Walt Frazier Catchin Feelings Over Heat Record
Options
Comments
-
greenwood1921 wrote: »The only thing that could truly discount the heat's streak is if they failed to win the championship...
...Like the Spurs 20 game streak last year that reached deep into the playoffs.
"Message" post.
Being a Spur fan I had to unfortunately cosign this post. A win streak no matter how impressive, is deemed irrelevant if you don't win the championship -
The league is way deeper now, them 70s ? wasn't going against Nowitzski's, Tony Parkers,Ginobli's,etc. The NBA today truly is the best players in the world
-
SMH @ anybody saying the league is deeper now. They are about the same. Half the teams in the league are full of players no one even knows about.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »SMH @ anybody saying the league is deeper now. They are about the same. Half the teams in the league are full of players no one even knows about.
Huh?? How was the NBA deeper pre-merger then when they didnt even play against the best competition?
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »SMH @ anybody saying the league is deeper now. They are about the same. Half the teams in the league are full of players no one even knows about.
Huh?? How was the NBA deeper pre-merger then when they didnt even play against the best competition?
I didn't say it was deeper. I said they are about the same. It's irrelevant that not all the talent of the day was in the NBA. That just means pro BBall as a whole at that time was waaaay better than it is now. The NBA back then had about 3 or 4 good teams and a bunch of filler. That's pretty much how it is now too. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »SMH @ anybody saying the league is deeper now. They are about the same. Half the teams in the league are full of players no one even knows about.
Huh?? How was the NBA deeper pre-merger then when they didnt even play against the best competition?
I didn't say it was deeper. I said they are about the same. It's irrelevant that not all the talent of the day was in the NBA. That just means pro BBall as a whole at that time was waaaay better than it is now. The NBA back then had about 3 or 4 good teams and a bunch of filler. That's pretty much how it is now too.
Boo this man -
So I'm wrong? The league is just filled with great teams now huh? The NBA is at it's most competitive right? It's not like you got teams like the Wizards and Bobcats who have had losing streaks that rival MIA's winning streak. It's not like you had a team like the Lakers that was in utter disarray as recently as the All-Star break and yet it was nothing for them to get back in the playoff race and overtake those ahead of them. I know people viewers from this era want to be loyal to this era, but I really don't see how anyone can look at the league now and call it competitive.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »So I'm wrong? The league is just filled with great teams now huh? The NBA is at it's most competitive right? It's not like you got teams like the Wizards and Bobcats who have had losing streaks that rival MIA's winning streak. It's not like you had a team like the Lakers that was in utter disarray as recently as the All-Star break and yet it was nothing for them to get back in the playoff race and overtake those ahead of them. I know people viewers from this era want to be loyal to this era, but I really don't see how anyone can look at the league now and call it competitive.
The talent in the league today is FAR deeper than back in the early 70's, it's not even close.
But just because a league is deeper does not mean it's more or less competitive. It's always been a top heavy league.
-
Where did I say the talent was better then. I've been talking about deepness in the league and competitiveness. The league now is not more competitive than it was then.
But even if we go to talent level. I don't see where there is just so much more talent in the league now than there was before. For goodness sake, Kareem gets all this praise for playing into his 40s which was such a hard thing to do back then. Nowadays, you got like three or four people pushing 40 and starting. How is the talent level so great when you got people like Grant Hill who couldn't even stay healthy in his prime years, took a long ass hiatus from basketball, and could still come back and not only get on a team but be a factor. Really? If the talent was so great, how come all teams are basically bringing ? out of retirement just to have bodies to put on the floor? -
The league is deeper than it was now just look at teams that are lower seeds in conferences. 8th seeded lakers have 2 of the most dominant big men in the league and kobe who last night watching nba tv still was going in down 20 in the middle of a long season. I have shown my hate for james harden (See previous thread) but Houston on any given night with a cast of unknowns and harden actually have competed against good quality teams.
Look at the bulls without derrick rose ? are stepping up every night and filling in his points while hes out and they are a top team in the NBA without rose. Look at rondo going down and a guy like jeff green going nuts and other players like pierce have filled his void.
Back in the 70's if you were a top college player there was a spot for you in the NBA to dominate right away. But look at a guy like kemba walker who won my huskies a national title by himself virtually and gets unnoticed allot of time. There are allot of great offensive and defensive players who due to the roster limits of teams can't get a chance to shine. Look at the nfl in the last 15 years of guys like victor cruz and even tom brady who cause you can have 70 ? on a team and injuries because stars cause of roster size. The Nba can only have just of a few dozen players in the big league team and the same for a minor league NBDL team. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Where did I say the talent was better then. I've been talking about deepness in the league and competitiveness. The league now is not more competitive than it was then.
Where did I say that you said the talent was better back then? I didnt, I said the talent in the league today is DEEPER, meaning more. And Im agreeing with you on the competitiveness angle... like I said, it's always been a top heavy league.The Lonious Monk wrote: »But even if we go to talent level. I don't see where there is just so much more talent in the league now than there was before. For goodness sake, Kareem gets all this praise for playing into his 40s which was such a hard thing to do back then. Nowadays, you got like three or four people pushing 40 and starting. How is the talent level so great when you got people like Grant Hill who couldn't even stay healthy in his prime years, took a long ass hiatus from basketball, and could still come back and not only get on a team but be a factor. Really? If the talent was so great, how come all teams are basically bringing ? out of retirement just to have bodies to put on the floor?
17 professional teams vs 30 professional teams.
Even if teams today were more or less the equal of teams in the 70s in terms of quality of talent (which they aren't), this fact alone is enough to say the talent is DEEPER today.
Then add in the fact that NBA is far more globalized today, and is drawing from a talent pool far greater in size than 40 years ago. -
There are teams that are feasting and there are teams that are in drought season and there always will be. I think what Lonious Monk is what someone calls a drought or weak team in 2013 would be a contender back in the 70's NBA.17 professional teams vs 30 professional teams.
Even if teams today were more or less the equal of teams in the 70s in terms of quality of talent (which they aren't), this fact alone is enough to say the talent is DEEPER today.
Then add in the fact that NBA is far more globalized today, and is drawing from a talent pool far greater in size than 40 years ago.
The scary ? is some of these African and Euro players have only been playing basketball since they were in 8th grade or high school equivalent! And they make the NBA! And to me what is just as big as the international talent pool is AAU basketball. Now you don't have to live in the hood or go to the hood to play the best players like the 70's. The AAU era has allowed for the best players to play the best competition at an early age. and through AAU the best players dont need to go to the playground all summer but can go to a pro players summer camp and learn how to get better earlier.
-
Monizzle14 wrote: »The league is deeper than it was now just look at teams that are lower seeds in conferences. 8th seeded lakers have 2 of the most dominant big men in the league and kobe who last night watching nba tv still was going in down 20 in the middle of a long season. I have shown my hate for james harden (See previous thread) but Houston on any given night with a cast of unknowns and harden actually have competed against good quality teams.
Dog, the Lakers have been a train wreck this season. Even with all the talent on the team, they have still sucked for the majority of the season. Yet, that being the case, they still look like they are going to get a playoff spot. That in itself speaks to how bad the league. On top of that, you have four of the better players in the league all concentrated on one team, which once again only hurts the league from a deepness perspective.
And Houston isn't going to do ? in the playoffs. Ok, on any given night they can win a game. That's always been the case. But San Antonio is the standard bearer in the west, and if I'm not mistaken, Houston is 1-3 against them for the season.Look at the bulls without derrick rose ? are stepping up every night and filling in his points while hes out and they are a top team in the NBA without rose. Look at rondo going down and a guy like jeff green going nuts and other players like pierce have filled his void.
Again, this only shows how weak the league is. It's not like the players on the Bulls are just that great. They are managing to thrive because the competition is just so wack that even with Derrick Rose, they can still succeed. I mean when you're playing the Bobcats, Raptors, Wizards, etc... night in and night out, it doesn't matter that you don't have Derrick Rose because they don't have a superstar player either.Back in the 70's if you were a top college player there was a spot for you in the NBA to dominate right away. But look at a guy like kemba walker who won my huskies a national title by himself virtually and gets unnoticed allot of time. There are allot of great offensive and defensive players who due to the roster limits of teams can't get a chance to shine. Look at the nfl in the last 15 years of guys like victor cruz and even tom brady who cause you can have 70 ? on a team and injuries because stars cause of roster size. The Nba can only have just of a few dozen players in the big league team and the same for a minor league NBDL team.
That's because back then, dudes stayed in college for 3 or 4 years, mastered the game, and then came out ready. Now these cats put in one maybe two years and then make the jump to the NBA and still have to learn a lot about playing good fundamental basketball at a high level. And there aren't that many great players just languishing on the sidelines. Hell, a lot of these teams a scraping the bottom of the barrel to get whoever they can. -
Where did I say that you said the talent was better back then? I didnt, I said the talent in the league today is DEEPER, meaning more. And Im agreeing with you on the competitiveness angle... like I said, it's always been a top heavy league.
Ok, then I fail to see why you even made that statement in response to what I said since it had nothing to do with what I said.
17 professional teams vs 30 professional teams.
Even if teams today were more or less the equal of teams in the 70s in terms of quality of talent (which they aren't), this fact alone is enough to say the talent is DEEPER today.
Then add in the fact that NBA is far more globalized today, and is drawing from a talent pool far greater in size than 40 years ago.
Uhhhhh no. More teams =/= more talent. It could just mean that the high level talent is more dispersed that it was. 30 great players among 17 teams is the same as 30 great players among 30 teams. The difference is that the talent is more concentrated in the first case meaning that those teams are in general stronger than what you have in the second case. -
Players like JR would wreck in the 70's
A different kind of athlete that can run shoot and dribble at 6'7 in the 70's was unheard of.
The footwork that players have today is unmatched. -
The point is the league is not weaker its allot stronger than the 70's. The point is like always the top is so good it makes everything else look weaker than it actually is. Put the bobcats and wizards in the 70's they are making the playoffs. Yes the east has some teams that are well below .500 but teams like my sixers have given runs to the Heat and Spurs despite their records. You bring a top team from any other era into the mondern era and they would look allot worse now.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Where did I say that you said the talent was better back then? I didnt, I said the talent in the league today is DEEPER, meaning more. And Im agreeing with you on the competitiveness angle... like I said, it's always been a top heavy league.
Ok, then I fail to see why you even made that statement in response to what I said since it had nothing to do with what I said.
Because your original argument just a few posts above that was that the league today is not deeper.The Lonious Monk wrote: »coop9889 wrote:17 professional teams vs 30 professional teams.
Even if teams today were more or less the equal of teams in the 70s in terms of quality of talent (which they aren't), this fact alone is enough to say the talent is DEEPER today.
Then add in the fact that NBA is far more globalized today, and is drawing from a talent pool far greater in size than 40 years ago.
Uhhhhh no. More teams =/= more talent. It could just mean that the high level talent is more dispersed that it was. 30 great players among 17 teams is the same as 30 great players among 30 teams. The difference is that the talent is more concentrated in the first case meaning that those teams are in general stronger than what you have in the second case.
There are more good players in the league today than 40 years ago when the league was half the size. That's what I'm referring to when I say the talent in the league is deeper.
For example, you can take the top 50 guys today and as a whole they are better than the top 50 in 1971. The 152nd best player today is better than the 152nd best player in 1971 etc... Being deep is not just about the very best players in the league.
If you don't agree with the underlined, then you are in the vast minority and we can just agree to disagree. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Where did I say that you said the talent was better back then? I didnt, I said the talent in the league today is DEEPER, meaning more. And Im agreeing with you on the competitiveness angle... like I said, it's always been a top heavy league.
Ok, then I fail to see why you even made that statement in response to what I said since it had nothing to do with what I said.
Because your original argument just a few posts above that was that the league today is not deeper.The Lonious Monk wrote: »coop9889 wrote:17 professional teams vs 30 professional teams.
Even if teams today were more or less the equal of teams in the 70s in terms of quality of talent (which they aren't), this fact alone is enough to say the talent is DEEPER today.
Then add in the fact that NBA is far more globalized today, and is drawing from a talent pool far greater in size than 40 years ago.
Uhhhhh no. More teams =/= more talent. It could just mean that the high level talent is more dispersed that it was. 30 great players among 17 teams is the same as 30 great players among 30 teams. The difference is that the talent is more concentrated in the first case meaning that those teams are in general stronger than what you have in the second case.
There are more good players in the league today than 40 years ago when the league was half the size. That's what I'm referring to when I say the talent in the league is deeper.
For example, you can take the top 50 guys today and as a whole they are better than the top 50 in 1971. The 152nd best player today is better than the 152nd best player in 1971 etc... Being deep is not just about the very best players in the league.
If you don't agree with the underlined, then you are in the vast minority and we can just agree to disagree.
Well we're arguing semantics here. You're using deep to talk about talent level in the league. I was using deep to talk about number of teams in the league that are competitive.
As for talent. I don't agree. Are today's players more athletic? Yes. Do they possess more raw skill? In a lot of cases? Yes. Do they have more BBall IQ? No. Are they as strong in the fundamentals? No. Are they as well rounded? No.
People seem to think that since these guys can jump out of the gym and cross cats out of their shoes that they are better BBall players. That just not true. Bball is a team. Detroit beating LA that year already proved that if you got a coherent team that's full of people that know their role and can do that well, it can and will beat a team that has more talent but doesn't mesh. If we're talking about whether the average player today can beat the average player from the 70s in 1on1, then yes I'd agree with you. But if we're talking about the average collection of players and how they are able to be implemented into a team in a way that will make the team a contender, no I don't agree. And ultimately, that's what matters. Melo is a good player, but him being put on the Knicks didn't turn that team into a championship team. In fact his presence has been a mixed bag. A less talented player that could have been better implemented into the system for success would have been much more preferable. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Well we're arguing semantics here. You're using deep to talk about talent level in the league. I was using deep to talk about number of teams in the league that are competitive.
As for talent. I don't agree. Are today's players more athletic? Yes. Do they possess more raw skill? In a lot of cases? Yes. Do they have more BBall IQ? No. Are they as strong in the fundamentals? No. Are they as well rounded? No.
People seem to think that since these guys can jump out of the gym and cross cats out of their shoes that they are better BBall players. That just not true. Bball is a team. Detroit beating LA that year already proved that if you got a coherent team that's full of people that know their role and can do that well, it can and will beat a team that has more talent but doesn't mesh. If we're talking about whether the average player today can beat the average player from the 70s in 1on1, then yes I'd agree with you. But if we're talking about the average collection of players and how they are able to be implemented into a team in a way that will make the team a contender, no I don't agree. And ultimately, that's what matters. Melo is a good player, but him being put on the Knicks didn't turn that team into a championship team. In fact his presence has been a mixed bag. A less talented player that could have been better implemented into the system for success would have been much more preferable.
I too noticed we arguing teams deep competitively vs players deep talent-wise. Apples and oranges. ? that then.
But bball iq? Well rounded? Lol @ that. Lebron is possibly the most well rounded player of all time. Kobe is as well rounded as anyone you can mention back then.
As far as what you're ultimately saying, I'm assuming the bold sums it up.
You're absolutely wrong.
The Heat of this year would beat any team in 1971 in a 7 game series and Im not even sure it would go past 5. I'd put money on a sweep.
OKC this year, or better yet last year, would wash any of those teams.
No team back then could compare to the contenders of recent times SERIOUSLY. If we're talking the 90s, maybe even the 80s sure. Late 60s early 70s? Not even close.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Well we're arguing semantics here. You're using deep to talk about talent level in the league. I was using deep to talk about number of teams in the league that are competitive.
As for talent. I don't agree. Are today's players more athletic? Yes. Do they possess more raw skill? In a lot of cases? Yes. Do they have more BBall IQ? No. Are they as strong in the fundamentals? No. Are they as well rounded? No.
People seem to think that since these guys can jump out of the gym and cross cats out of their shoes that they are better BBall players. That just not true. Bball is a team. Detroit beating LA that year already proved that if you got a coherent team that's full of people that know their role and can do that well, it can and will beat a team that has more talent but doesn't mesh. If we're talking about whether the average player today can beat the average player from the 70s in 1on1, then yes I'd agree with you. But if we're talking about the average collection of players and how they are able to be implemented into a team in a way that will make the team a contender, no I don't agree. And ultimately, that's what matters. Melo is a good player, but him being put on the Knicks didn't turn that team into a championship team. In fact his presence has been a mixed bag. A less talented player that could have been better implemented into the system for success would have been much more preferable.
I too noticed we arguing teams deep competitively vs players deep talent-wise. Apples and oranges. ? that then.
But bball iq? Well rounded? Lol @ that. Lebron is possibly the most well rounded player of all time. Kobe is as well rounded as anyone you can mention back then.
As far as what you're ultimately saying, I'm assuming the bold sums it up.
You're absolutely wrong.
The Heat of this year would beat any team in 1971 in a 7 game series and Im not even sure it would go past 5. I'd put money on a sweep.
OKC this year, or better yet last year, would wash any of those teams.
No team back then could compare to the contenders of recent times SERIOUSLY. If we're talking the 90s, maybe even the 80s sure. Late 60s early 70s? Not even close.
And Lebron and Kobe are all time greats. They aren't the average in the league nowadays. Hell, the fact that they are well rounded is part of the reason they stand out. How many people in the league nowadays play well on both ends of the court? Be real. In the past, that was a must. Nowadays, half the superstars in the league only do one or the other.
So you saying that the team that went on the 33 game win streak has no chance against OKC? Come on man. That's just silly. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Well we're arguing semantics here. You're using deep to talk about talent level in the league. I was using deep to talk about number of teams in the league that are competitive.
As for talent. I don't agree. Are today's players more athletic? Yes. Do they possess more raw skill? In a lot of cases? Yes. Do they have more BBall IQ? No. Are they as strong in the fundamentals? No. Are they as well rounded? No.
People seem to think that since these guys can jump out of the gym and cross cats out of their shoes that they are better BBall players. That just not true. Bball is a team. Detroit beating LA that year already proved that if you got a coherent team that's full of people that know their role and can do that well, it can and will beat a team that has more talent but doesn't mesh. If we're talking about whether the average player today can beat the average player from the 70s in 1on1, then yes I'd agree with you. But if we're talking about the average collection of players and how they are able to be implemented into a team in a way that will make the team a contender, no I don't agree. And ultimately, that's what matters. Melo is a good player, but him being put on the Knicks didn't turn that team into a championship team. In fact his presence has been a mixed bag. A less talented player that could have been better implemented into the system for success would have been much more preferable.
I too noticed we arguing teams deep competitively vs players deep talent-wise. Apples and oranges. ? that then.
But bball iq? Well rounded? Lol @ that. Lebron is possibly the most well rounded player of all time. Kobe is as well rounded as anyone you can mention back then.
As far as what you're ultimately saying, I'm assuming the bold sums it up.
You're absolutely wrong.
The Heat of this year would beat any team in 1971 in a 7 game series and Im not even sure it would go past 5. I'd put money on a sweep.
OKC this year, or better yet last year, would wash any of those teams.
No team back then could compare to the contenders of recent times SERIOUSLY. If we're talking the 90s, maybe even the 80s sure. Late 60s early 70s? Not even close.
And Lebron and Kobe are all time greats. They aren't the average in the league nowadays. Hell, the fact that they are well rounded is part of the reason they stand out. How many people in the league nowadays play well on both ends of the court? Be real. In the past, that was a must. Nowadays, half the superstars in the league only do one or the other.
So you saying that the team that went on the 33 game win streak has no chance against OKC? Come on man. That's just silly.
Yup, no chance.
I'll take my chances at Ibaka and Perkins guarding a Wilt and laugh at West guarding Westbrook.
And whoever guarding a 6"10 KD.
? would get ran out the gym. -
imma sum it up real quick the nba in the 70's dont compare to the 90's and now....if you take the top 50 players with the most career point i count only 10 that played before the eighties....case closed if we talkning about TALENT....now if we talking about more competition...the celtics won 11 championships in 13 years that proves right there that there was not alot of competition
and another thing great players could play in ANY ERA a great player would adjust to the competition still i dont think Wilt would do the numbers he did in the beginning of his career but he'd have shaq numbers in scoring with 12rebs and 2 blocks a game for sure I dont see walt frazier being a ? in the league of today he would probably be deron williams level at least -
question when u say the 152 player is better are u using overall basket ball skills or more athletic? cuz Im taking the 6-7 slower guy who can make free throws, use his left hand, and hit the wide open jumpers instead of the 6-9 athletic wingman who can only run and jump.
-
Shizlansky wrote: »
Yup, no chance.
I'll take my chances at Ibaka and Perkins guarding a Wilt and laugh at West guarding Westbrook.
And whoever guarding a 6"10 KD.
? would get ran out the gym.
Absolutely ran out the gym.
Monk just go look up the rosters of that laker team. Wilt was in his last years. Jerry west guarding westbrook is almost as laughable as me tryna guard westbrook. 6'5 elgin baylor guarding durant? LMAO @ that. Durant would be the 3rd tallest ? on the court behind wilt and some scrub named leroy ellis. Everyone else on that lakers squad 6'7" or shorter. It wouldnt be close.
Combined with the OVERWHELMING athleticism advantage of the thunder... itd be a blowout by the 2nd half. -
I know i keep repeating myself but just there mere fact that some of these modern day centers could take a 20 foot and 30 foot jumper would scare the ? out of any ? in the 70's. Also the guards of today are allot more tougher when driving to the whole than the past. Those 2 factors even a 10 or 11th ranked team in the east could scare the ? out of the 70's nba's if they played a single season in the 70's.
Its just like when people say babe ruth in baseball was the GOAT...? jeter was taller than babe and the average pitch was 80 miles per hour. Overtime athletics in all sports has jump to astounding highs with the 1 and done college basketball being a slight exception. To make the charlotte bobcats or any low ranking team you have to be 10 times better than what it took to make the worse nba team in the 90's. there is so much more raw talent.
Ask adam morrison, jimmer ferdette, christain laitner, etc. how hard it is even as a top college player to play in the NBA.
