"Bob Cousy wouldn't even make a current NBA roster"

[eliteballer]

[QUOTE]How do you think a team of All-Stars from the past

[RagingBull33]

:roll:

[Richie2k6]

Eh, people love to bash on 50's - 70's players and say they would be no more than bench warmers in today's game. *Cough* *BULLS* *Cough.

[Valliant13]

By his standards Nash couldn't hack in todays NBA either.
Skill and basketball IQ still plays a big part in the game, and Cousy wasn't a bad athlete...not explosive, but extremly well coordinated and great reflexes.

[Poseidon]

In today's game.....

Bob Cousy = Steve Blake

Celtics fans always seem to overrate their players based on championships won (hence all the retired #'s in franchise history). It's only a matter of time before they retire M.L. Carr's number as well. :oldlol:

[SsKSpurs21]

conditioning, nutrition, and evolution of the game play a HUGE role. iam sure if those players were exposed to the same type of nutrition and conditioning that we have today they would probably be just a good.

[Richie2k6]

Why do people insist on making negative remarks on players from other eras, such as "they would be nothing in today's game"? Why does it even matter? They're players who dominated their own eras, that's all. Each era has certain players and a certain gameplay style and the game is always evolving. Older players ruled older eras, current players rule the current era.

Leave it at that.

[lakers_forever]

50 years from now , people will say :
Duncan would get owned in current NBA. And they will all be wrong, just like this idiot from Foxsports.

[Dizzle-2k7]

50 years from now , people will say :
Duncan would get owned in current NBA. And they will all be wrong, just like this idiot from Foxsports.

great point. thread is done. :applause:

[billybadass]

duncan would get owned in teh 80s.

[haji_d_robertas]

What logic is the guy using to make that statement? Is it the same logic that they used for Earl Boykins? Too small. Larry Bird? Not athletic enough. Suffice to say that they fail to look at the individual as a human being, and that there is no measure avalible that rates guts, determination and will power. Who'd you rather pick for your team? Darius Miles? Michael Olowakandi? Kwame Brown? I say the opposite. Guys like that would have no place on an NBA team back in Cousy's day. Why? They lack heart. If Bob Cousy was playing today he would find a way to compete with anybody. Why? Talent. Pure and simple. The hell with Physically gifted freakish athletes who can't decide if they want to play the game or not. I'd take Cousy and win with him too.

[DTD]

Listen to Cousy on the last 10 seconds of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur2qAApCtD4&mode=related&search=

[IGOTGAME]

Well Cousy could make the NBA today in my mind...but he wouldnt be a legend..

I usually dont question a lot of stars but Cousy is one of the ones I do, along with Mikan..

he is short, not very quick and couldnt shoot... So lets say his passer ability transfers he is still having seasons where his fg% is gonna be real low and his defense wouldnt be too great becasue of height...

This is trying to take into account the weight training etc..

[Kblaze8855]

Ive always said and will always say...I dont want a point who learned the game i nthe late 40s because I need a jumper from all my ball handling players. Especially a point. cousy did not have what we consider a jumper and unlike Magic didnt have the kind of game that makes up for it these days(and Magic set shot was great in the late 80s).

6'1'' guys who cant shoot and arent athletic dont do much these days. Court vision only gets you so far. Cousy these days might end up one of those great NCAA points who gets taken i nthe second round and put on the bench for 3 years before going to europe.

[Burgz]

ive never been one to take this arguement

ive always believed you cant blame a player for being great in his time. What else do you really want. i mean without guys like cousy and russell and oscar robertson, elgin baylor, guys who were ahead of their time, the NBA isnt where it is today. I mean sure, with the athleticism of todays game, and the weightlifting and hardcore schedule with 30 NBA teams, its hard to believe alot of those guys would succeed, but im pretty sure in 50 years, kids will see a guy like Larry Bird and say, "that guy wouldnt even have been drafted in today's league" even though we know Larry was a great player.

[saKf]

This thread makes Brevin Knight pop into my head.

[WoGiTaLiA1]

He sure wouldn't as the player he was but that would be a stupid comparison to make. Thats like saying Jordan wouldn't make the league when he was 12. The game and sports science has changed so much, how can we tell?

Sure you have guys like Wilt who were as athletic as anyone playing now, but Cousy obviously worked hard and had great instincts. That describes Stockton(who was still a top 3 PG at 40 when his speed was all but gone), Price, Nash(underrated athlete but still not phenomenal) and many other solid players. There are far more athletic PG's than Kidd, Nash, Williams and Billups but none are as good, somewhere along the line the athlete got overrated and the basketballer forgotten. Just look at Tim Duncan and Steve Nash.

[20 Dimes A Game]

By his standards Nash couldn't hack in todays NBA either.
Skill and basketball IQ still plays a big part in the game, and Cousy wasn't a bad athlete...not explosive, but extremly well coordinated and great reflexes.

Exactly...

[KWALI]

Why are people still making these god awful misrepresentations?

TD is more athletic than 95 percent of NBA players over 6 '10 of all time...he's also more coodinated and skilled.....but if he wasn't he'd be like Danny Fortson or Todd Fuller.....Stop using TD as an example of an unathletic big...use Dirk he's far less athletic in all aspects than TD....idiots.

Steve Nash is quick no doubt but without being an ALL WORLD SHOOTER he's nothing a nobody......Steve NAsh is one of the greatest shooters of all time...BOB COUSY...is not.....no comparison.

And Larry BIrd was not unathletic.....use Chris Mullin or someone of that ilk...Larry BIrd wasn't explosive off teh floor but he was as fast as any 6'10 guy out there and we alreasy know more skilled...

All these examples are piss poor....Sure the guy in th topic is being an *******..Cousy is like Sherman Douglas/Andre Miller type player....who knows in this era he might have become a better shooter like Stockton did.......
As it is he was quick agile and knew how to use his body to shield the ball and was a great passer and adept penetrator even without being explosive....

I think he Ranks below some of the other all time greats but he is what he is...and also Leadership has to be factored in.

[johndough]

ive never been one to take this arguement

ive always believed you cant blame a player for being great in his time. What else do you really want. i mean without guys like cousy and russell and oscar robertson, elgin baylor, guys who were ahead of their time, the NBA isnt where it is today. I mean sure, with the athleticism of todays game, and the weightlifting and hardcore schedule with 30 NBA teams, its hard to believe alot of those guys would succeed, but im pretty sure in 50 years, kids will see a guy like Larry Bird and say, "that guy wouldnt even have been drafted in today's league" even though we know Larry was a great player.

I agree w/ this.If a player was great in his era then he stood out against HIS peers.It's that simple.You cant rationally take anything away from him.

Comparing players from different eras is futile and pointless IMO.I mean, if the question was 'If you could take Cousy "as was" and miraculously transport him to modern day?'...he would be getting hemmed by high schoolers.

[wally_world]

duh he can't... he can barely walk...

[TheHonestTruth]

20 years from now people will start saying Jordon and Hobe will get owned in today's NBA. And they all would be correct.

[dawsey6]

This is why idiots should be takens seriously as sports analysts.

When you have a two arms, two legs, two lungs, a heart, a spine, and a brain, and you're someone who has played basketball on a high competitive level since they were like, 14, your shape and conidtioning is already considered what's even just acceptable in the basketball world.

With people making ridiculous statements such as these, it's as if Bob Cousy wasn't a brilliant player on top of that. They act like if he entered today's talent pool, he would keep doing the same regimans he did as if it were 1950, or that being an extremely smart player doesn't mean jack **** in today's game. What?? Bob Cousy wouldn't make the ame impact today as he did back in those days when he played (you can also blame the difference in culture at that time, which wasn't so flashy and badazzling as today), but the man's got great skills, excellent coordination, and a high basketball IQ. Not to mention he knew how to lead championship calliber teams. With some of the pea-brained 17-year-olds that make rosters at the bottom of these drafts, and some that come in while never being drafted, playing stupid-ball and costing the team game opportunities and eventually money (every player is given millions of dollars to perform at a certain level, and I highly doubt every player does that), if you think a man of Cousy's overall intelligence couldn't even make a roster spot, then you've got to check you're reasonings, because that's completely off-base. It's almost insulting to GM's to suggest that they wouldn't tell a good player from a monkey with a basketball.

[MaxFly]

Ive always said and will always say...I dont want a point who learned the game i nthe late 40s because I need a jumper from all my ball handling players. Especially a point. cousy did not have what we consider a jumper and unlike Magic didnt have the kind of game that makes up for it these days(and Magic set shot was great in the late 80s).

6'1'' guys who cant shoot and arent athletic dont do much these days. Court vision only gets you so far. Cousy these days might end up one of those great NCAA points who gets taken i nthe second round and put on the bench for 3 years before going to europe.

Exactly! I had a lengthy conversation with someone recently concerning the difference in these eras... especially the shooting...

You know, it's a great thing to pay homage to the legends of the past, but we should really endeavor to let their accomplishments speak for themselves. It's a real disservice to our era when we downplay modern players in favor of past legends, simple out of some nebulous sense of nostalgia.

[MaxFly]

By his standards Nash couldn't hack in todays NBA either.
Skill and basketball IQ still plays a big part in the game, and Cousy wasn't a bad athlete...not explosive, but extremly well coordinated and great reflexes.

Steve Nash can shoot... Cousy's era didn't place a lot of emphasis on efficient shooting, and that part of his game wasn't well developed... and in fact, never developed.

Stever Nash, while not a primiere athlete, is ridiculously quick, and his ball handling skills and court vision are top notch. While Cousy was proficient in his era in these skills, I'm not sure they would translate well to this era.

[dawsey6]

Exactly! I had a lengthy conversation with someone recently concerning the difference in these eras... especially the shooting...

You know, it's a great thing to pay homage to the legends of the past, but we should really endeavor to let their accomplishments speak for themselves. It's a real disservice to our era when we downplay modern players in favor of past legends, simple out of some nebulous sense of nostalgia.

Like I've said before, the game was the game then, and the game is the game now. Of course style is going to change, and of course what's excepted of a player at their respective position is going to change. This in mind, don't you think that if a great player (not one of those garden-variety guys) from any era went to another tougher era's league, that they would adjust their game? I'm not talking about making the same impact on a professional level, but even to make a roster? You're right in a way. What they did back then is going to be as is. However, if it were today, don't you think they would go about it differently to match the game play of players today? Cousy was a legendary ball player, and the leader of an elite team. You don't think he'd be working on his jumper day in and day out to be able to win in this league?

[MaxFly]

Like I've said before, the game was the game then, and the game is the game now. Of course style is going to change, and of course what's excepted of a player at their respective position is going to change. This in mind, don't you think that if a great player (not one of those garden-variety guys) from any era went to another tougher era's league, that they would adjust their game? I'm not talking about making the same impact on a professional level, but even to make a roster? You're right in a way. What they did back then is going to be as is. However, if it were today, don't you think they would go about it differently to match the game play of players today? Cousy was a legendary ball player, and the leader of an elite team. You don't think he'd be working on his jumper day in and day out to be able to win in this league?

I realize that I didn't prefaced my comments by saying this... so I should probably say it now... I wouldn't go as far as saying that Cousy wouldn't make an NBA roster, though I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he didn't. The game was in it's infancy back then, and Cousy's style of play gives no indication that he would have improved his shooting significantly enough to be comparable to players in the league today. He's also have to train to be quicker and develop his ball handling further... Things that come natural to today's players, he would have to work at.

[dawsey6]

I realize that I didn't prefaced my comments by saying this... so I should probably say it now... I wouldn't go as far as saying that Cousy wouldn't make an NBA roster, though I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he didn't. The game was in it's infancy back then, and Cousy's style of play gives no indication that he would have improved his shooting significantly enough to be comparable to players in the league today. He's also have to train to be quicker and develop his ball handling further... Things that come natural to today's players, he would have to work at.

These are things that come natural to a certain number of players. Some don't make it as far as the NBA. Many players in the league rosters are players that have to work at it. It doesn't come anymore natural than Bob Cousy for some guards in the league that have worked at it. It doesn't come as natural to some guards as it does for someone like Rafer Alston, Jason Williams, or Brevon Knight (in his case, with ball handling more than shooting). It's more in style than it is in talent, and things like the wicked crossover and other more developed ways of handling the ball, when you're a professional basketball player, can be learned and adopted. Yes, he'll have to work at it, but that doesn't mean he won't, and work hard, if it means getting a roster spot. Cousy's style of play doesn't give any indication of improvement because he didn't need to improve. He was already the best point guard of his generation, and that was more or less the way points played in those days. I'm not saying that any player from back then could adjust they play, but if anyone could do it, it'd be who was considered one of the best, if not the best, of that time.

There are about 400 players in the the league. In theory, are all these players really more deserving of a roster spot than an adjusted Bob Cousy?

[vinsane01]

wtf? nba eras shouldn't even be compared. there will be no way of knowing whether some eras are better than the other.. so what's the point. Unless any of you had built a friggin' time machine or something. But the point is, without 50's, 60's and ther other succeeding years, the nba players playing today wouldn't even be in the level that they are currently in..



Hypothetically speaking though, if they do play in this era... they will get owned. :D

[MaxFly]

These are things that come natural to a certain number of players. Some don't make it as far as the NBA. Many players in the league rosters are players that have to work at it. It doesn't come anymore natural than Bob Cousy for some guards in the league that have worked at it. It doesn't come as natural to some guards as it does for someone like Rafer Alston, Jason Williams, or Brevon Knight (in his case, with ball handling more than shooting). It's more in style than it is in talent, and things like the wicked crossover and other more developed ways of handling the ball, when you're a professional basketball player, can be learned and adopted.


Cousy shot 37.5% for his career... That's shots, layups, tip ins... everything... not to mention in a much weaker defensive era...

How much competition was there to be a player in the NBA in his era? Players today are incomprehensively more polished than those in his era. He was considered an innovator during his time, yet most of the things he was doing, I see 11 year old kids doing at the park... I think we underestimate how much more he and others would have had to progress to be on par or even comparable to players in our era...

I think that people also fail to realize that the players we claim to "suck" in today's NBA... the 12th men... guys cut from the roster, would run things at our local park... would beat you by themselves. Heck, there are guys who can't make it here in the NBA, go overseas, and become MVPs in Euroleagues. People also don't understand how ridiculously talented even the worst of the worst players in the NBA are. Now that's not to say that Cousy wouldn't make the roster, but the catching up he would have to do would be ridiculous. The work he would have to put in would make it almost not worth the effort.



Yes, he'll have to work at it, but that doesn't mean he won't, and work hard, if it means getting a roster spot. Cousy's style of play doesn't give any indication of improvement because he didn't need to improve. He was already the best point guard of his generation, and that was more or less the way points played in those days. I'm not saying that any player from back then could adjust they play, but if anyone could do it, it'd be who was considered one of the best, if not the best, of that time.

He was the best point guard we saw play... which is almost an indictment of the era... But there were certainly a few talented brothers who we never got a chance to see play for obvious reasons.


There are about 400 players in the the league. In theory, are all these players really more deserving of a roster spot than an adjusted Bob Cousy?

The question is... would he be a better player than the point guards he'd be in contention with for a roster spot. I think he would be able to make a roster.

[SomeBunghole]

Cousy shot 37.5% for his career... That's shots, layups, tip ins... everything... not to mention in a much weaker defensive era...

Most players in that era shot a similar percentage. Mikan was a center, and a dominant one at that, and he shot 40.4% for the career. Until Wilt, no player shot over .500 for a single season. Different game back then.

[MaxFly]

Most players in that era shot a similar percentage. Mikan was a center, and a dominant one at that, and he shot 40.4% for the career. Until Wilt, no player shot over .500 for a single season. Different game back then.

Exactly... not to mention that most of the shots were set shots against weaker defenses. The point I was making was that Cousy would have to adjust to a radically different style of basketball. Learn to shoot off of movement, or just not shoot at all.

[EricForman]

I agree with that blaze said.

I always bring up how players from the old days wouldn't hang today and people would tell me "but they would be able to adjust if given proper nutrition/training all that"

Eh.. when I say "Bob Cousy couldn't hang in today's NBA" or "Wilt wouldn't average anywhere near 50 in today's game", I am just stating, if you take them from their era, and immediately planted them in today's game and asked them to play. I am not gonna factor in, "gee, what if Bob Cousy grew up in Compton andplayed with Black kids in the 80s, then right now he may be more athletic and be more physical" and all that BS.

When we say Cousy couldn't hang in today's league, we mean if you take Bob Cousy in his NBA form, and took him to today and let him play. Not take Bob Cousy's mom and plant her in the 80s and then have Bob Cousy be born in the 80s and grow up in our era.

And I said it plenty and I'll say it again--Kobe's 81 or Iverson's 60+ was more impressive than Wilt's 100.

[LJJ]

I agree with that blaze said.

I always bring up how players from the old days wouldn't hang today and people would tell me "but they would be able to adjust if given proper nutrition/training all that"

Eh.. when I say "Bob Cousy couldn't hang in today's NBA" or "Wilt wouldn't average anywhere near 50 in today's game", I am just stating, if you take them from their era, and immediately planted them in today's game and asked them to play. I am not gonna factor in, "gee, what if Bob Cousy grew up in Compton andplayed with Black kids in the 80s, then right now he may be more athletic and be more physical" and all that BS.

When we say Cousy couldn't hang in today's league, we mean if you take Bob Cousy in his NBA form, and took him to today and let him play. Not take Bob Cousy's mom and plant her in the 80s and then have Bob Cousy be born in the 80s and grow up in our era.

And I said it plenty and I'll say it again--Kobe's 81 or Iverson's 60+ was more impressive than Wilt's 100.

But that's just stupid.

Ridiculous.

It's like saying: "If Kobe Bryant grew up in the thirties, learning basketball back then, he wouldn't even make a 2007 NBA roster, so he sucks and he is overrated."

[SRZ66]

cousy couldn't make a current nba roster. he is short, slow, unathletic etc. he had one of those goofy set shots for crying out loud. nash has great footwork and is top 5 shooters in the league, so no he's nothing like cousy. everyone on this board just loves those old timers. they would honestly get raped if they were put into the league today.

[Kblaze8855]

I actually think mosty great players from the past would be fine in any era. Especially a guy like Wilt who was a 7'1''(would be listed 7'2'' these days since they do measurements in shoes), 265, and a track star. Or a 6'10'' guy with Russells reach who was an olympic level high jumper. Guys like Oscar, West, and so on who worked so hard would be fine too. You do those drills West did you can shoot no matter what the date on the calender is.

But Cousy simply did not have maybe the most basic part of a players game today. Give him even Jason Kidds jumper and id take him.

[CavaliersFTW]

I actually think mosty great players from the past would be fine in any era. Especially a guy like Wilt who was a 7'1''(would be listed 7'2'' these days since they do measurements in shoes), 265, and a track star. Or a 6'10'' guy with Russells reach who was an olympic level high jumper. Guys like Oscar, West, and so on who worked so hard would be fine too. You do those drills West did you can shoot no matter what the date on the calender is.

But Cousy simply did not have maybe the most basic part of a players game today. Give him even Jason Kidds jumper and id take him.
Westbrook, Iverson and Rubio are/were terribly inefficient scorers and played good-great at the point in this era, and Rondo - though an efficiency concious scorer, has a shaky jumper at best and will often refuse to even attempt them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8IXS49q1DE

Cousy from the perimeter mostly shot push shots, which Nash often shoots on the run. He could drive and finish in traffic too. I saw one traditional jumper in that repertoire and being that only half a percent of his career exists on film, I think he might have had a jumper at least late in his career he just didn't prefer to use it being that we did see one in that footage. I'm more inclined to believe that Cousy would still be great in any era, he's got the tools and the work ethic to adapt to w/e minor adjustments would be necessary to play the modern game (palming, rule changes, shooting style, etc), he'd put in work in the off season to GET a jumper if a coach so requested it from him I'd have no doubt. And his natural tools, the court vision and playmaking on the break is all well above average even among HOF point guards, better than any of the 4 guys I just mentioned in that particular scenario. His strengths would shine through on the right teams.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gDLsZlLEPw

[dreamwarrior]

That's like saying Dr J wouldn't even be invited to a modern day slam dunk competition

[WillC]

It's irrelevant how well legends of the game would fare today.

It's like asking "how good would George Washington be as president today?" or "how good is a 1964 Aston Martin DB5 compared to modern sports cars?".

Funnily enough, basketball has progressed immensely since the 1950s and 60s.

But that doesn't detract from the fact that Cousy is one of the most influential, successful and legendary players in basketball history.

[CavaliersFTW]

It's irrelevant how well legends of the game would fare today.
It's fun to discuss however :D

It's like asking "how good would George Washington be as president today?" This is an exaggeration by several orders of magnitude, the state of the country in George Washingtons time and all his experiences vs the state of the country now and all that modern peoples have experienced are so different that it would be virtually impossible for George Washington to be given a presidential position. Basketball on the other hand, is not so extremely different from the 1950's and 60's to the present day. Bob Cousy is still alive today. He's only 3 overlapping careers removed from modern NBA basketball (Played with Havlicek, who played against Parish, who played against Kobe)

or "how good is a 1964 Aston Martin DB5 compared to modern sports cars?".
No, that is an example of technology. Technology is not analogous in any way to athletes.

Funnily enough, basketball has progressed immensely since the 1950s and 60s.
Changed is a better word. The descriptive word "immensely" is also relative. You still fundamentally do the same things, on the same size court. 5 on 5, 10 foot goals, put the ball in the basket on offense, rebound misses, play defense, rebound, etc. Rules have tweaked how you can do some of those things.

[WillC]

I won't comment on all of the pedantic criticisms of my previous post.

Instead, I'll say this: nobody respects you more than I do for the amount of time and effort you put into the highlight reels of NBA legends. However, your unwillingness to acknowledge that those players would not dominate today really hurts your reputation. You are a bright and talented basketball fan and it wouldn't be a bad thing to admit that Bill Russell, Bob Cousy and the like would not be superstars today. It doesn't hurt the legacies of those players to admit so.

In the same way that an 1964 Aston Martin DB5 can be regarded as one of the all-time greatest cars even though it might not be any better than a modern day Skoda.

Sure, criticise the car analogy - it's not perfect, and I didn't intend it to be - but there's no point in pretending that Bob Cousy would dominate in today's League.

It does nobody any favours and, in fact, makes you look a bit delusional, which is a real shame as you have a lot to offer.

[j3lademaster]

conditioning, nutrition, and evolution of the game play a HUGE role. iam sure if those players were exposed to the same type of nutrition and conditioning that we have today they would probably be just a good.This and the larger pool of talent. Back then playing in the NBA meant back-to-backs on greyhound buses and taking on second jobs in the offseason, so you didn't have kids all over the world growing up with hoop dreams. Nowdays NBA stars can make into the 9 digits for their careers so of course the international talent level will improve with this kind of demand. Wilt and Russell(the athletic bigs) will still dominate, but I'm not sure about everyone else. There's a reason the disparity in rebounding was so high back then: the average talent of the NBA couldn't hang with the elite physical specimens. Idc how talented Wilt was and if he was in fact more gifted than Shaq(not trying to turn this into another Wilt vs Shaq argument)... one player being able to average 50/26 is too stupid of a gap in levels of player between players who supposedly belong in the same league.

[j3lademaster]

It's irrelevant how well legends of the game would fare today.You're right man. We shouldn't even keep stats tbh they do nothing for the game. While we're at it let's not even keep score, every game is a tie. Everyone gets a trophy at the end of the season: YMCA boys and girls club ages 8-12 rules :rolleyes: Who cares about discussing who's better in a competitive sport right?

[WillC]

You're right man. We shouldn't even keep stats tbh they do nothing for the game. While we're at it let's not even keep score, every game is a tie. Everyone gets a trophy at the end of the season: YMCA boys and girls club ages 8-12 rules :rolleyes: Who cares about discussing who's better in a competitive sport right?

Well if you're trying to ascertain who's better than who, then Cousy wouldn't be in the top 100 of all-time.

But in doing so, what exactly are we achieving? If you want to piss all over the history of the league, go ahead.

Personally, I like to rate players on their achievements. In which case Cousy is one of the top 20 or 25 ever.

However, he wouldn't make a roster today.

[CavaliersFTW]

I won't comment on all of the pedantic criticisms of my previous post.

Instead, I'll say this: nobody respects you more than I do for the amount of time and effort you put into the highlight reels of NBA legends. However, your unwillingness to acknowledge that those players would not dominate today really hurts your reputation. You are a bright and talented basketball fan and it wouldn't be a bad thing to admit that Bill Russell, Bob Cousy and the like would not be superstars today. It doesn't hurt the legacies of those players to admit so.

In the same way that an 1964 Aston Martin DB5 can be regarded as one of the all-time greatest cars even though it might not be any better than a modern day Skoda.

Sure, criticise the car analogy - it's not perfect, and I didn't intend it to be - but there's no point in pretending that Bob Cousy would dominate in today's League.

It does nobody any favours and, in fact, makes you look a bit delusional, which is a real shame as you have a lot to offer.
I'll make corrections of facts when and where I can, and also state my opinions from time to time. Using technology such as an automobile as an analogue to an athlete is not compatible. Machine technology can not change or reprogram itself, but people can. And people when looked at as machines, are genetically still the same, with the same potential to perform athletics. A Bob Pettit's physical tools and mind for example are still relevant basketball tools today. The tools to play great basketball were figured out before the NBA. Tall coordinated people, with a knack for peripheral vision, quick thinking, etc.

My opinion that I believe many of the past players would still be great and/or similarly impactful today, and that they'd adjust to rule changes in the game because they are people, and not machines is reasonable - in my opinion. You can call me delusional for projecting that many of the athletes I like to discuss would adapt to the changes that have taken place in the game quite easily, that's of course - your opinion. If I don't chime in when I have something to say I'm just not being honest with myself.

[CavaliersFTW]

Well if you're trying to ascertain who's better than who, then Cousy wouldn't be in the top 100 of all-time.

But in doing so, what exactly are we achieving? If you want to piss all over the history of the league, go ahead.

Personally, I like to rate players on their achievements. In which case Cousy is one of the top 20 or 25 ever.

However, he wouldn't make a roster today.
Where as Ricky Rubio can, right

[ralph_i_el]

By his standards Nash couldn't hack in todays NBA either.
Skill and basketball IQ still plays a big part in the game, and Cousy wasn't a bad athlete...not explosive, but extremly well coordinated and great reflexes.

Did cousy have Jedi-like control over his 3 pointers?

If nash wasn't elite from 3 that would have weakened every part of his offensive game

[CavaliersFTW]

Did cousy have Jedi-like control over his 3 pointers?

If nash wasn't elite from 3 that would have weakened every part of his offensive game
Did nash have Jedi-like control over his players and the ball on his fast-breaks?

If cousy wasn't elite on the break that would have weakened every part of his offensive game

am I doing it right? :confusedshrug: :D

[ralph_i_el]

Did nash have Jedi-like control over his players and the ball on his fast-breaks?

If cousy wasn't elite on the break that would have weakened every part of his offensive game

am I doing it right? :confusedshrug: :D

Duh?

Act like 3 point shooting doesn't open up the PnR, drive game, team spacing......:facepalm

I'm just saying Nash is a bad example because he was one of the greatest shooters of all time. You can't just use him as an example of why cousy would succeed because without that skill Nash wouldn't have been an all-time great.

You can say that about a lot of players actually imo. Lots of HoFers are just All-stars or worse if you take just one of their elite skills and make it just average.

[CavaliersFTW]

Duh?

Act like 3 point shooting doesn't open up the PnR, drive game, team spacing......:facepalm

I'm just saying Nash is a bad example because he was one of the greatest shooters of all time. You can't just use him as an example of why cousy would succeed because without that skill Nash wouldn't have been an all-time great.

You can say that about a lot of players actually imo. Lots of HoFers are just All-stars or worse if you take just one of their elite skills and make it just average.
Okay I follow :cheers: