T or F: Modern players can insta-dominate far past eras (decades back)

[hiphopanonymous]

Share your opinions on this topic. Specificially, I've heard several players from this era chime in on the topic in the past year or two and there currently seems to be a widespread culture in the NBA to no longer respect past eras and to actually harbor some pretty dismissive takes about them.

• JJ Redick believes for example that Kyrie would look like 'witchcraft' if dropped into a 1969 NBA Finals. Thinks pre-1980's basketball is plumbers and firemen and cannot be compared to today's NBA. (ranks ringless/fewer accolades Chris Paul greater than 5 ring multi-1st team/assist record Bob Cousy for this reason)
• Embiid stated if he played in the 60's he would be 'shot' for being so good and would be the GOAT.
• Lou Williams stated LeBron would win 15 championships in a row if he was inserted into 1975 and said imagine the worst player today being dropped into 1968 (implying they'd dominate)
• Gilbert Arenas also stated pre-1980's basketball is a "mailman/store clerk" era and it's not fair to compare them with anyone after 1980 because of lack of skill (after holding back laughter).
• Gilbert Arenas also stated 1990's players like Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman are delusional and cannot stop today's NBA players or be as good as they are because they basically are too primitive / never faced players as skilled as today and are only the size of little guards in the league today so would be physically outclassed.
• JR Smith revealed LeBron doubts Wilt even scored 100 points, thinks it was just a random sign he held up because there's no proof. (Such as the radio broadcast). Not so much a comparison take, but it's dismissive.
• Al Harrington said he'd dominate Bob McAdoo and Willis Reed - I think he even said he'd score 50 on McAdoo and hold him scoreless. Laughed at the idea of Willis Reed's one-legged game.

It gives me the underlying feeling all these guys glanced at past eras but never took the time to understand them. While I do believe in the progress of both basketball skill training and athletics training and conditioning over the course of time and that it most certainly has helped players today achieve an overall skill and athleticism bag that is deeper than prior eras - I also feel like progress isn't just a one way street and something these players never acknowledge or discuss is that the way the game is allowed to be played today literally isn't possible if you go any appreciable amount of time back. The carrying, the traveling and late gather steps, the moving screens, and a 3 point line that incentivizes deep bombs all goes away or isn't allowed the further back you go, not to mention more subtle changes like what is or isn't considered offensive or defensive fouls. They believe they can just insta-dominate. How though, if the rules and refs, and coaches and teammates don't come with you? Even trying to just iso everyone has to be agreed on by a coach or team. And even if you iso, what impact does it have on winning once they realize that stiff looking dribble in the 1960's is kinda-sorta-enforced and a 'hesi' today is an instant turnover?

I feel like it has taken as long as it has for the game to look the way it looks now because it's decades of past superstars pushing the games rules to new areas, not just pushing skill - but if you go back too far certain skills just won't be allowed. That's my thought but what do you guys all think? How much time would it take a modern player to simply adjust to a 1990's game. How about 1975 or 1968? Does the rule thing help close the gap a little when trying to compare eras or do you tend to agree more with these players?

[FKAri]

Can you imagine LeDingDong playing in the 20th century?

He'd be the NBA logo. His face would be on all our money. The statue of Liberty would've been replaced by a 3000ft marble statue of LeBron leaning backwards with his dicc reaching for the heavens. The inscription on it would read, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me and I'll lead them to a title".

[FultzNationRISE]

They would dominate to the extent guys like Baylor and West dominated, because theres tons of guys in the league now who can do what Baylor did, and tons of guys who can do what West did. In part because of the progress made by those guys doing it first.

I don't think it's so much that players of today would dominate elite players of the past. It's that most everyone is now equivalent to an elite player of the past. And the few guys who dominate TODAY'S era (Lebron, namely) would probably become instantly the best players of the past era.

Sure, old school rules would prevent today's guys from going back and dominating 50-0, which otherwise would happen if you let today's players go back and play with today's rule allowances. But again even without that, many average players today would resemble West, Baylor, and basically the best players of the past. If you merged the two eras and had to make cuts, it's virtually all old guys that would get squeezed out.

So it's not that they would dominate in circus fashion necessarily. They would just all be elite players pretty much.

[hiphopanonymous]

They would dominate to the extent guys like Baylor and West dominated, because theres tons of guys in the league now who can do what Baylor did, and tons of guys who can do what West did. In part because of the progress made by those guys doing it first.

I don't think it's so much that players of today would dominate elite players of the past. It's that most everyone is now equivalent to an elite player of the past. And the few guys who dominate TODAY'S era (Lebron, namely) would probably become instantly the best players of the past era.

Sure, old school rules would prevent today's guys from going back and dominating 50-0, which otherwise would happen if you let today's players go back and play with today's rule allowances. But again even without that, many average players today would resemble West, Baylor, and basically the best players of the past. If you merged the two eras and had to make cuts, it's virtually all old guys that would get squeezed out.

So it's not that they would dominate in circus fashion necessarily. They would just all be elite players pretty much.
If you had to take a guess, what do you think fuels the modern players to say what they said? JJ Redick did offer a reservation that he thought 'the great' players could at least 'play' in any era (after West and Robertson were brought up) but Gil and Harrington offered no such cushion on their opinion. Seemed like they straight up think even the great players of the past wouldn't be able to compete. Also Baylor before he passed would routinely say he thought LeBron would have no trouble playing back in his era - just to bolster your opinion on him. Baylor used to make mention of the different rules but still thought LeBron would do fine, which I agree with. It's some other players that tend to lean more heavily on rule changes that make me wonder.

Also curious where the line in the sand is for your personal opinion of what a great player would be of the past. Because for me there are some pretty good, but lesser-than West/Baylor players that played back then that make me go wow when I see their limited game tape and others that don't. Guys like Dave Bing or Dave DeBuscherre. To me Bing looks like he'd be a superstar today (hyper athletic extremely good all around guard) - while DeBuscherre I have trouble placing because there isn't an analogue to his player-type anymore (6-6 wide body power forwards that are strong and can stretch the floor and rebound but not much else).

Then I have a real problem picturing Scottie Pippen being a bad player today in any way whatsoever. I also think he's not undersized at all, and don't understand what Gil was on about with that comment. We barely have any 6-8 guards in the league today, that's not little at all that would be a huge guard. Gil interviewed Lou Williams who is 6-1 175 when Lou made the 1975 and 1968 comments so if 6-8 is small what is Lou Williams? He claims Pippen is delusional for his comments about being able to defend modern players. Idk. I'm guessing your opinion on the 90's is similar to what you said going back further, but maybe to a lesser extant correct? What do you think a guy like Pippen would do today or how would modern players do playing against Pippen?

[Airupthere]

If you were to teleport modern players into past eras, naturally they will always have the benefit of the evolution of the game. Adjusting to the rules can be tricky. How will kyrie play when he is limited to palming to ball. Overall, I think the modern players will always have the upperhand and will adjust to the rules.

If you were to make the modern players born in past eras and let them learn the game how it was played, then that obviously will be very hard to predict.

[Dbrog]

All of these players except maybe Reddick are dudes that never even lived up to their own hype in this era. It's pretty comical to hear Embiid talking about "getting shot from being the GOAT" in the 60s when in actually he was more in danger of getting shot from the civil rights movement that the ACTUAL GOAT from the 60s was partially leading. Russell is infinitely more of a winner than Embiid even wishes he could be. Dennis and Scottie would destroy Arenas and make him look like a bum in the handchecking era. It's one of the reasons Curry is so insane since the rules have changed, because his size isn't a factor (which the NBA loves because you don't have to look like TMac to be successful anymore). Funny Bron talking about Wilt when Bron BASICALLY EXISTED back then aka Elgin Baylor. Go watch some of his stuff. Very much Bron-esc minus the new moves people have learned throughout the years.

It's just desrespectful to the past tbh and you don't see the dudes who DOMINATED these dudes doing it (Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, etc etc)

[FultzNationRISE]

If you had to take a guess, what do you think fuels the modern players to say what they said? JJ Redick did offer a reservation that he thought 'the great' players could at least 'play' in any era (after West and Robertson were brought up) but Gil and Harrington offered no such cushion on their opinion. Seemed like they straight up think even the great players of the past wouldn't be able to compete.

Also curious where the line in the sand is for your personal opinion of what a great player would be of the past. Because for me there are some pretty good, but lesser-than West/Baylor players that played back then that make me go wow when I see their limited game tape and others that don't. Guys like Dave Bing or Dave DeBuscherre. To me Bing looks like he'd be a superstar today (hyper athletic extremely good all around guard) - while DeBuscherre I have trouble placing because there isn't an analogue to his player-type anymore (6-6 wide body power forwards that are strong and can stretch the floor and rebound but not much else).

Then I have a real problem picturing Scottie Pippen being a bad player today in any way whatsoever. I also think he's not undersized at all, and don't understand what Gil was on about with that comment. We barely have any 6-8 guards in the league today, that's not little at all that would be a huge guard. Gil interviewed Lou Williams who is 6-1 175 when Lou made the 1975 and 1968 comments so if 6-8 is small what is Lou Williams? He claims Pippen is delusional for his comments about being able to defend modern players. Idk. I'm guessing your opinion on the 90's is similar to what you said going back further, but maybe to a lesser extant correct? What do you think a guy like Pippen would do today or how would modern players do playing against Pippen?


Well, I dont think the opinions of Gilbert Arenas and Al Harrington really need to be puzzled over and picked apart. They arent the brightest guys to begin with, and they're further incentivized by media culture to say controversial things.

So I dont think you should really lose sleep over this. Life will go on whether Gil and Al give carefully considered opinions on a podcast or not. What they say doesnt really matter.

[hiphopanonymous]

All of these players except maybe Reddick are dudes that never even lived up to their own hype in this era. It's pretty comical to hear Embiid talking about "getting shot from being the GOAT" in the 60s when in actually he was more in danger of getting shot from the civil rights movement that the ACTUAL GOAT from the 60s was partially leading. Russell is infinitely more of a winner than Embiid even wishes he could be. Dennis and Scottie would destroy Arenas and make him look like a bum in the handchecking era. It's one of the reasons Curry is so insane since the rules have changed, because his size isn't a factor (which the NBA loves because you don't have to look like TMac to be successful anymore). Funny Bron talking about Wilt when Bron BASICALLY EXISTED back then aka Elgin Baylor. Go watch some of his stuff. Very much Bron-esc minus the new moves people have learned throughout the years.

It's just desrespectful to the past tbh and you don't see the dudes who DOMINATED these dudes doing it (Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, etc etc)
I tend to agree with you on this but where do you think they are coming from with it? That's what I've been trying to figure out because I'd like to respect their own basketball IQ's. Are they seeing something that I'm not? (Perhaps their basketball minds just *know* how to trounce on past players skill deficits when they watch gametape). Or do you think it's more that they are *not* seeing something that I or you would be picking up on (rule changes, fair context etc). I can't tell if they're in denial, or if what new skills they learned really matter that much.

[hiphopanonymous]

Well, I dont think the opinions of Gilbert Arenas and Al Harrington really need to be puzzled over and picked apart. They arent the brightest guys to begin with, and they're further incentivized by media culture to say controversial things.

So I dont think you should really lose sleep over this. Life will go on whether Gil and Al give carefully considered opinions on a podcast or not. What they say doesnt really matter.
:oldlol: I suppose this does look like just about the most meaningless thing to sit on the fence about. I'm working on a video related to these conversations if that helps explain why I'm that interested. Your feedback was appreciated, so thank you

[Phoenix]

Gilbert Arenas also stated 1990's players like Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman are delusional and cannot stop today's NBA players or be as good as they are because they basically are too primitive / never faced players as skilled as today and are only the size of little guards in the league today so would be physically outclassed.

Prime Scottie is pretty much Paul George-sized so unless we're calling PG13 'little guard sized', and we think today's guys would be physically outclassing Rodman who was banging down low with the likes of Shaq, Mourning and Mailmain.....umm sure ok. Those guys couldn't play the same type of defense now they played in the 90's anyway.

Bill Russell in 2023 is not the same player he was in 1960, and Kyrie Irving doesn't have the handle in 1970 that he does now. These 'back to the future' scenarios are pointless if you can't grasp that concept.

[ralph_i_el]

For a season or two maybe. Everybody would just start copying any advanced playstyle they used though.

[hiphopanonymous]

Gilbert Arenas also stated 1990's players like Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman are delusional and cannot stop today's NBA players or be as good as they are because they basically are too primitive / never faced players as skilled as today and are only the size of little guards in the league today so would be physically outclassed.

Prime Scottie is pretty much Paul George-sized so unless we're calling PG13 'little guard sized', and we think today's guys would be physically outclassing Rodman who was banging down low with the likes of Shaq, Mourning and Mailmain.....umm sure ok. Those guys couldn't play the same type of defense now they played in the 90's anyway.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIyCBe3Ch98

Here's parts of that discussion - they edited it though (chopped out where Lou said LeBron would win 15 championships in 75 and the worst players in the league would dominate in 68 for example) - so that probably means more of it is edited about Pippen and Rodman as well but you get the gist of it. He defends his opinion. Figured he'd do it better than I could.

[Kblaze8855]

One thing I always wonder about…..


Do players realize that if they were teleported 50 years ago the modern version of themselves would dismiss whatever they did and say they couldn’t play today?

You would have 6 minutes of clips from their whole career, almost nobody would even watch them, and whatever numbers they did would be thrown out due to competition.

They might well come out less respected by modern players than they are now.

[Phoenix]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIyCBe3Ch98

Here's parts of that discussion - they edited it though (chopped out where Lou said LeBron would win 15 championships in 75 and the worst players in the league would dominate in 68 for example) - so that probably means more of it is edited about Pippen and Rodman as well but you get the gist of it. He defends his opinion. Figured he'd do it better than I could.

I saw that discussion some time ago. Scottie Pippen has modern size and athleticism as a wing. Let's start off with that. Then let's say he's coming along in 2020, fresh into the NBA out of college. Who would be his inspirations, based on the last 25 years? Penny. Hill. Tmac. Lebron. Kawhi. Paul George. KD. What that translates to as far as what skills he develops, no-one knows. But I'm starting from the idea that all these guys have the 'innate' talent to play basketball, and what they are/were is a product of when they played, who were their influences coming along, and what the rules of the day allowed them to do( and not do). Rod Strickland had the ball on a string without the benefit of ballhandling rules that Kyrie benefits from.

[hiphopanonymous]

One thing I always wonder about…..


Do players realize that if they were teleported 50 years ago the modern version of themselves would dismiss whatever they did and say they couldn’t play today?

You would have 6 minutes of clips from their whole career, almost nobody would even watch them, and whatever numbers they did would be thrown out due to competition.

They might well come out less respected by modern players than they are now.

You're right, from what I understand about game tape quality and quantity from back then as a collector. But from what I gather I wouldn't be surprised if they think they'd be so good there would actually just be more tape and statues of them. I know the NBA didn't control the rights to it's own image before 1980's so actually I thought it was not a coincidence that both JJ and Gil specifically dismissed 'pre-1980'. It just so happens to be the point where tape availability falls off a cliff. I think they think it's because it isn't worth showing and/or not much happened - rather than any kind of legal red tape reason. Can't be certain but I get the gist they have glanced at the few tapes that tend to regularly circulate from those far past eras (often in bad quality) and just instantly dismissed what they saw. Because at a glance, it does look funny. Dribbling palms down isn't even taught anymore let alone enforced.

[hiphopanonymous]

I saw that discussion some time ago. Scottie Pippen has modern size and athleticism as a wing. Let's start off with that. Then let's say he's coming along in 2020, fresh into the NBA out of college. Who would be his inspirations, based on the last 25 years? Penny. Hill. Tmac. Lebron. Kawhi. Paul George. KD. What that translates to as far as what skills he develops, no-one knows. But I'm starting from the idea that all these guys have the 'innate' talent to play basketball, and what they are/were is a product of when they played, who were their influences coming along, and what the rules of the day allowed them to do( and not do). Rod Strickland had the ball on a string without the benefit of ballhandling rules that Kyrie benefits from.
I'd go even further and say Pippen is positionless-sized today. Doesn't 6-5 Draymond Green play center a lot? 6-7 Kevin Love at the 4? Like you said depending on his influences in that context you gave, he could go whatever position he wanted to emulate most probably. I feel like it's weird for him to say Pippen is nothing but a little guard today in front of 6-1 175 Lou Williams, who is way past his prime and still getting minutes in spite of being a dwarf by comparison to Pippen and Rodman lol

[Charlie Sheen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIyCBe3Ch98

Here's parts of that discussion - they edited it though (chopped out where Lou said LeBron would win 15 championships in 75 and the worst players in the league would dominate in 68 for example) - so that probably means more of it is edited about Pippen and Rodman as well but you get the gist of it. He defends his opinion. Figured he'd do it better than I could.

I was confused when he started talking about Gary Payton. Was he saying Payton couldn't score or he was capable of more but the big man era muted his production as a guard?

[hiphopanonymous]

I was confused when he started talking about Gary Payton. Was he saying Payton couldn't score or he was capable of more but the big man era muted his production as a guard?
I think he means point guards back then (like GP) were not capable of scoring based on their own skill. That it was a big man's game back then because guards had yet to develop their own offensive skillsets like we see many or more of the guards doing today. His whole argument is basically basketball was crude and simple back then, as he says like what you can experience playing at a park or beach or whatever. Hack em up defense because basically you don't know how to play with skill.

My own 2 cents is a lot of that is rules, like I said in the OP, but he never brings that up. He seems like he thinks it's strictly skill based.

[hiphopanonymous]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgYPT7yL-Fs

Here's another

[Charlie Sheen]

I think he means point guards back then (like GP) were not capable of scoring based on their own skill. That it was a big man's game back then because guards had yet to develop their own offensive skillsets like we see many or more of the guards doing today. His whole argument is basically basketball was crude and simple back then, as he says like what you can experience playing at a park or beach or whatever. Hack em up defense because basically you don't know how to play with skill.

My own 2 cents is a lot of that is rules, like I said in the OP, but he never brings that up. He seems like he thinks it's strictly skill based.

That's about where I stand too.

Gilbert let the discussion become personal and it is really hurting any of the critical arguments he made.

[Phoenix]

I think he means point guards back then (like GP) were not capable of scoring based on their own skill. That it was a big man's game back then because guards had yet to develop their own offensive skillsets like we see many or more of the guards doing today. His whole argument is basically basketball was crude and simple back then, as he says like what you can experience playing at a park or beach or whatever. Hack em up defense because basically you don't know how to play with skill.

My own 2 cents is a lot of that is rules, like I said in the OP, but he never brings that up. He seems like he thinks it's strictly skill based.

This, again, is era based. The way the PG position is played has changed because the league has turned into a perimeter players league. It's advantageous now for your primary scorer to also be the one calling everyone else's number at his discretion. Gary Payton, Tim Hardaway, KJ were all 20ppg guys in the 90's and it's fair to assume in today's game they'd be tasked with scoring even more( and the game is set up for them to do that).

[FultzNationRISE]

Ironically in 15 years when being “undersized” as a point guard means youre only 6’7, people are gonna look back at Arenas and be like “picture that midget trying to play in today’s game :roll:”

[Phoenix]

I'd go even further and say Pippen is positionless-sized today. Doesn't 6-5 Draymond Green play center a lot? 6-7 Kevin Love at the 4? Like you said depending on his influences in that context you gave, he could go whatever position he wanted to emulate most probably. I feel like it's weird for him to say Pippen is nothing but a little guard today in front of 6-1 175 Lou Williams, who is way past his prime and still getting minutes in spite of being a dwarf by comparison to Pippen and Rodman lol

Yeah we don't know which way he goes. The most obvious size/athletic comparison to me would be like Paul George, Tmac, and Hill. Maybe he takes to those guys and tries to emulate what they did. We just don't know. But saying Scottie is a 'little guard' by today's standard is dumb as hell. Tatum is listed as 6'8, 210 on basketball reference. Scottie is the same height and also listed at 210, but I recall him being more like 225-230 in his prime( which also might be the case now for Tatum, not sure).

[Axe]

Yes.

[Dbrog]

I tend to agree with you on this but where do you think they are coming from with it? That's what I've been trying to figure out because I'd like to respect their own basketball IQ's. Are they seeing something that I'm not? (Perhaps their basketball minds just *know* how to trounce on past players skill deficits when they watch gametape). Or do you think it's more that they are *not* seeing something that I or you would be picking up on (rule changes, fair context etc). I can't tell if they're in denial, or if what new skills they learned really matter that much.

Where is it coming from? I'd suggest it doesn't have anything to do with basketball itself and everything related to these guys personality. I do think there has to be some level of ego to get to the level of these NBA guys. However, statements like these indicate more about trying to show others that they are better (a sign of insecurity) rather than having a true discussion about it. It's like the huge chad in the gym who drops all his weight and makes huge grunts so everyone knows he's there. It doesn't knock his physical ability, but it shows everybody he actually is incredibly reliant on what others think of him (sound familiar with these particular NBA players?).

[iamgine]

Share your opinions on this topic. Specificially, I've heard several players from this era chime in on the topic in the past year or two and there currently seems to be a widespread culture in the NBA to no longer respect past eras and to actually harbor some pretty dismissive takes about them.

• JJ Redick believes for example that Kyrie would look like 'witchcraft' if dropped into a 1969 NBA Finals. Thinks pre-1980's basketball is plumbers and firemen and cannot be compared to today's NBA. (ranks ringless/fewer accolades Chris Paul greater than 5 ring multi-1st team/assist record Bob Cousy for this reason)
• Embiid stated if he played in the 60's he would be 'shot' for being so good and would be the GOAT.
• Lou Williams stated LeBron would win 15 championships in a row if he was inserted into 1975 and said imagine the worst player today being dropped into 1968 (implying they'd dominate)
• Gilbert Arenas also stated pre-1980's basketball is a "mailman/store clerk" era and it's not fair to compare them with anyone after 1980 because of lack of skill (after holding back laughter).
• Gilbert Arenas also stated 1990's players like Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman are delusional and cannot stop today's NBA players or be as good as they are because they basically are too primitive / never faced players as skilled as today and are only the size of little guards in the league today so would be physically outclassed.
• JR Smith revealed LeBron doubts Wilt even scored 100 points, thinks it was just a random sign he held up because there's no proof. (Such as the radio broadcast). Not so much a comparison take, but it's dismissive.
• Al Harrington said he'd dominate Bob McAdoo and Willis Reed - I think he even said he'd score 50 on McAdoo and hold him scoreless. Laughed at the idea of Willis Reed's one-legged game.

It gives me the underlying feeling all these guys glanced at past eras but never took the time to understand them. While I do believe in the progress of both basketball skill training and athletics training and conditioning over the course of time and that it most certainly has helped players today achieve an overall skill and athleticism bag that is deeper than prior eras - I also feel like progress isn't just a one way street and something these players never acknowledge or discuss is that the way the game is allowed to be played today literally isn't possible if you go any appreciable amount of time back. The carrying, the traveling and late gather steps, the moving screens, and a 3 point line that incentivizes deep bombs all goes away or isn't allowed the further back you go, not to mention more subtle changes like what is or isn't considered offensive or defensive fouls. They believe they can just insta-dominate. How though, if the rules and refs, and coaches and teammates don't come with you? Even trying to just iso everyone has to be agreed on by a coach or team. And even if you iso, what impact does it have on winning once they realize that stiff looking dribble in the 1960's is kinda-sorta-enforced and a 'hesi' today is an instant turnover?

I feel like it has taken as long as it has for the game to look the way it looks now because it's decades of past superstars pushing the games rules to new areas, not just pushing skill - but if you go back too far certain skills just won't be allowed. That's my thought but what do you guys all think? How much time would it take a modern player to simply adjust to a 1990's game. How about 1975 or 1968? Does the rule thing help close the gap a little when trying to compare eras or do you tend to agree more with these players?

I think what they're saying is hyperbolic but the overall message that the average players today have a lot more skills and better bodies are true. I don't think adjusting to the 60s rules would take long at all. It's different than say, A 60s players trying to adjust to the modern game. Learning the defensive schemes alone would take a long time. Maybe a whole season or more.

What they didn't account for I think is the physicality and racism. Can the modern players adjust when the arena is full of smokes, traveling by bus, being called monkeys, wearing chuck taylors, while being dropped to the ground hard every other play, with teammates who can't shoot? I doubt they can adjust quickly to these aspects.

[nayte]

Wouldn't they all get called for carry ball or travelling if they just went back in time?

[hiphopanonymous]

Wouldn't they all get called for carry ball or travelling if they just went back in time?

That's exactly what my first thoughts were. And I don't know how long it takes to break the habits. I know they could adjust. But can they do it being dropped into a game 7 1969 NBA Finals and instantly look like a wizard like JJ says? Not so sure about that. Not so sure they even look like a wizard anymore like JJ thinks once the carrying goes away.

[Gudo]

Absolute disrespect. They are making it sound like modern humans will be showing the flashlight to cavemen. The difference is not that big. What would be the perception in that era where you weren't allowed to carry the ball. Modern players would not look fundamental and officiating will not allow it.