is supposed to produce.

But no one can stop you from declaring Wemby a bust.

Which is precisely what I did not say.

That said, make a list of "great" players who have ever been involved in playing a full season and losing 60 games, at any age. That list is incredibly short. Great players just do not lose 60 games -- and Wembanyama had an allegedly great coach, and a whole bunch of other high picks around him, and absolutely no excuse to lose the same number of games that the Spurs did when they were __intentionally losing__ the previous year.

Some ridiculous how, the Spurs last year were (slightly) better in the eleven games than Wembanyama missed, versus the 71 in which he played. How is that even possible for an allegedly "great" player, at any adult age?

 

[msgkings322]

No. Some guys are supposed to be generational players. Some guys are just the best available that year -- guys like Risacher, Fultz, Bennett, Bargnani and others.



Not with respect to winning games, as I said. There are exceedingly few who have been worse on that score.



Who cares about empty stats? That's not what a generational player is supposed to produce.



Which is precisely what I did not say.

That said, make a list of "great" players who have ever been involved in playing a full season and losing 60 games, at any age. That list is incredibly short. Great players just do not lose 60 games -- and Wembanyama had an allegedly great coach, and a whole bunch of other high picks around him, and absolutely no excuse to lose the same number of games that the Spurs did when they were __intentionally losing__ the previous year.

Some ridiculous how, the Spurs last year were (slightly) better in the eleven games than Wembanyama missed, versus the 71 in which he played. How is that even possible for an allegedly "great" player, at any adult age?

Not sold, Wemby is and will be a fantastic player IMO. Also he's like 20 years old, hardly an 'adult age' for the NBA.

 

[tc1]

Healthy Embiid would give Shaq trouble and so would AD because they could lure him out of the paint and beat him off the dribble.

Only if O'Neal is stupid, and there isn't much evidence to support that claim. Both Embiid and Davis shoot low-forties percentages from every range between 3' and the arc. They want to try and beat you with 18 footers? Let them. It's very rarely going to work, while O'Neal is shooting 60% from the field, as he did for the enormous majority of his career.

Joker would give him trouble because he can actually run Denver's offense himself from the 3 point line. Giannis would give him trouble for the same reasons AD and Embiid would, I could go on.

All of those players except Jokic should be invited, even begged, to shoot from distance. Jokic is ridiculously tied-2nd-in-the-league from the arc with Domantas Sabonis, but the rest of them are doing the defense a favor whenever they shoot from outside 10'.

Beg them to shoot from outside, and grab the rebound. Contemporary players should be doing the same as well.