True or false: Teams from past don't have offensive firepower to compete today?

[TAZORAC]

Being the intellectual that I am in many different fields. I was thinking today, wondering how those pathetic championship/contender teams from the past could compete in today's highpowered offensive league.

I was thinking about rosters and skill sets and can't even imagine most of those great teams (for their day) would even smell the playoffs. The main reason is their lack off offensive (in addition to althetic ability). How could the 89 Pistons make a run at the playoffs today when their best 2 offensive players and ONLY 2 were Dumars and Thomas? The 80s Celtics only legit shooters were the unalthetic Larry Bird and Danny Ainge. Although McHale had great interior moves, 3 points are better then 2.

And even the 72 win 96 Bulls, lead by Jordan. How could they really compete when they were only 6 deep? Kukoc Jordan and Pippen could adjust but nobody else.

Imagine the 90s KNICKS team playing in today's NBA? The Knicks had a roster loaded with Power Forwards, none of which could hit the 3 or even dribble. What could they do in today's NBA but be a lottery team year after year.

[FultzNationRISE]

Being the intellectual that I am in many different fields. I was thinking today, wondering how those pathetic championship/contender teams from the past could compete in today's highpowered offensive league.



:facepalm

This dude thinks hes Lebron.

[Bawkish]

Being the intellectual that I am in many different fields....

stopped reading after that

[Johnny32]

true.

[TheGoatest]

You put any team from the 90s into today's league and they wouldn't know what hit them after even mediocre teams from today's league started dropping 3 point bombs all over them.

[RRR3]

True if you just dropped them into the league. If they were given time to adjust and work on their 3pt shooting and learn modern defense, false.

[Axe]

Being the intellectual that I am in many different fields.
Really? What's your take about ukraine then?

[TheGoatest]

True if you just dropped them into the league. If they were given time to adjust and work on their 3pt shooting and learn modern defense, false.

For all I know, some dude who lived in a cave 50.000 years ago might be the greatest player ever IF he was given time to adjust.
We don't know how teams from the 90s and earlier would adjust to teams who shoot 3 times as many 3 pointers as they and their opponents did in the 90s. What we do know for a mathematical fact is that the teams from the 90s and earlier A: shot significantly fewer 3s than today, and B: they shot those 3s on a worse 3pt% than today. The combination of these two is a Mount Everest of a mathematical disadvantage to overcome.

[John8204]

LOL Teams from the "past" would destroy teams in Today's NBA.

1. You only had so many roster spots so only the best of the best got to play.
2. The players were a hell of a lot tougher...their's a reason why the "goat" couldn't get past Bill Laimbeer and Robert Parish
3. The game changed for the better but if George Mikan was allowed to dunk or Jerry West allowed to shoot threes, or Wilt Chamberlain could have a team built around him instead of him having to change his game to fit the players.
4. You didn't have teams rebuilding every 2 seasons because of free agency you had players who were teammates for 10-15 years

[Johnny32]

LOL Teams from the "past" would destroy teams in Today's NBA.

1. You only had so many roster spots so only the best of the best got to play.
2. The players were a hell of a lot tougher...their's a reason why the "goat" couldn't get past Bill Laimbeer and Robert Parish
3. The game changed for the better but if George Mikan was allowed to dunk or Jerry West allowed to shoot threes, or Wilt Chamberlain could have a team built around him instead of him having to change his game to fit the players.
4. You didn't have teams rebuilding every 2 seasons because of free agency you had players who were teammates for 10-15 years

1. you're an idiot.

[SouBeachTalents]

Being the intellectual that I am in many different fields. I was thinking today, wondering how those pathetic championship/contender teams from the past could compete in today's highpowered offensive league.

I was thinking about rosters and skill sets and can't even imagine most of those great teams (for their day) would even smell the playoffs. The main reason is their lack off offensive (in addition to althetic ability). How could the 89 Pistons make a run at the playoffs today when their best 2 offensive players and ONLY 2 were Dumars and Thomas? The 80s Celtics only legit shooters were the unalthetic Larry Bird and Danny Ainge. Although McHale had great interior moves, 3 points are better then 2.

And even the 72 win 96 Bulls, lead by Jordan. How could they really compete when they were only 6 deep? Kukoc Jordan and Pippen could adjust but nobody else.

Imagine the 90s KNICKS team playing in today's NBA? The Knicks had a roster loaded with Power Forwards, none of which could hit the 3 or even dribble. What could they do in today's NBA but be a lottery team year after year.
You’re trying too hard. The sad part is you’re not even a good troll, you just say stupid shit like “Vince > Bird”. No cleverness or wit at all.

[Gimmedarock]

This is a question? Old teams had 1 or 2 scorers max. A few special squads had 3. There were too many role players back in the day. Defensive specialists, enforcers, rebounders. Big 7 foot dudes who just blocked shots. Huge number of players wouldn’t even make a team now. Too many scorers today. Everyone has the green light and everyone can score.

[GimmeThat]

current teams aren't even necessarily stronger than teams of the past

[RogueBorg]

It's a different game today then back then. The rules force higher pace and more scoring which is what the league wants. For example, forcing teams to get the ball past half court in 16 seconds compared to 14 seconds doesn't seem like a lot, but multiple that over many, many possessions and it starts to add up. Also, in certain situations, like fouls, the shot clock resets to 14 seconds in todays game. In the "Old days" it used to go all the way back to 24 seconds, that's huge. What you're doing is comparing apples to oranges. For a self proclaimed "Intellect" that's not very smart.

[baudkarma]

Today's teams are built for today's rules. More outside shooters. Bigs who can hit from long range. No real need for an inside enforcer because that player would foul out in the first quarter. The rules have been changed significantly over the last decade or so to encourage shooting and discourage defense. Put an 80's or even 90's team in this era and they'd be toast.

It would be interesting to see how a modern team would do against a 70's era team with 70's rules. No three pointers, refs only blowing the whistle for the most blatant fouls. A 70's team would destroy a team from today's era in the paint.

[iamgine]

How could the 89 Pistons make a run at the playoffs today when their best 2 offensive players and ONLY 2 were Dumars and Thomas?

This is not even close to accurate. They had Vinnie, Agguire, Edwards who scored at around the same rate as Dumars and Thomas.

[L.Kizzle]

Run TMC Warriors had three 20+ scores.
Drexler led Blazers were a fast paced team. Drexler, Porter, Kersey and Cliff would be the starting 4 with Buck Williams at 5. Not sure what they'd do to Duckworth tho. Drazen 6 man. Ainge the vet.

[kentatm]

First question when discussing something like this is what rules are we playing by? 70s, 80s, 90s, and even early 00s rules are really different from what we have today.

[ImKobe]

First question when discussing something like this is what rules are we playing by? 70s, 80s, 90s, and even early 00s rules are really different from what we have today.

Was going to say this. It really depends on what teams & era you're looking at. Sure, the early 2000s offenses really struggled compared to today, but a lot of it has to do with the rules that allowed the defenses to slow down the game and force players to take tougher/more contested shots. Early 2000s T-Mac, Vince & Kobe would have all put up insane numbers in today's era with how much freedom the perimeter players have.

Jimmy Butler & DeRozan both have limited range as shooters but have been among the best players in the league without needing the 3PT shot. When Lakers won it all in 2020, they did not have great 3PT shooters around Bron & AD. They dominated with size & their defense, so teams like the early 2000s Spurs & Lakers would be able to dominate in the same way. 2002 Kings are obviously another example. And some of these teams had great shooters but didn't take as many due to the 3PT shot not being the meta in the past, but you put the '93 Suns or the '95 Rockets in today's NBA and they're still title contenders because they have the shooters, who even took 4-5 threes a game at a 36-40+% clip damn near 30 years ago so some of these teams translate really well.

[John_Connor]

with the 80s, 90s, early 00s rules and refs teams today would get beat by 50. and with today's set up teams from back then would lose by 50


the players change with the times. this is always a silly debate

[FilmyCogTurner]

Teams back then were built to play inside out and taking 3's in general were discouraged - Of course those teams will struggle in a league where the exact opposite type of play style is the mainstream.

Oh hey we built this jeep for the off road race but instead of the off road race that you prepared for you need to take your jeep to Nascar, cool? Alright, good luck.kthxbye.

[HoopsNY]

Modern fans struggle to contextualize how past teams ran their offenses. Players didn't waltz in and have iso plays run for them on a consistent basis, nor did they get to dictate the flow of an offense unless they were the elite guys in the game. Most of the time, those elite guys were bigs and the offense naturally ran through the post anyway.

But it wasn't uncommon for a team to have 3-4 guys capable of scoring 20+ PPG. The late 80s Pistons had Thomas, Dumars, Vinnie, and Aguirre/Dantley. Run TMC had three guys who could score 22-25 PPG.

The Magic had Penny, Shaq, Anderson, and Scott. Anderson and Scott were both guys who could put up 20 PPG, but took demoted roles to facilitate the roles of Penny and Shaq.

The Heat had Mash/Zo/Hardaway. The Sonics had Hersey Hawkins as their 4th option who put up 20 PPG previously, but defaulted to GP/Shrempf/Kemp.

But does anyone think the Lakers of the early 2000s wouldn't compete? How about the Mavs with Finley/Nash/Dirk, or the Suns with Nash/Amare and co., or Boston with Allen/Pierce/KG/T.Allen/Rondo, or the Spurs with Duncan/Parker/Ginobili/Kawhi?

Elite players and teams will compete no matter the era.

The game has evolved into a three point shooting context with relaxed rules. If guys in the past were playing today, then they, too, would evolve with it. But imagine the Bucks of the early 2000s with Cassell/Robinson/Allen/Redd? Or the early 90s Bulls with Jordan/Pippen/Paxson/Hodges/BJ?

If guys like Brook Lopez, Horford, Jonas, and Embiid can evolve, then so can bigs of the past. It's not unreasonable to think that guys like Malone or Hakeem would be shooting threes in this era. Guys like Laimbeer, KG, Webber, Okur, Murphy, B. Miller, Sabonis, Divac, etc already were.

[HylianNightmare]

If you think past teams couldn't hit a couple more 3 pointers to adapt to today's game or today's teams couldn't adapt to the more physical era then you are retarded

[FromDowntown]

90s teams had 1 guy who was the scorer
1 guy was the defender
1 guy shot 3s
1 guy was the rebounder

reminds me of old school mma where a fighter was 'just a wrestler' or 'just a striker'

now in the current eras you need to do all things or else your obsolete