Watching clips of this Olympic team [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

andgar923

08-15-2016, 08:37 AM

Yeah, your rhetoric was so different back in '08, '10, '12 and '14 when the US were blowing the crap out their competition :rolleyes:. Competition that was far, far superior to what we saw 20-25 years ago.

You don't have an ounce of credibility, ok? Just shut up already.

the US has struggled and LOST in the recent past you dimwit.

Competition hasn't improved, the NBA has deteriorated which is what we're seeing. Some of these international players coming over would be NBDL players if they tried to play back then.

You have scrubs EMBARRASSING today's players.

Go watch almost any close game highlight vs half decent teams and you'll see that today's brand is inferior. Tons of one on one hero ball, not many set plays actually executed properly, poor fundamentals and understanding of basic defensive principles etc. Today's players are just beating international teams based on their far superior athleticism and individual skill level. But match them up against past NBA teams and they get embarrassed.

Same goes if you play NBA vs NBA, the talent level and athleticism is much much closer if not equal. But the 'style' of play will give the advantage to past teams.

if Bogut gives today's big men issues, imagine prime Hakeem, Ewing, DRob? :oldlol:

If the bench warmer Dellanova is embarrassing today's top PGs imagine Magic, Hardaway, KJ :lol

Shyyiiitttt, I'll throw in Ken Norman in with Stanley Roberts and Danny Manning and they'd go to town on today's bigs.

Sarcastic

08-15-2016, 08:51 AM

https://media.giphy.com/media/l3vQYFygTwUwPV3TW/giphy.gif

NBAGOAT

08-15-2016, 09:19 AM

andgar923

08-15-2016, 09:52 AM

the olympic team is essentially an all star team that's barely played together, ofc their offense isn't going be beautiful. They're also mailing it in on defense because they know they can afford to. Watch actual teams during the season and not just a few teams that everyone talks about. Even middle of the pack teams like the Hornets and Pistons are pretty well coached and run good sets. You might not be impressed by plays where screens lead to a guy getting an open 3 but I am, those are optimal shots.

That argument is lame because other past teams had the same amount of time to play together, yet they understood basic basketball and the style of play made it easier to transition to a more cohesive fundamental team style of play.

There's other International teams that don't have much time to prep and play together as a team because some play on other clubs yet they still mesh together. That's due to their style of play which is less dependent on hero ball like today's NBA players are.

Very few NBA teams play good team ball with much consistency and success.

What some of you call 'team' ball or 'offensive sets' is nothing more than drive and kicks with most players standing in the perimeter.

It's a joke when people state (not necessarily you) 'today's offensive schemes are more advanced.' How so when most players are standing still? Today's offense usually revolves around 2 players giving a pick and roll while everybody else stands in the corner. Yes people will start posting gifs of ball movement, but those plays happen very few times and even fewer times actually being executed properly.

Contrast that to past eras, in which there was more player and ball movement. So even if there was iso back then, and clear outs, the ball usually had to swing and players had to move around and screen for that to happen on many of those plays. Also, isolation and clear outs happened inside the 3pt line and usually within the paint and NOT the 3pt line area, which makes it a better brand of ball from the get go. YOu're going from an isolated play in the 3pt line (today's era) that will more than likely result in a .340% fg attempt, to .475% fg attempt (past era). You tell me which brand/style of ball is better?

So YES isolation and clear outs have always been a part of the game, but it's better when this happens closer to the lane even if all things are equal and there's little to no player/ball movement.

But of course, the game back then consisted of more ball and player movement than today. What the Warriors and Spurs do today was the norm back then (aside from the number of 3pters taken of course). Almost every single team back then executed and played with the Warriors' and Spurs' type of consistent ball/player movmenet from the best to the worst.

And that is how international teams have been closing the gap.

It's not so much that international players today are vastly superior to their counterparts (even if that's the case, what does that say about American players? :oldlol:). It's just that today's NBA style of play has become more 1 dimensional and more hero ball oriented on most cases.

I'd put past teams like Croatia, Germany, Yugoslavia, vs today's USA Olympic team and today's USA teams will lose.

NBAGOAT

08-15-2016, 10:09 AM

That argument is lame because other past teams had the same amount of time to play together, yet they understood basic basketball and the style of play made it easier to transition to a more cohesive fundamental team style of play.

There's other International teams that don't have much time to prep and play together as a team because some play on other clubs yet they still mesh together. That's due to their style of play which is less dependent on hero ball like today's NBA players are.

Very few NBA teams play good team ball with much consistency and success.

What some of you call 'team' ball or 'offensive sets' is nothing more than drive and kicks with most players standing in the perimeter.

It's a joke when people state (not necessarily you) 'today's offensive schemes are more advanced.' How so when most players are standing still? Today's offense usually revolves around 2 players giving a pick and roll while everybody else stands in the corner. Yes people will start posting gifs of ball movement, but those plays happen very few times and even fewer times actually being executed properly.

Contrast that to past eras, in which there was more player and ball movement. So even if there was iso back then, and clear outs, the ball usually had to swing and players had to move around and screen for that to happen on many of those plays. Also, isolation and clear outs happened inside the 3pt line and usually within the paint and NOT the 3pt line area, which makes it a better brand of ball from the get go. YOu're going from an isolated play in the 3pt line (today's era) that will more than likely result in a .340% fg attempt, to .475% fg attempt (past era). You tell me which brand/style of ball is better?

So YES isolation and clear outs have always been a part of the game, but it's better when this happens closer to the lane even if all things are equal and there's little to no player/ball movement.

But of course, the game back then consisted of more ball and player movement than today. What the Warriors and Spurs do today was the norm back then (aside from the number of 3pters taken of course). Almost every single team back then executed and played with the Warriors' and Spurs' type of consistent ball/player movmenet from the best to the worst.

And that is how international teams have been closing the gap.

It's not so much that international players today are vastly superior to their counterparts (even if that's the case, what does that say about American players? :oldlol:). It's just that today's NBA style of play has become more 1 dimensional and more hero ball oriented on most cases.

I'd put past teams like Croatia, Germany, Yugoslavia, vs today's USA Olympic team and today's USA teams will lose.

well that 34% attempt is technically 51% so yes that 34% shot is better in a vacuum. It's a pretty simple concept you old timers need to wrap your head around. Ik there's negatives with taking 3's letting the defense off the hook or being bad vs physical play or leading to less ft's but that's a different question. No not every team played offense as well as the Warriors/Spurs back then. That's blatant exaggeration. We've seen the games and I've never heard even the biggest 90's guys say that. Your view that teams just run pnr with 3 shooters is partially true but just shows you don't watch enough today. Not every team has the personnel to play like D'Antoni's teams. Plenty of 3's come off really clever multiple screens action and no it's just just for Kyle Korver and JJ Reddick. I don't get how you couldn't notice double high post sets even watching a few games. Every teams runs that shit. Lot of teams have plays from offenses like Jerry Sloan's flex and the triangle(I'm guessing two of your favorites). They just don't run that stuff every play like those teams in the past did. Other countries are catching up because they care more about the game now, it's more international now. Some country like China did not care about basketball 20 years ago.

tpols

08-15-2016, 10:09 AM

https://media.giphy.com/media/l3vQYFygTwUwPV3TW/giphy.gif

that was awesome.

ShawkFactory

08-15-2016, 10:29 AM

Having seen a good chunk of basketball in the 90s, 00s and now 10s, I agree the game is different, but I'd never go so far to say inferior. It's played differently, and it's not the players' faults that they grew up in an era where a different style of basketball is played, and took advantage of it. I fully believe many players, especially great ones, would adapt to whatever era they would grow up in and still be productive. Hence I don't rank players based on the strength of the era in which they played in, but rather their level of play relative to their competition.
This is almost exactly what I've always said. You put Lebron James or whoever from this era in a different one then their talent and athleticism will allow them to be dominant in any era.

Growing up Lebron didn't really need a jumpshot. If he grew up needing an in-between game he likely would have put more emphasis on developing one. Same with Wade. Or Westbrook. Or whoever.

swagga

08-15-2016, 10:58 AM

the US has struggled and LOST in the recent past you dimwit.

Competition hasn't improved, the NBA has deteriorated which is what we're seeing. Some of these international players coming over would be NBDL players if they tried to play back then.

You have scrubs EMBARRASSING today's players.

Go watch almost any close game highlight vs half decent teams and you'll see that today's brand is inferior. Tons of one on one hero ball, not many set plays actually executed properly, poor fundamentals and understanding of basic defensive principles etc. Today's players are just beating international teams based on their far superior athleticism and individual skill level. But match them up against past NBA teams and they get embarrassed.

Same goes if you play NBA vs NBA, the talent level and athleticism is much much closer if not equal. But the 'style' of play will give the advantage to past teams.

if Bogut gives today's big men issues, imagine prime Hakeem, Ewing, DRob? :oldlol:

If the bench warmer Dellanova is embarrassing today's top PGs imagine Magic, Hardaway, KJ :lol

Shyyiiitttt, I'll throw in Ken Norman in with Stanley Roberts and Danny Manning and they'd go to town on today's bigs.

son I understand what you are trying to say but the bolded part is just :roll: :roll: :roll:.

if you want to seriously say something say that because of the rule changes heavily favoring perimeter play, bogut was destined to become what he is today, because his game maximizes perimeter play (screens for spot-ups, passes for cutters, moving the ball, screen the screener).

it is what it is my niggga, some fundamentals are down, some skills are up, shooting is wayyyy up, monkeying and buffonery is up, flopping and dangerous play are up, bitchass hoes are at an all time high and the quality of the game is down. It's a different game and it starts and ends with the rules. And the rules are there to get the $$$ from the casuals. Accept it son, the old game is dead and buried.

The players today are a result of the rules : you put lebron/melo/cp3 in the 80s and they develop into tougher dudes, not these part-time bitch ass passive aggresive hoes. Today it's efficient to be a passive aggressive hoe and these hoes here know it.

the funny part is that when these nigs are brushed off for the next big name they resort to old skool bully ball (cavs these last finals) and it's a beauty to watch tbh. this is the ultimate revenge of the old skool game, that part of it always comes back in the finals.

swagga

08-15-2016, 10:58 AM

https://media.giphy.com/media/l3vQYFygTwUwPV3TW/giphy.gif

:applause:

cousins is a such a poor defender and this gif shows it once more: blown assignment, bad pnr closeout on shooter, poor switch back, no contest at end ... lmao harden level defense

andgar923

08-15-2016, 11:02 AM

[QUOTE]well that 34% attempt is technically 51% so yes that 34% shot is better in a vacuum.

:facepalm oh please explain this bullshit.

It's a pretty simple concept you old timers need to wrap your head around. Ik there's negatives with taking 3's letting the defense off the hook or being bad vs physical play or leading to less ft's but that's a different question. No not every team played offense as well as the Warriors/Spurs back then. That's blatant exaggeration.

That's not what I stated or tried to imply. what I suppose I tried to state was, they played the same way. The results may have been different, they may not have played as 'well' but the style of play was the same. Which is ball and player movement with ball moving from one side of the court. It happened with more consistency back then, so YES even the shitty teams played that way.

We've seen the games and I've never heard even the biggest 90's guys say that. Your view that teams just run pnr with 3 shooters is partially true but just shows you don't watch enough today. Not every team has the personnel to play like D'Antoni's teams. Plenty of 3's come off really clever multiple screens action and no it's just just for Kyle Korver and JJ Reddick. I don't get how you couldn't notice double high post sets even watching a few games. Every teams runs that shit. Lot of teams have plays from offenses like Jerry Sloan's flex and the triangle(I'm guessing two of your favorites). They just don't run that stuff every play like those teams in the past did.

Not sure if you skimmed my post but I did state YES you can find examples of teams running actual sets and plays with ball/player movement, but it doesn't happen as CONSISTENTLY. Back then it was most plays, not just once in a blue moon play. You had a lot of what you see today, but with more emphasis on ball and player movement, mos def you saw less 3pt and long range perimeter heaves than you do today. Only a handful of players even had the green light to shoot long range fadeaway if someone that wasn't a superstar shot that shit, they'd get benched. Today you have every player stepping onto the court taking long range over 3 defender fadeaway shots like they're layups, and coaches allow it. THAT is the type of shit that hurts the game. You can't just have any and every player acting like they're Kobe. Almost every player wants to play hero ball, and that doesn't help when you have actual sets to run. It hurts continuity and game flow. Which is why international players can hang around and compete (at times beat) Americans. They rely less on individual play and focus more on consistent ball/player movement in the same way past NBA eras played.

Other countries are catching up because they care more about the game now, it's more international now. Some country like China did not care about basketball 20 years ago.

That's not true.

There are a number of reasons why other countries are catching up. But even then that's not an excuse, if so it's a stupid argument and backfires.

So what you're stating is that Americans are getting worse?

International players have historically matched up very well against Americans. We've had close matches and they've actually beat us in the past, which is one of the main reasons the Dream Team was formed.

But if we go by your logic:

International teams are getting better, but we're not.

Ok gotcha!!!

That's your argument, not mine.

Mine is very simple.

Our 'style' of play is hurting us and international teams are exploiting it. Against some teams we can cruise because they don't have nearly the same amount of talent or experience. But we struggle against teams that remotely come close to our level.

America has played against international teams that included NBA players in the past, yet they didn't struggle as much as they have in recent years. Shit, they've played against foreign players that were more than just benchwarmers. They actually played against legit starters in their prime and beat them.

Once again, today's brand of basketball is worse.. get over it.

swagga

08-15-2016, 11:03 AM

That argument is lame because other past teams had the same amount of time to play together, yet they understood basic basketball and the style of play made it easier to transition to a more cohesive fundamental team style of play.

There's other International teams that don't have much time to prep and play together as a team because some play on other clubs yet they still mesh together. That's due to their style of play which is less dependent on hero ball like today's NBA players are.

Very few NBA teams play good team ball with much consistency and success.

What some of you call 'team' ball or 'offensive sets' is nothing more than drive and kicks with most players standing in the perimeter.

It's a joke when people state (not necessarily you) 'today's offensive schemes are more advanced.' How so when most players are standing still? Today's offense usually revolves around 2 players giving a pick and roll while everybody else stands in the corner. Yes people will start posting gifs of ball movement, but those plays happen very few times and even fewer times actually being executed properly.

Contrast that to past eras, in which there was more player and ball movement. So even if there was iso back then, and clear outs, the ball usually had to swing and players had to move around and screen for that to happen on many of those plays. Also, isolation and clear outs happened inside the 3pt line and usually within the paint and NOT the 3pt line area, which makes it a better brand of ball from the get go. YOu're going from an isolated play in the 3pt line (today's era) that will more than likely result in a .340% fg attempt, to .475% fg attempt (past era). You tell me which brand/style of ball is better?

So YES isolation and clear outs have always been a part of the game, but it's better when this happens closer to the lane even if all things are equal and there's little to no player/ball movement.

But of course, the game back then consisted of more ball and player movement than today. What the Warriors and Spurs do today was the norm back then (aside from the number of 3pters taken of course). Almost every single team back then executed and played with the Warriors' and Spurs' type of consistent ball/player movmenet from the best to the worst.

And that is how international teams have been closing the gap.

It's not so much that international players today are vastly superior to their counterparts (even if that's the case, what does that say about American players? :oldlol:). It's just that today's NBA style of play has become more 1 dimensional and more hero ball oriented on most cases.

I'd put past teams like Croatia, Germany, Yugoslavia, vs today's USA Olympic team and today's USA teams will lose.

croatia, germany - no fuccking way son
yugoslavia - yes, clearly
peak spain (08-10) - yes, clearly

but when you look at it these are exceptional sides along with '92 and '08 us.

imo even peak argentina and peak greece would give this us side trouble.

andgar923

08-15-2016, 11:10 AM

son I understand what you are trying to say but the bolded part is just :roll: :roll: :roll:.

if you want to seriously say something say that because of the rule changes heavily favoring perimeter play, bogut was destined to become what he is today, because his game maximizes perimeter play (screens for spot-ups, passes for cutters, moving the ball, screen the screener).

it is what it is my niggga, some fundamentals are down, some skills are up, shooting is wayyyy up, monkeying and buffonery is up, flopping and dangerous play are up, bitchass hoes are at an all time high and the quality of the game is down. It's a different game and it starts and ends with the rules. And the rules are there to get the $$$ from the casuals. Accept it son, the old game is dead and buried.

The players today are a result of the rules : you put lebron/melo/cp3 in the 80s and they develop into tougher dudes, not these part-time bitch ass passive aggresive hoes. Today it's efficient to be a passive aggressive hoe and these hoes here know it.

the funny part is that when these nigs are brushed off for the next big name they resort to old skool bully ball (cavs these last finals) and it's a beauty to watch tbh. this is the ultimate revenge of the old skool game, that part of it always comes back in the finals.

Their argument is the international competition has improved, so by their logic doesn't that mean that the USA's hasn't or it has deteriorated?

If international play has improved Im assuming that so has America's no? or are we stuck?

Something's gotta give, we can't go from blowing out teams by 40+ to losing and just sneaking by. We've ALWAYS played vs international teams with players in their NBA roster, so that excuse is just that... an excuse.

My main argument is, our 'style' of play has hurt the game as a whole. So that allows international teams that play the old school way to challenge us and beat us on some occasions.

Now.... the whole argument of "but the American team hasn't had enough time to practice together".

A. Neither did past American teams
B. Neither do other international teams
C. We've seen NBA teams have close games vs international clubs and even LOSE to them.

YES re-read that again.

We've seen actual NBA TEAMS lose to foreign clubs. These aren't teams composed of random players thrown in with a few weeks of practice to compete. These are actual NBA teams that have played 82+ seasons together and mutafukin LOST!

Explain that shit?

andgar923

08-15-2016, 11:22 AM

son I understand what you are trying to say but the bolded part is just :roll: :roll: :roll:.

if you want to seriously say something say that because of the rule changes heavily favoring perimeter play, bogut was destined to become what he is today, because his game maximizes perimeter play (screens for spot-ups, passes for cutters, moving the ball, screen the screener).

it is what it is my niggga, some fundamentals are down, some skills are up, shooting is wayyyy up, monkeying and buffonery is up, flopping and dangerous play are up, bitchass hoes are at an all time high and the quality of the game is down. It's a different game and it starts and ends with the rules. And the rules are there to get the $$$ from the casuals. Accept it son, the old game is dead and buried.

The players today are a result of the rules : you put lebron/melo/cp3 in the 80s and they develop into tougher dudes, not these part-time bitch ass passive aggresive hoes. Today it's efficient to be a passive aggressive hoe and these hoes here know it.

the funny part is that when these nigs are brushed off for the next big name they resort to old skool bully ball (cavs these last finals) and it's a beauty to watch tbh. this is the ultimate revenge of the old skool game, that part of it always comes back in the finals.

My bad, to answer your main argument regarding the rule changes.

The Spurs haven't changed their approach for the most part, they still play old school bball. Some might even argue that some of what the Warriors do is a modified version of old school ball (to a good extent).

And I do agree that when it comes down to the nitty gritty, most teams usually end up resorting to some form of old school ball because well.. it's the most effective.

The problem is, most teams don't do this properly and most players are too used to their hero ball style of play and end up choking in the post season (KD and Westbrook for example).

I also agree with you 100% that not all teams have the personnel to play like the Spurs or how Sloan would like for them to play. But that goes back to one of my arguments... today's players don't have some of the same fundamental principles to understand how to be a consistent key member of winning team ball.

If the old Spurs can still be contenders in today's era playing old school ball, what does that say about today's era 'style' of play? oddly enough, they have a roster filled with international players.

Coincidence?

Haymaker

08-15-2016, 11:31 AM

https://media.giphy.com/media/l3vQYFygTwUwPV3TW/giphy.gif

That's something that the Spurs would do. Awesome ball movement.

AirFederer

08-15-2016, 11:43 AM

My take is that you can't judge today's game based on this team. It's a badly constructed team, with players that are not ATGs. They lack some real playmakers and they ISO too much.

Add LeBron, an in form Curry, a CP3, a WB perhaps, and the US steam rolls

And I say that as a big fan of the 90s, the era of the goat.

Dragonyeuw

08-15-2016, 11:46 AM

https://media.giphy.com/media/l3vQYFygTwUwPV3TW/giphy.gif

Holy fcuk that was crazy ball movement. Made the US look like complete shit on that play.

Fire Colangelo

08-15-2016, 11:50 AM

You do realize the USA didn't even send their best guys?

Haymaker

08-15-2016, 11:54 AM

imo even peak argentina and peak greece would give this us side trouble.

Those teams would flat out dominate this US squad.

TAZORAC

08-15-2016, 12:19 PM

Makes it even more clear that today's brand of ball is inferior like most of us have been stating.

Any arguments over who would win between past teams vs today's should be nulled since it's clear past teams would win 8/10 times.

It's not so much that the games are close, but the way the 'game' itself is played only goes to show that critics on today's game are correct.

College all-stars could have won Gold in 96 and further back. International basketball is WAYYY better.

GrapeApe

08-15-2016, 12:19 PM

You do realize the USA didn't even send their best guys?

It's definitely their B-squad, but they're still by far the most talented team in the tournament. Talent isn't the issue. Imo, international play has highlighted the importance of role players. If the US were to build a legitimately great team, it wouldn't be comprised entirely of all-stars. It would have maybe 5 all-stars (3 starters and 2 off the bench) and a group of elite role players and specialists.

You can't throw together a group of all-stars, ask the majority of them to play roles they're competely unaccostumed to, and expect them to perform at a high level as a team.

andgar923

08-15-2016, 12:34 PM

College all-stars could have won Gold in 96 and further back. International basketball is WAYYY better.

But it's a FACT that this wasn't the case.

That's perhaps the main reason the Dream Team was assembled.

Mens' basketball teams were comprised of college all stars and were beat, thus the Dream Team was formed.

Even after the Dream Team was formed, we assembled players who we thought would be a good team, yet the competition was close and we even lost from time to time.

And as I stated in an earlier post, actual NBA teams have lost to international clubs. Not assembled NBA all stars, but actual teams.

I still recognize that American players are the best players, the most athletic and skilled. But our 'style' of play isn't the best and international teams have been exploiting this since the mid 90s.

andgar923

08-15-2016, 12:39 PM

It's definitely their B-squad, but they're still by far the most talented team in the tournament. Talent isn't the issue. Imo, international play has highlighted the importance of role players. If the US were to build a legitimately great team, it wouldn't be comprised entirely of all-stars. It would have maybe 5 all-stars (3 starters and 2 off the bench) and a group of elite role players and specialists.

You can't throw together a group of all-stars, ask the majority of them to play roles they're competely unaccostumed to, and expect them to perform at a high level as a team.

Someone gets it.

It isn't the talent pool.

Are people really expect us to believe that a combination of 3 bench players are worth more than an entire team filled with All Stars and MVP candidates?

In what world does that make sense?

if I were to put on paper the following, people would laugh:

Team A: has 3 NBA Role/bench players, some that have been traded repeatedly.
Team B: The ENTIRE team is filled with either All Stars, MVP candidates, franchise players, All NBA First Teamers, ROY, etc.

Any sane person would automatically think Team A has no chance.

But THAT is the argument that people are making. "oh.. this country has 3 NBA players, the talent pool is getting much much much better than before!!!" :oldlol: :oldlol:

NO it's the 'style' of play.

I can see coach Mike exasperated on the bench, and coach Daly turning in his grave.

andgar923

08-15-2016, 12:57 PM

In the 92 Olympics Croatia had 5 NBA players and 3 others with significant Euroleague pro success.

Lithuania had 2 NBA players and others with Euroleague success.

Now, some are arguing "Countries back then did not care about basketball" so why is it that China won the Silver in women's ball in 92? How did the 'Unified Team' win the Gold for ladies and the US got the Bronze?

Bu..bu.. but... the USA perhaps wasn't strong!

The USA Women's team had WNBA Hall of Famers, so if other countries didn't care or if countries are just now advancing, how the hell did THAT happen? Are our women being oppressed and kept from playing ball? :confusedshrug:

It's about 'style' of basketball being played in the NBA, plain and simple.

So when we have these theoretical 'Old vs Current' matchups, remember how international teams are exploiting today's USA teams. Now imagine the international teams being comprised of players just as athletic, just as skilled as NBA/college experienced. Now, instead of them simply being role players imagine them being franchise players, all stars, MVPs, HOFers, ALL NBAers, etc.

F*ckin kids

Fire Colangelo

08-15-2016, 12:57 PM

NuggetsFan

08-15-2016, 12:58 PM

International competition is at an All-Time high for obvious reasons. Popularity in basketball, more funding for programs overseas, improved scouting etc.

A guy like Jokic isn't playing in the 80's.

andgar923

08-15-2016, 01:04 PM

And here's the thing...

The OP is using results accomplished by this B squad to say that this era of basketball is inferior to 90s basketball. Do you not see how unfair this is? We wouldn't be having this kind of conversation if the USA was able send in their A squad with Curry, CP3 and Lebron.

You do know that they're not playing a bunch of f*ckin All Stars out there right?:facepalm

Shall I remind you of this...

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/athens-greece-the-team-italian-silver-medal-winner-stand-on-the-with-picture-id51232978

We sent some of our very very best, guess what happened?

In 08 it came down to final clutch plays to save the game.:facepalm

Many instances to list.

andgar923

08-15-2016, 01:06 PM

International competition is at an All-Time high for obvious reasons. Popularity in basketball, more funding for programs overseas, improved scouting etc.

A guy like Jokic isn't playing in the 80's.

So you're saying American players have either declined or stayed the same for almost a decade?

NuggetsFan

08-15-2016, 01:07 PM

F*ckin kids

NBA is the only sport people can't move on from the past. Probably because of the importance of individuals and fans seem to have a far greater emotional attachment to the individual rather than the actual team like the NFL. NBA is all about what's better as opposed to the truth that things are different. The game has evolved with shooting, defensive changes.

People appreciate the past in other sports but with the NBA you get guys that are obsessed and can't move on from it. It's crazy. It's like you actually believe in 2016 a sport like basketball has regressed in a major way despite more people playing it, technology advancing, having the the past to build on. Something as simple as improved traveling probably has an impact on fatigue and stamina :oldlol:

NuggetsFan

08-15-2016, 01:10 PM

So you're saying American players have either declined or stayed the same for almost a decade?

No I think they sent over there B team and the international game has grown to the point where they can't destroy the competition anymore with zero chemistry and a team with alot of issues. A college team would lose against these teams.

International teams not only have more talent but they take the competition more seriously.

US has the talent and could dominate this tournament if they wanted too. Everybody skipped this year and they sent a flawed team that most likely wins gold but they just won't do it in a crazy dominating fashion. Even than they still could.

andgar923

08-15-2016, 01:14 PM

NBA is the only sport people can't move on from the past. Probably because of the importance of individuals and fans seem to have a far greater emotional attachment to the individual rather than the actual team like the NFL. NBA is all about what's better as opposed to the truth that things are different. The game has evolved with shooting, defensive changes.

People appreciate the past in other sports but with the NBA you get guys that are obsessed and can't move on from it. It's crazy. It's like you actually believe in 2016 a sport like basketball has regressed in a major way despite more people playing it, technology advancing, having the the past to build on. Something as simple as improved traveling probably has an impact on fatigue and stamina :oldlol:

Some aspects of the game have obviously advanced, but that isn't drastic unless we're talking about today to the 70s and before.

But the actual 'style' of play hasn't evolved, it's just different and different doesn't make it better. So more people are taking more 3s, how is that better than players taking shots in the high .500 range?

Let's see here...

On one hand, there are more players taking shots that are in the .300 range. On the other hand there's an era where they take shots in the .500 range.

Oh gee. I wonder which style is better?

It's late in 4th quarter NBA Finals and the game is tied with 10 seconds to go, which style do you go with.

One that'll give you a .300% chance of going in, or one that gives you .500 chance of going in?

Shit, even if we wanted to round up for today's era and round down for past era today's style is still the least favorable.

Aside from a few teams, aside from a handful of plays, proper team/ball movement is ghost today. Not to say that every play back then was a fundamental highlight reel, but it was indeed more common. And that's the brand of basketball that is the more stable, not some And1 wannabe chucking up fadeaway 3point shots while everyone clears out.

B... b...but. 'evolution' LOLLLL

andgar923

08-15-2016, 01:17 PM

No I think they sent over there B team and the international game has grown to the point where they can't destroy the competition anymore with zero chemistry and a team with alot of issues. A college team would lose against these teams.

International teams not only have more talent but they take the competition more seriously.

US has the talent and could dominate this tournament if they wanted too. Everybody skipped this year and they sent a flawed team that most likely wins gold but they just won't do it in a crazy dominating fashion. Even than they still could.

Our B team still consists of Franchise players, All Stars, ROY winners, etc.

Their team consists of perhaps 2-3 NBA bench warmers.:confusedshrug:

Pathetic excuse.

92 Croatian Team had 5 NBA players and others with legitimately Euroleague creds. Stop the silly excuses.

So again.... is it the 'style' of play or have Americans Arrested Development?

NuggetsFan

08-15-2016, 02:23 PM

Some aspects of the game have obviously advanced, but that isn't drastic unless we're talking about today to the 70s and before.

But the actual 'style' of play hasn't evolved, it's just different and different doesn't make it better. So more people are taking more 3s, how is that better than players taking shots in the high .500 range?

Let's see here...

On one hand, there are more players taking shots that are in the .300 range. On the other hand there's an era where they take shots in the .500 range.

Oh gee. I wonder which style is better?

It's late in 4th quarter NBA Finals and the game is tied with 10 seconds to go, which style do you go with.

One that'll give you a .300% chance of going in, or one that gives you .500 chance of going in?

Shit, even if we wanted to round up for today's era and round down for past era today's style is still the least favorable.

Aside from a few teams, aside from a handful of plays, proper team/ball movement is ghost today. Not to say that every play back then was a fundamental highlight reel, but it was indeed more common. And that's the brand of basketball that is the more stable, not some And1 wannabe chucking up fadeaway 3point shots while everyone clears out.

B... b...but. 'evolution' LOLLLL

This just ridiculous filled with exaggerations. How the fck do you deem one shot .300 and one .500? Each individual player hits shots at different rates. The shot I'd choose would depend on the player in question and the team he plays for. Curry? Give the me the 3 point shot over an average midrange guy or an inside shot vs a tough defensive team.

It's different. Doesn't make it better or worse. Just different. Rules, reffing, analytics have all changed the game. 1991 was over 25 years ago. Your just being naive if you don't think that's a big deal. Coaching, scouting, defense, offensive skillset, statistics, talent pool have all came a long way. Is it annoying to watch 3's being chucked and people taking advantage of the FT line? Yep. Was 1991 more entertaining? Subjective.

I loved 90's hockey about 10x more than I do modern. It's not better tho, just different. NBA is the only sport where some fans can't accept that and constantly feel like the need to attack the current game in order to prop up the past :confusedshrug: let go of your childhood hero bro.

NuggetsFan

08-15-2016, 02:27 PM

Our B team still consists of Franchise players, All Stars, ROY winners, etc.

Their team consists of perhaps 2-3 NBA bench warmers.:confusedshrug:

Pathetic excuse.

92 Croatian Team had 5 NBA players and others with legitimately Euroleague creds. Stop the silly excuses.

So again.... is it the 'style' of play or have Americans Arrested Development?

And those franchise players, All-Stars etc. aren't in the same role nor getting the same usage on the current Olympic squad. International teams have way more time to practice and put together a cohesive unit. US is doing everything on the fly more so than other teams. This year just has a less talented team team with no chemistry and some serious flaws.

It's not an "excuse". I don't care about the team nor a single player on the squad. Just really obvious. The international game has grown to the point where you need to put in a little effort if you want to dominate them. US will still win, just have had a few close calls because of this.

So you think because of the '92 Croatian team that international game isn't leaps and bounds more developed in 2016 than it was in '92? :oldlol:

Lebron23

08-15-2016, 02:30 PM

They are arguably the worst US team in quite some time. And they aren't familiarize with the FIBA Rules.

We had better international competitions in the 2000's and 2010's compared to the 1990's.

Lebron23

08-15-2016, 02:32 PM

Sarcastic

08-15-2016, 02:37 PM

Please elaborate on how the game has developed so much? Which plays or defensive sets do you think are ones that have never been done before?

andgar923

08-15-2016, 02:42 PM

And those franchise players, All-Stars etc. aren't in the same role nor getting the same usage on the current Olympic squad. International teams have way more time to practice and put together a cohesive unit. US is doing everything on the fly more so than other teams. This year just has a less talented team team with no chemistry and some serious flaws.

It's not an "excuse". I don't care about the team nor a single player on the squad. Just really obvious. The international game has grown to the point where you need to put in a little effort if you want to dominate them. US will still win, just have had a few close calls because of this.

So you think because of the '92 Croatian team that international game isn't leaps and bounds more developed in 2016 than it was in '92? :oldlol:

Let the excuses fly away.

Other American Olympics teams had the same amount of time together and they still usually whooped the competition. :confusedshrug:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_played_between_NBA_and_international _teams

Just goes to show that international basketball has always been competitive vs established NBA teams. But it wasn't until the mid 90s (as I stated, coinciding with the And1 'me' culture) that the NBA teams began to lose more and more. Coincidence?

So based on that one can assume the following:

A. International basketball has always been a 'thing' and could be competitive. It wasn't something that just sorta happened over the past 10 years or so.

B. It was in the mid-late 90s that either the US players stopped getting better while international players took a huge leap.

C. The 'style' of play made it easier for international teams to compete and beat us than ever before.

So see, one can't use the "Oh... We haven't had time to play together!" Or "It's just a rag-tag assembly of B players".

Once again, either international players have improved and we haven't or the 'style' of play leaves us vulnerable.

So if international teams give NBAa teams fits, imagine past teams? :oldlol:

I used to think the Bulls vs the Warriors would be a 4-1 victory for the Bulls, with most of the games being very competitive.

Now Im starting to think the Bulls would not only mop the Warriors, the 90s LA Clippers would be title contenders if they played vs today's teams.

If Bogut can give the US and NBA players so many fits, imagine Stanley Roberts?

andgar923

08-15-2016, 02:50 PM

Please elaborate on how the game has developed so much? Which plays or defensive sets do you think are ones that have never been done before?

They can't.

They'll point to a variation of what used to be ran back then, but instead of players taking shots from inside 3pt line, it's outside.

And even then, those plays aren't even ran with much sort of consistency and success. Most players abandon all resemblance of proper basketball to the more ill advised iso/one on one style of play.

I clicked on two highlight videos, one from this era and one from the past.

When both games first started one could see that they were both running set plays. Both videos showed player and ball movement, but as you watched the clips current era abandoned this more frequently than their predecessor. Not only did they abandon the more effective old school approach, they had trouble running it when they did attempt. It wasn't the defense, it was the players themselves playing too eager wanting to make something happen instead of being patient. Instead of letting a play develop or swing the ball around one more time, they chucked with a hand in their face. And it wouldn't even be a drive, it would be a contested shot from the 3pt area.:facepalm

Not to say past eras didn't do this, but their approach overall was vastly different.

TAZORAC

08-15-2016, 02:50 PM

You do know that they're not playing a bunch of f*ckin All Stars out there right?:facepalm

Shall I remind you of this...

We sent some of our very very best, guess what happened?

In 08 it came down to final clutch plays to save the game.:facepalm

Many instances to list.

Larry Brown was the reason USA got bronze in 04. He basically only played 6 players..odom jefferson iverson marbury duncan and I think Marion. Lebron, Wade, Stoudermire Anthony rarely played, even back then they were better then Marion and Jefferson. Larry Brown has this old school college mentality where you only play the older guys...and it failed...Little Iverson and Marybury couldn't hit a 3 to save their lives.

NuggetsFan

08-15-2016, 02:52 PM

Let the excuses fly away.

Other American Olympics teams had the same amount of time together and they still usually whooped the competition. :confusedshrug:

Because the competition was far less competitive and took far less serious. It's not even arguable. Countries have sunk more money into development, more scouting, more international kids are playing basketball at a competitive level. Just two examples from the Nuggets would be Jokic who was a fat kid who played PG that wouldn't exist in '92 and Nurkic who's dad was like a 7 foot police guy that a scout saw and asked if he had children. They were than developed at a competitive level that wouldn't have took place 25 years ago.

So basically the US sending a team that has no chemistry, less talent vs international player that's at an all-time high = a few close calls. Not even losses but just some oh shit moments.

But whatever. I honestly don't even care. Like I said people prefer different things. I prefer 90's hockey so I get it, just not naive enough to think the game has become worse. If you wanna believe that basketball has went backwords in 25 years and guys like Stanley Roberts and the Clippers would dominate a different kinda league than have it. Preserve those childhood memories and praise Jordan the one true god of the NBA :lol

NuggetsFan

08-15-2016, 03:06 PM

Please elaborate on how the game has developed so much? Which plays or defensive sets do you think are ones that have never been done before?

With modern day technology, analytics, more coaching experience and a larger sample size to draw from the game hasn't developed at all? The 3 point shot becoming so valuable and creating more space for players and forcing defense's to guard the perimeter closer than ever has an affect on what coaches try to do. Specifically I'd say guarding the P&R has become much different.

One thing specifically this tournament I've noticed is the international game is far more physical than the NBA. NBA has cut down on physical play and has went towards a more skilled game the past decade. Bogut is a much better international player than in the NBA because he's allowed to mug guys. 90's basketball was far more physical. Does it make it better? Can you assume that modern players wouldn't be able to adapt? Can you assume that 90's players wouldn't be able to develop a 3 point shot? Of course not. We'll never know so there's no point in ever discussing it.

The only thing that's 100% certain is the NBA talent pool has grown over 25 years. There's far more players to select from. That travelling has become easier. That with the explosion of sports media players are held to a higher standard with rules/curfews etc. That with technology advancing using an Ipad makes it easier to study a playbook wherever you are, create defensive notes, and studying film is 10x easier. That with the advancement of statistics players can dissect an opposing players game to an exact science. All these things are facts. How it affects the game? Obviously subjective.

Sarcastic

08-15-2016, 03:48 PM

Spurs m8

08-15-2016, 03:55 PM

They're skilled but soft as f*ck.

Watching some of these other games makes ya realize how soft the nba is at times tbh

andgar923

08-15-2016, 04:02 PM

With modern day technology, analytics, more coaching experience and a larger sample size to draw from the game hasn't developed at all? The 3 point shot becoming so valuable and creating more space for players and forcing defense's to guard the perimeter closer than ever has an affect on what coaches try to do. Specifically I'd say guarding the P&R has become much different.

One thing specifically this tournament I've noticed is the international game is far more physical than the NBA. NBA has cut down on physical play and has went towards a more skilled game the past decade. Bogut is a much better international player than in the NBA because he's allowed to mug guys. 90's basketball was far more physical. Does it make it better? Can you assume that modern players wouldn't be able to adapt? Can you assume that 90's players wouldn't be able to develop a 3 point shot? Of course not. We'll never know so there's no point in ever discussing it.

The only thing that's 100% certain is the NBA talent pool has grown over 25 years. There's far more players to select from. That travelling has become easier. That with the explosion of sports media players are held to a higher standard with rules/curfews etc. That with technology advancing using an Ipad makes it easier to study a playbook wherever you are, create defensive notes, and studying film is 10x easier. That with the advancement of statistics players can dissect an opposing players game to an exact science. All these things are facts. How it affects the game? Obviously subjective.

I agree with basically everything but the red is where things go awry.

The 3p shot has caused the game to change, but can anybody argue seriously argue for the better? Like i mentioned, players are taking more and more low percentage shots than ever before.

And like you alluded to, the game has become more perimeter oriented, by design. This has been documented as a FACT.

The powers that be purposely changed the game to make it perimeter friendly and that was done with rule changes that make it easier for perimeter players. Yet they somehow still force 3pt shots:wtf:

Yes that's right, although the rules changed the game to make it easier for perimeter players to score, they settle for the 3.

The symptom to that is players standing in the corners waiting for the ball and the era of kick out is born. What some of you guys call 'modern offense' is basically kick outs or 'bail out shots' as they were usually known back then.

Running double screens is nothing new.

All of the 'new' offensive schemes are nothing actually new, simply tinkered versions of past schemes and instead of a shot from inside the 3pt line it's outside. Instead of 2 3pt shooters, there's 3-4. Floor spacing has changed how the game is played, but it comes back again to my main argument....

is that necessarily the best brand of ball?

And that is why international teams make it more competitive than before.

We are not moving the ball, we are not moving the players, we are making it easier for them to exploit us. We aren't used to chasing players and switching like we did in the past because today's NBA rules made it harder for the defense. Today's NBA rules changed it so players no longer have to run around, they simply run a pick and roll and dish out while players stand in the corner, so the art of moving 'without' the ball has eroded.

Do you now see where I've been going with this?

NuggetsFan

08-15-2016, 04:28 PM

The increased talent pool excuse is so overrated. The best players in the world have always been, and continue to be African-American men, and that population hasn't increased. More people playing in China doesn't mean shit. The only talent pool that matters is the American one, and that one has actually decreased.

Participation in the US has gone down.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=406562

I actually agree with the top talent across all sports. The best individual players won't ever change much IMO anyways. It's the depth players that see a huge uptick. Like guys who are 7th-10th bench on the bench, or 3rd/4th liners in the NHL, or backups in the NFL that have become far more talented which in turn affects the top talent. League becomes deeper. Look at the D-League, basketball is overflowing with talent to the point where there's not enough teams. Were not overflowing with superstars, but overflowing with guys that are NBA caliber and can't find a job. Europe leagues, D-Leagues are all booming because of this.

The thread you posted proved my fact. Kids playing in 2000 would be 16 years old right currently. I just skimmed and never even looked at the source but if anything that would suggest that in like 2030 there's going to be a drop off because in 2013 has dropped off compared to 2000 so maybe youth participation peaked around 2000 which would in turn suggest that currently/a few years from now US talent pool would have peaked.

International thing is massive as well. Just follow the draft. Guys are getting drafted like crazy. We haven't even begun to get into other surrounding factors like the importance of training, nutrition, drugs, funding, scouting, coaching etc. that have all seen a major upgrade in the past 25 years. Even little stuff like youtube. 12 year old kids are being found and developed to a degree that one could even argue is pretty immoral. Stuff that wouldn't happen in 1988.

How that impacts the game compared to past years is impossible to ever know, but the difference are inarguable.

NuggetsFan

08-15-2016, 04:40 PM

I agree with basically everything but the red is where things go awry.

The 3p shot has caused the game to change, but can anybody argue seriously argue for the better? Like i mentioned, players are taking more and more low percentage shots than ever before.

And like you alluded to, the game has become more perimeter oriented, by design. This has been documented as a FACT.

The powers that be purposely changed the game to make it perimeter friendly and that was done with rule changes that make it easier for perimeter players. Yet they somehow still force 3pt shots:wtf:

Yes that's right, although the rules changed the game to make it easier for perimeter players to score, they settle for the 3.

The symptom to that is players standing in the corners waiting for the ball and the era of kick out is born. What some of you guys call 'modern offense' is basically kick outs or 'bail out shots' as they were usually known back then.

Running double screens is nothing new.

All of the 'new' offensive schemes are nothing actually new, simply tinkered versions of past schemes and instead of a shot from inside the 3pt line it's outside. Instead of 2 3pt shooters, there's 3-4. Floor spacing has changed how the game is played, but it comes back again to my main argument....

is that necessarily the best brand of ball?

And that is why international teams make it more competitive than before.

We are not moving the ball, we are not moving the players, we are making it easier for them to exploit us. We aren't used to chasing players and switching like we did in the past because today's NBA rules made it harder for the defense. Today's NBA rules changed it so players no longer have to run around, they simply run a pick and roll and dish out while players stand in the corner, so the art of moving 'without' the ball has eroded.

Do you now see where I've been going with this?

I've wasted enough keystrokes on it already but yeah I see where your going and like I said I get it. It's just subjective. There's no way of ever knowing what's better. Who could and would adapt. What players would look like under different circumstances.

There's a case to be made that the 3 point shot is the most valuable if the player taking it is more skilled. That it's more efficient. Teams have advanced statistic guys that were hired just to look at numbers and not even like basketball. Was it for the better? I honestly have no idea. Less entertaining and more streaky? I'd agree. More strategic? Probably. The long 2 pointer is deemed more or less the least valuable shot.

Games just become advanced to the point where teams "cheese" certain plays because of how efficient they are and it's impossible for defense's to guard them and you don't like it and think the 90's way was better. It's just your opinion and it's something that will never be able to be proved no matter what anybody does or says. It's only going to get worse IMO. 15 years from now everyone will have a capable 3 point shot and there will be alot of players who can be Curry like and just abuse the shit out of it which will make life impossible for defenders. Curry in the RS was getting to the point where you had to guard him 4 feet behind the 3 point line. Were starting to see it now. Big men with guard skills/3 point shots. Wait another decade and see what it looks like.

Time machine is the only way we'll ever know.

Sarcastic

08-15-2016, 04:46 PM

I actually agree with the top talent across all sports. The best individual players won't ever change much IMO anyways. It's the depth players that see a huge uptick. Like guys who are 7th-10th bench on the bench, or 3rd/4th liners in the NHL, or backups in the NFL that have become far more talented which in turn affects the top talent. League becomes deeper. Look at the D-League, basketball is overflowing with talent to the point where there's not enough teams. Were not overflowing with superstars, but overflowing with guys that are NBA caliber and can't find a job. Europe leagues, D-Leagues are all booming because of this.

The thread you posted proved my fact. Kids playing in 2000 would be 16 years old right currently. I just skimmed and never even looked at the source but if anything that would suggest that in like 2030 there's going to be a drop off because in 2013 has dropped off compared to 2000 so maybe youth participation peaked around 2000 which would in turn suggest that currently/a few years from now US talent pool would have peaked.

International thing is massive as well. Just follow the draft. Guys are getting drafted like crazy. We haven't even begun to get into other surrounding factors like the importance of training, nutrition, drugs, funding, scouting, coaching etc. that have all seen a major upgrade in the past 25 years. Even little stuff like youtube. 12 year old kids are being found and developed to a degree that one could even argue is pretty immoral. Stuff that wouldn't happen in 1988.

How that impacts the game compared to past years is impossible to ever know, but the difference are inarguable.

I disagree with the depth as well. It's a larger league which means there are more roster spots to fill. You have guys that are #1 and #2 options on bad team who would've been been 3 & 4 options in the past in a smaller league. Guys who should never be getting first looks, now are, because there aren't enough superstars to cover all 30 teams. You essentially need 30 superstars, and we know for top tier talent, there really is only about 20 or so.

Also the Euros have not made the league better. For every Porzingis or Jokic, there are like 5 Andrea Bargnanis, 4 Darkos, and 3 Frederic Weises. There have been so many Euro busts in the draft that people are afraid to draft them high. That's why drafting KP at 4 was such a risk.

Go look through bball ref drafts. There are tons of Euros who never even made it. Dirk and Pau are I believe only 1st round picks to make an All Star game.

NuggetsFan

08-15-2016, 05:32 PM

I disagree with the depth as well. It's a larger league which means there are more roster spots to fill. You have guys that are #1 and #2 options on bad team who would've been been 3 & 4 options in the past in a smaller league. Guys who should never be getting first looks, now are, because there aren't enough superstars to cover all 30 teams. You essentially need 30 superstars, and we know for top tier talent, there really is only about 20 or so.

Also the Euros have not made the league better. For every Porzingis or Jokic, there are like 5 Andrea Bargnanis, 4 Darkos, and 3 Frederic Weises. There have been so many Euro busts in the draft that people are afraid to draft them high. That's why drafting KP at 4 was such a risk.

Go look through bball ref drafts. There are tons of Euros who never even made it. Dirk and Pau are I believe only 1st round picks to make an All Star game.

Larger league is a fair point as is the fact the NBA had to expand. NBA has a D-League for a reason as well, and has expanded for a reason. Your seeing far more decent players go play oversea's as well to cash in. Just from top to bottom the talent pool is larger. You yourself pointed it out. What you posted was that the talent pool is smaller in 2013 than 2000 which would have zero affect on the current game if it's even accurate.

Darko wasn't a superstar. He was solid NBA talent tho. He was a mobile and capable 7 footer. He was a good post defender and had that one decent year with Minny. He was just a bust. Same with AB. AB was a solid NBA talent who could shoot but was soft on the boards and just wasn't a superstar. Dirk and Pau are the only All-Stars but there are ton of Euro's who are great bench fodder, rotation players and even capable starters when needed. There were 23 international players from 18 countries on the opening day roster in '91 and 92 from 39 different countries in '13.

Players that are 7-10 in the rotation have an impact on the game. Rudy Fernandez impacted the game and stole somebody's job. A US born player that would have got that spot in '91 doesn't get that spot because of an international player. How important? Like I've been saying I have no idea and it's impossible to measure but it's obviously somewhat important considering how big the difference is.

Some NBA fans just have the superstar or nothing mindset which is obvious by your post. Especially on ISH. It's why everything revolved around LeBron/Kobe/Jordan etc. The Nuggets won 33 games and are filled with international talent. Sure there not contenders or superstars but they impact the landscape of the NBA.

Fire Colangelo

08-15-2016, 09:20 PM

You do know that they're not playing a bunch of f*ckin All Stars out there right?:facepalm

Shall I remind you of this...

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/athens-greece-the-team-italian-silver-medal-winner-stand-on-the-with-picture-id51232978

We sent some of our very very best, guess what happened?

In 08 it came down to final clutch plays to save the game.:facepalm

Many instances to list.

Spain is one of the better international teams that USA ever faced, especially in 2008 and 2012. If you think the 1992 Croatian team is anywhere close to being as good as those Spain teams, then you're out of your mind.

If anything it means the international competition has improved compared to USA basketball. Which is normal since USA basketball was already as good as it could be in the 90s. This doesn't mean USA basketball has regressed like you're trying to prove with your shitty arguments though.

FKAri

08-16-2016, 12:41 AM

G-train

08-16-2016, 01:17 AM

Good basketballers have high IQ and sound fundamentals.

They can score, pass, defend. They can read the game. They can play as a team.

You don't have to do that in the WWE/NBA to score 20 points and be an allstar. Everything is refined to allow you to look great and make the NBA money.

Truly good American players, like Lebron, Bryant, Wade, Jordan, etc... they just play smart, and with good fundamentals on both ends.

The majority of Americans in this team, do not have sound fundamentals. The dont have mental toughness. They exist in a money making cocoon.

The All NBA first team centre and all NBA D team centre, can't even play basketball properly. He cant do anything but dunk wide open, and be tall. He cant guard PnR, he cant score, he cant pass, he cant even hit a FT at a 10 year old level.

Dont get me wrong, he is a good NBA player. But we are talking real basketball now, not the WWE money maker.

That's one example. Cousins would drop 40 on any of these centres in the NBA cocoon. He is shook and can't contribute ANYTHING against a solid to good FIBA team.

Derozan/Lowry... all stars in NBA. 20 point scorers. USELESS.

Melo and Irving... they have ZERO defensive fundamentals. NONE. USA needs them for absurd offence one on one, but they blow 30 each on other end.

Paul George. Mentally shook as they come, full of excuses. Cant execute 13 year old level jab/fake and go without travelling.

Durant, well we all know his mental make up before the Olympics.

Fact is, unless the very top elite that can play both ends properly are in team, it's going to be a struggle against team with players not suited to the WWE/NBA, but can actually do the basics.

The NBA, by allowing entertainment to be important than fundamentals and pure basketball, has underestimated the impact on its international ability.

fourkicks44

08-16-2016, 07:04 AM