Kblaze8855
11-20-2024, 12:43 PM
Obviously, the ideal is both. But if you have To choose your teams next franchise player, who is the current unknown to you what do you think is the safer bet?
They can both work obviously. The people who have a perceived deficit in some skills(true or otherwise) and get a lot of “If he didn’t have that body….” have historically been very successful. So have a lot of the “Goddamn he’s good…too bad he cant keep up with quick players” types who traditionally aren’t considered good defenders or at least have physical traits that let them be taken advantage of. There are obviously exceptions going both ways. Some of the super athletes in fact are incredibly skilled despite the perception that athletic ability is why they are in the league. Some of the non athletes have been good defenders and more athletic than given credit for. But we are speaking generally.
Feel free to add or remove whoever you want from these lists because I’m not here to argue with you about if somebody qualifies. But just broadly speaking, we are talking about players like
Giannis
Wilt
Shaq
Lebron
Russell(stupid or not…people didn’t think he was especially skilled and still don’t)
Dwight
Westbrook
and
Jokic
Steph
Nash
Reggie
Stockton
Chris Paul
Luka
Bird
Kyrie
Pistol Pete
We can extend both lists by quite a lot, but you know what I’m talking about. And again it is not my position that the people on the first list aren’t skilled, nor is it my position that the people on the second list are all bad athletes who don’t play defense. I’m just talking general public perception of people who prosper mostly off athletic ability vs people who are considered more skill forward to make up for a lack of ability to do that. Feel free to add or remove whoever you think should or should not be on any list. Whatever you have to do to keep you from coming in here and taking issue with where I put any of them. Feel free to talk about it just know I don’t feel adamant enough to debate you over it.
i’m just asking who you feel either based on history or today is the safer bit to win with?
They are literally dozens of championships going both ways. Shaq has rings. Russell, who you can find quotes from the time saying he was awful at basketball skills wise Just like idiots do today with every great athlete. LeBron has rings no matter what you think of his traditional skill set. Giannis and Jokic may both retire with just one but neither needed a super team to get it. Steph has rings. Bird.
You can do it both ways and that is well established. You can fail both ways and that is well established. From the dregs of the league to the all-time elites, there are great athletes and great skill guys and immensely skilled losers and jumping jacks who couldn’t get it done.
This can be Shaq vs Bird, Westbrook vs Pistol Pete, Jose Calderon vs Tony Allen.
You know your next franchise player is one of the greatest athletes of all time or one of the most Skilled and you have absolutely no more information other than the knowledge that the total package is considered a can’t miss prospect. This isn’t some raw athlete who can’t play and it isn’t some gym built super skilled nobody who can’t play in the confines of a team.
You’re not gonna get somebody who has both. It’s not gonna be Hakeem. It’s not going to be Jordan. It’s going to be somebody who(by public perception at least) leans heavily in the direction you choose.
Which way do you think is the safest bet?
They can both work obviously. The people who have a perceived deficit in some skills(true or otherwise) and get a lot of “If he didn’t have that body….” have historically been very successful. So have a lot of the “Goddamn he’s good…too bad he cant keep up with quick players” types who traditionally aren’t considered good defenders or at least have physical traits that let them be taken advantage of. There are obviously exceptions going both ways. Some of the super athletes in fact are incredibly skilled despite the perception that athletic ability is why they are in the league. Some of the non athletes have been good defenders and more athletic than given credit for. But we are speaking generally.
Feel free to add or remove whoever you want from these lists because I’m not here to argue with you about if somebody qualifies. But just broadly speaking, we are talking about players like
Giannis
Wilt
Shaq
Lebron
Russell(stupid or not…people didn’t think he was especially skilled and still don’t)
Dwight
Westbrook
and
Jokic
Steph
Nash
Reggie
Stockton
Chris Paul
Luka
Bird
Kyrie
Pistol Pete
We can extend both lists by quite a lot, but you know what I’m talking about. And again it is not my position that the people on the first list aren’t skilled, nor is it my position that the people on the second list are all bad athletes who don’t play defense. I’m just talking general public perception of people who prosper mostly off athletic ability vs people who are considered more skill forward to make up for a lack of ability to do that. Feel free to add or remove whoever you think should or should not be on any list. Whatever you have to do to keep you from coming in here and taking issue with where I put any of them. Feel free to talk about it just know I don’t feel adamant enough to debate you over it.
i’m just asking who you feel either based on history or today is the safer bit to win with?
They are literally dozens of championships going both ways. Shaq has rings. Russell, who you can find quotes from the time saying he was awful at basketball skills wise Just like idiots do today with every great athlete. LeBron has rings no matter what you think of his traditional skill set. Giannis and Jokic may both retire with just one but neither needed a super team to get it. Steph has rings. Bird.
You can do it both ways and that is well established. You can fail both ways and that is well established. From the dregs of the league to the all-time elites, there are great athletes and great skill guys and immensely skilled losers and jumping jacks who couldn’t get it done.
This can be Shaq vs Bird, Westbrook vs Pistol Pete, Jose Calderon vs Tony Allen.
You know your next franchise player is one of the greatest athletes of all time or one of the most Skilled and you have absolutely no more information other than the knowledge that the total package is considered a can’t miss prospect. This isn’t some raw athlete who can’t play and it isn’t some gym built super skilled nobody who can’t play in the confines of a team.
You’re not gonna get somebody who has both. It’s not gonna be Hakeem. It’s not going to be Jordan. It’s going to be somebody who(by public perception at least) leans heavily in the direction you choose.
Which way do you think is the safest bet?