Slight resume of the one person who actually suggested that Dirk Nowitzki is a top 10 all-time NBA player, Rick Carlisle.
Now, I don't agree either necessarily, but his opinion is about a million times more appropriate than anyone's who might even think about posting in this thread.
Really? A coach saying that one of HIS players is Top 10 all time? That's called hype.
Dork is good but need a ring or he'll be with the Patrick Ewing,Reggie Miller, Charles Barkley group.
no way is dude rubbing elbows with
jordan
russell
magic
bird
shaq
chamberlain
west
hakeem
oscar
duncan
fuck outta here
dirk is better than duncan. there's also no way you saw close to half those guys play so to say he's not on the same level as them makes no sense.
i'm not surprised that my last post was dismissed, but to anyone who has played competitive basketball, the idea of someone like Bill Russell (who was 6' 9") trying to play his 1960s era game against the PF/C of today is a joke. you can argue that he would have learned to play differently, but you might as well take the James Naismith era peach basket all-stars while your at it. Today's athlete is a different breed and has a higher skill set. The game of basketball is also not that old, it progressed whether you buy into my evolutionary argument or not.
Dork is good but need a ring or he'll be with the Patrick Ewing,Reggie Miller, Charles Barkley group.
no way is dude rubbing elbows with
jordan
russell
magic
bird
shaq
chamberlain
west
hakeem
oscar
duncan
fuck outta here
dirk is better than duncan. there's also no way you saw close to half those guys play so to say he's not on the same level as them makes no sense.
i'm not surprised that my last post was dismissed, but to anyone who has played competitive basketball, the idea of someone like Bill Russell (who was 6' 9") trying to play his 1960s era game against the PF/C of today is a joke. you can argue that he would have learned to play differently, but you might as well take the James Naismith era peach basket all-stars while your at it. Today's athlete is a different breed and has a higher skill set. The game of basketball is also not that old, it progressed whether you buy into my evolutionary argument or not.
Dirk is better than Duncan now, but Duncan has had a much better career than Dirk has to this point, and it's not even close.
Russell played exceptionally well against Wilt, who had 21st century physical skills. It's absurd to suggest he wouldn't have been a great player in any era.
Dirk is better than Duncan now, but Duncan has had a much better career than Dirk has to this point
I don't think anybody would argue otherwise. Duncan is the best PF of all time (or at least in the top 3 if you don't give him that #1 spot for some reason), but he's definitely in the twilight of his career, and Dirk is playing at a higher level than Duncan now.
Russell played exceptionally well against Wilt, who had 21st century physical skills. It's absurd to suggest he wouldn't have been a great player in any era.
I know nobody wants to talk about this, but have you seen the tapes of these old guys play in the '60s? Now, have you been to an nba game recently and seen guys like Dwight Howard up close?
Russell played exceptionally well against Wilt, who had 21st century physical skills. It's absurd to suggest he wouldn't have been a great player in any era.
I know nobody wants to talk about this, but have you seen the tapes of these old guys play in the '60s? Now, have you been to an nba game recently and seen guys like Dwight Howard up close?
Yes, and I saw Wilt Chamberlain up close and Howard's beach muscles wouldn't have impressed Wilt.
Next you'll be saying Jim Brown in his prime couldn't play today.
Do you seriously think Dirk has had a better career than Duncan?
Dirk is better than Duncan now, but Duncan has had a much better career than Dirk has to this point
I don't think anybody would argue otherwise. Duncan is the best PF of all time (or at least in the top 3 if you don't give him that #1 spot for some reason), but he's definitely in the twilight of his career, and Dirk is playing at a higher level than Duncan now.
Sure, that's what I was saying. And I definitely give Duncan the #1 spot.
Dork is good but need a ring or he'll be with the Patrick Ewing,Reggie Miller, Charles Barkley group.
no way is dude rubbing elbows with
jordan
russell
magic
bird
shaq
chamberlain
west
hakeem
oscar
duncan
fuck outta here
dirk is better than duncan. there's also no way you saw close to half those guys play so to say he's not on the same level as them makes no sense.
i'm not surprised that my last post was dismissed, but to anyone who has played competitive basketball, the idea of someone like Bill Russell (who was 6' 9") trying to play his 1960s era game against the PF/C of today is a joke. you can argue that he would have learned to play differently, but you might as well take the James Naismith era peach basket all-stars while your at it. Today's athlete is a different breed and has a higher skill set. The game of basketball is also not that old, it progressed whether you buy into my evolutionary argument or not.
If having seen them play is a qualification to judge...count me in....did YOU see 1/2 of those players play? No, yet you somehow think you do make sense when you say they were not on the same level as the players of the last 20 years.
You've made this argument here many times....and looking at an All-Star like Ben Wallace who was considered a top player in the 00's and even suggesting that Bill Russell would not have owned his ass proves that your point about not being able to judge players you haven't seen is correct.
Let's talk about Tim Duncan and his pile of rings......dude's game is as "old school" as it gets....not the greatest athlete by any means....yet he managed to pretty much dominate the L surrounded by some above average players.
Fundamentals and court smarts > Exciting athleticism
Clyde Frazier > Tony Parker
Earl Monroe > Manu Ginobilli
Yet these Spurs were one of the most dominating modern teams ever.
But, but, but MJ was the greatest player of all-time and he was a "modern" day player.
Yep, MJ was better than anyone 30 years before him AND 30 YEARS AFTER HIM!
He's still the GOAT even with players today being "better" than they were in the 80's.
Basketball up until the early 60's was a slow, unathletic game.
By the mid-late 60's the transformation was made to the "modern" game which includes the likes of Wilt, Russell, Baylor....hell these guys WERE the transformation.
Could George Mikan be a star in today's NBA.....probably not......Could Wilt? He'd be the best Center in the League...no question.
The 60's Knick, Celtic and Laker teams would give any team in 2011 a run for their money and in my estimation would beat them all.
Why? Because they are as athletic as today's players? HELL NO....because they were ALL on that Tim Duncan fundamental, play as a team, right player in the right role tip.
Believe that.
P.S. I love hoops as much today as I did 40 years ago and I am not on some "back in the glory days" shit. I'm just talking the truth as I see it.....Phil jackson & Cazzie Russell coming off the Knicks bench in '70 are light years better than Steve Blake and Luke Walton.
Let's talk about Tim Duncan and his pile of rings......dude's game is as "old school" as it gets....not the greatest athlete by any means....yet he managed to pretty much dominate the L surrounded by some above average players.
Fundamentals and court smarts > Exciting athleticism
Clyde Frazier > Tony Parker
Earl Monroe > Manu Ginobilli
Yet these Spurs were one of the most dominating modern teams ever.
But, but, but MJ was the greatest player of all-time and he was a "modern" day player.
Yep, MJ was better than anyone 30 years before him AND 30 YEARS AFTER HIM!
He's still the GOAT even with players today being "better" than they were in the 80's.
Basketball up until the early 60's was a slow, unathletic game.
By the mid-late 60's the transformation was made to the "modern" game which includes the likes of Wilt, Russell, Baylor....hell these guys WERE the transformation.
Could George Mikan be a star in today's NBA.....probably not......Could Wilt? He'd be the best Center in the League...no question.
The 60's Knick, Celtic and Laker teams would give any team in 2011 a run for their money and in my estimation would beat them all.
Why? Because they are as athletic as today's players? HELL NO....because they were ALL on that Tim Duncan fundamental, play as a team, right player in the right role tip.
Believe that.
P.S. I love hoops as much today as I did 40 years ago and I am not on some "back in the glory days" shit. I'm just talking the truth as I see it.....Phil jackson & Cazzie Russell coming off the Knicks bench in '70 are light years better than Steve Blake and Luke Walton.
Dork is good but need a ring or he'll be with the Patrick Ewing,Reggie Miller, Charles Barkley group.
no way is dude rubbing elbows with
jordan
russell
magic
bird
shaq
You should never speak again. Dirk better than duncan? Are you border line retatded? Please to shut the fuck up and let the grown men talk. Do you even watch basketball? Much like your chosen sn, you know nothing if bball...
chamberlain
west
hakeem
oscar
duncan
fuck outta here
dirk is better than duncan. there's also no way you saw close to half those guys play so to say he's not on the same level as them makes no sense.
i'm not surprised that my last post was dismissed, but to anyone who has played competitive basketball, the idea of someone like Bill Russell (who was 6' 9") trying to play his 1960s era game against the PF/C of today is a joke. you can argue that he would have learned to play differently, but you might as well take the James Naismith era peach basket all-stars while your at it. Today's athlete is a different breed and has a higher skill set. The game of basketball is also not that old, it progressed whether you buy into my evolutionary argument or not.
Let's talk about Tim Duncan and his pile of rings......dude's game is as "old school" as it gets....not the greatest athlete by any means....yet he managed to pretty much dominate the L surrounded by some above average players.
Fundamentals and court smarts > Exciting athleticism
Clyde Frazier > Tony Parker
Earl Monroe > Manu Ginobilli
Yet these Spurs were one of the most dominating modern teams ever.
But, but, but MJ was the greatest player of all-time and he was a "modern" day player.
Yep, MJ was better than anyone 30 years before him AND 30 YEARS AFTER HIM!
He's still the GOAT even with players today being "better" than they were in the 80's.
Basketball up until the early 60's was a slow, unathletic game.
By the mid-late 60's the transformation was made to the "modern" game which includes the likes of Wilt, Russell, Baylor....hell these guys WERE the transformation.
Could George Mikan be a star in today's NBA.....probably not......Could Wilt? He'd be the best Center in the League...no question.
The 60's Knick, Celtic and Laker teams would give any team in 2011 a run for their money and in my estimation would beat them all.
Why? Because they are as athletic as today's players? HELL NO....because they were ALL on that Tim Duncan fundamental, play as a team, right player in the right role tip.
Believe that.
P.S. I love hoops as much today as I did 40 years ago and I am not on some "back in the glory days" shit. I'm just talking the truth as I see it.....Phil jackson & Cazzie Russell coming off the Knicks bench in '70 are light years better than Steve Blake and Luke Walton.
Rock, usually I agree with you on most points you make, but you're largely wrong.
Tony Parker's won a couple titles, and so has Ginobili. I'm pretty sure if they didn't have "court smarts" and "fundamentals" they wouldn't have been near the star players they are now. They were just as fundamental to the Spurs' success as Duncan.
And again, it's just plain silly to compare teams and players from different eras.......
WHICH ONE OF THESE PGS WOULD YOU BUILD A FRANCHISE AROUND and why?
D. Will
D. Rose
Russell Westbrook
CP3
Tony Parker
Rajon Rondo
John Wall
Mike Conley Jr.
I'd go with Rondo. You don't win ball games with point-guards, and Rondo knows this better than any one. The dude's jumper is weak, but what he lacks there he more than makes up for with that steady demeanor and uncanny ability to find the open man.
If I'm going to build a team AROUND a point guard, I would want one who is not only able to distribute the ball and create opportunities for his teammates to take high-percentage shots, but one who is able to score when he HAS TO rather than WANTS TO.
I would say there are times where D. Rose HAS TO take shots because he hasn't had much reliable offensive help. Besides putbacks here and there by Noah and the occasional 3 by Korver, it's basically been Rose on his own.
I like CP3 because he has a great balance of scoring, distribution and of course DEFENSE.
For upside, I'm rooting for John Wall. He's impressed me with what he has shown his rookie season, and when they supply him with great talent for him to utilize, he will be in the top 3 talk real soon. At least the new uniforms are a step up.
rose could end up like iverson if he doesnt share the load. hero ball is entertaining to children.
That may be true, but I think Rose's outlook is better than Iverson's. If Rose gets another star player to play with, he could be winning titles...the same could never be said of Iverson.
Comments
Really? A coach saying that one of HIS players is Top 10 all time? That's called hype.
Separating him from the equation is bullshit. But like i stated earlier, the team can now play defense thanks to the coach and Tyson Chandler.
Best PF in the L now deosnt really mean shit. a dude can look good in the regular season and not make it to the playoffs.
Dork is a "stretch" four and has helped redifine the PF position. But it wasnt until he embraced playing in the paint that they had this success.
im really sick of going thru this here. its a tired conversation.
You all continue to show yr ass in the appreciation (or lack thereof) of one of the top players of this era, I'ma keep talking.
one person shitted on your man and now your masterbating on the bus. arent you done yet.
this not 07 anymore
I feel you on this....I won't mention dude again until he either wins a ring or someone else here feels the need to trash him.
Dealt
wizards kill that wizards steez.
back to the olsdschool
These jerseys are old school ugly but hot fiyah!
BTW "Venn"
dirk is better than duncan. there's also no way you saw close to half those guys play so to say he's not on the same level as them makes no sense.
i'm not surprised that my last post was dismissed, but to anyone who has played competitive basketball, the idea of someone like Bill Russell (who was 6' 9") trying to play his 1960s era game against the PF/C of today is a joke. you can argue that he would have learned to play differently, but you might as well take the James Naismith era peach basket all-stars while your at it. Today's athlete is a different breed and has a higher skill set. The game of basketball is also not that old, it progressed whether you buy into my evolutionary argument or not.
Dirk is better than Duncan now, but Duncan has had a much better career than Dirk has to this point, and it's not even close.
Russell played exceptionally well against Wilt, who had 21st century physical skills. It's absurd to suggest he wouldn't have been a great player in any era.
im sick of this debate.
get a fuckin ring or shut the fuck up.
I don't think anybody would argue otherwise. Duncan is the best PF of all time (or at least in the top 3 if you don't give him that #1 spot for some reason), but he's definitely in the twilight of his career, and Dirk is playing at a higher level than Duncan now.
I know nobody wants to talk about this, but have you seen the tapes of these old guys play in the '60s? Now, have you been to an nba game recently and seen guys like Dwight Howard up close?
Yes, and I saw Wilt Chamberlain up close and Howard's beach muscles wouldn't have impressed Wilt.
Next you'll be saying Jim Brown in his prime couldn't play today.
Do you seriously think Dirk has had a better career than Duncan?
Sure, that's what I was saying. And I definitely give Duncan the #1 spot.
I'll masturbate wherever I please.
Man you 'po to stand strong. Don't buckle. You already went against the Family once today.
Thank you. I thought I messed it up.
b/w
I'm from Louisiana, I write with a "pin".
If having seen them play is a qualification to judge...count me in....did YOU see 1/2 of those players play? No, yet you somehow think you do make sense when you say they were not on the same level as the players of the last 20 years.
You've made this argument here many times....and looking at an All-Star like Ben Wallace who was considered a top player in the 00's and even suggesting that Bill Russell would not have owned his ass proves that your point about not being able to judge players you haven't seen is correct.
Fundamentals and court smarts > Exciting athleticism
Clyde Frazier > Tony Parker
Earl Monroe > Manu Ginobilli
Yet these Spurs were one of the most dominating modern teams ever.
But, but, but MJ was the greatest player of all-time and he was a "modern" day player.
Yep, MJ was better than anyone 30 years before him AND 30 YEARS AFTER HIM!
He's still the GOAT even with players today being "better" than they were in the 80's.
Basketball up until the early 60's was a slow, unathletic game.
By the mid-late 60's the transformation was made to the "modern" game which includes the likes of Wilt, Russell, Baylor....hell these guys WERE the transformation.
Could George Mikan be a star in today's NBA.....probably not......Could Wilt? He'd be the best Center in the League...no question.
The 60's Knick, Celtic and Laker teams would give any team in 2011 a run for their money and in my estimation would beat them all.
Why? Because they are as athletic as today's players? HELL NO....because they were ALL on that Tim Duncan fundamental, play as a team, right player in the right role tip.
Believe that.
P.S. I love hoops as much today as I did 40 years ago and I am not on some "back in the glory days" shit. I'm just talking the truth as I see it.....Phil jackson & Cazzie Russell coming off the Knicks bench in '70 are light years better than Steve Blake and Luke Walton.
What I meant to say here is I only masturbate ironically in the trendier clubs.
Amen
Rock, usually I agree with you on most points you make, but you're largely wrong.
Tony Parker's won a couple titles, and so has Ginobili. I'm pretty sure if they didn't have "court smarts" and "fundamentals" they wouldn't have been near the star players they are now. They were just as fundamental to the Spurs' success as Duncan.
And again, it's just plain silly to compare teams and players from different eras.......
Totally, apples and oranges.
I was thinking about this recently.....
WHICH ONE OF THESE PGS WOULD YOU BUILD A FRANCHISE AROUND and why?
D. Will
D. Rose
Russell Westbrook
CP3
Tony Parker
Rajon Rondo
John Wall
Mike Conley Jr.
I'd go with Rondo. You don't win ball games with point-guards, and Rondo knows this better than any one. The dude's jumper is weak, but what he lacks there he more than makes up for with that steady demeanor and uncanny ability to find the open man.
rose is probably the "best" candidate to build around but i prefer cp3 for his distribution.
rondo is going to need a jumpshot. once the talent around him retires/decreases.
imagine thier current offense if he could stick that jumper.
but yeah i agree that its super hard to win withh the pg as the primary threat.
I would say there are times where D. Rose HAS TO take shots because he hasn't had much reliable offensive help. Besides putbacks here and there by Noah and the occasional 3 by Korver, it's basically been Rose on his own.
I like CP3 because he has a great balance of scoring, distribution and of course DEFENSE.
For upside, I'm rooting for John Wall. He's impressed me with what he has shown his rookie season, and when they supply him with great talent for him to utilize, he will be in the top 3 talk real soon. At least the new uniforms are a step up.
That may be true, but I think Rose's outlook is better than Iverson's. If Rose gets another star player to play with, he could be winning titles...the same could never be said of Iverson.