Oh, forgot about George Gervin.
Printable View
Oh, forgot about George Gervin.
Brad Lohaus. 7 footer with range. They would love him in today's NBA.
Marques Johnson
Walter Davis
Terry Cummings
I was going to say a few players. But really, none of them were underrated. Just forgotten today, due to new generations.
Fat is a good one, and Sleepy Floyd might be the best of the all-time underrated list. IDK if Sleepy would be dominant today, mainly because he took a lot of games off. If someone would have given him better motivation, I think he would be one of those guys that made it into a lot of top 20 GOAT lists.
So I'm going with Eric "Sleepy" Floyd.
Another thread for 35+ year olds to talk about how 15 ppg players would average 25 ppg in todays game. Your childhood is gone get over it.
[QUOTE=atljonesbro]Another thread for 35+ year olds to talk about how 15 ppg players would average 25 ppg in todays game. Your childhood is gone get over it.[/QUOTE]
Back when basketball players gained skills by playing basketball, not by getting NBA 2K awards. :lol
[QUOTE=atljonesbro]Another thread for 35+ year olds to talk about how 15 ppg players would average 25 ppg in todays game. Your childhood is gone get over it.[/QUOTE]
We all were 15 once, but you are yet to be 35, I suppose. Therefore, it is highly probable we've seen more than you have. Just like you value your insight a bit more than a 5 year old kid's insight... well, the same applies here.
[QUOTE=elementally morale]We all were 15 once, but you are yet to be 35, I suppose. Therefore, it is highly probable we've seen more than you have. Just like you value your insight a bit more than a 5 year old kid's insight... well, the same applies here.[/QUOTE]
Or just you just have an extreme amount of bias and want to prove to all the dumb young whipper snappers that basketball when you were a little boy was the greatest. I literally have no proof they would be magically better, just you not letting your child hood heroes go.
*Note i never said todays game was better either, because I'm not an ignorant.
And there's a MAJOR difference when discussing subjects from 35 to 19 and 19 to 5.
[QUOTE=atljonesbro]Or just you just have an extreme amount of bias and want to prove to all the dumb young whipper snappers that basketball when you were a little boy was the greatest. I literally have no proof they would be magically better, just you not letting your child hood heroes go.
*Note i never said todays game was better either, because I'm not an ignorant.
And there's a MAJOR difference when discussing subjects from 35 to 19 and 19 to 5.[/QUOTE]
What you are saying is true to an extent. Everyone tends to pick his favorites in his teens and the favorites are usually 10-15 years older than them. Rarely more, rarely less. It's not just basketball, it's everything. Music, movies, etc. You are going to suffer from the same illness in another 15 years.
So this much I give you.
However, there really is the other side of the coin, the one I mentioned. You may think everyone is close to being dead who is older than 35, but actually being 35 is not THAT old. Yes, we are old as fu(k... but not THAT old. If you are lucky, you are going to experience this. And the nice thing in being over 35 is one has some memories and experience.
It's not all that bad as you now feel it is.
[QUOTE=atljonesbro]And there's a MAJOR difference when discussing subjects from 35 to 19 and 19 to 5.[/QUOTE]
We all used to think it is that way when we were 19. :oldlol:
Take my word on it: your world will change at least as much between 19 and 35 as much it has changed since the first day you remember now.
How do I know? Well, I have already been 19. Why don't you know? You are yet to be 35.
[QUOTE=elementally morale]We all used to think it is that way when we were 19. :oldlol:
Take my word on it: your world will change at least as much between 19 and 35 as much it has changed since the day you remember now.
How do I know? Well, I have already been 19. Why don't you know? You are yet to be 35.[/QUOTE]
What your saying has nothing to do with with anything. A 19 year old can have just as much knowledge as a 35 year old on a particular subject. A 5 year old cannot have as much knowledge as a 19 year old on a particular subject because they are not near developed enough.
[QUOTE=atljonesbro]What your saying has nothing to do with with anything. A 19 year old can have just as much knowledge as a 35 year old on a particular subject.[/QUOTE]
Unless it's experience. :oldlol:
A 19 year old can be very smart and educated. At 19, we all thought we were the shit. We drank alcohol, fu(ked girls, drove cars, attended colleges/universities... and so on and so forth. We may have earned some money, too.
We all thought we were as knowledgable as any adult. After all, we are the same height or even taller, live the same lives, etc. Look, it's a nice story but not true. You are going to find out yourself.
You can be the smartest, most educated 19 year old in the world, but experience is something you need time to gather.
[QUOTE=elementally morale]Unless it's experience. :oldlol:
A 19 year old can be very smart and educated. At 19, we all thought we were the shit. We drank alcohol, fu(ked girls, drove cars, attended colleges/universities... and so on and so forth. We may have earned some money, too.
We all thought we were as knowledgable as any adult. After all, we are the same height or even taller, live the same lives, etc. Look, it's a nice story but not true. You are going to find out yourself.
You can be the smartest, most educated 19 year old in the world, but experience is something you need time to gather.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying you've always thought you were smarter than old people up until you were older? Sounds like you just finally got your excuse to fall back on that you were smarter and always thought you were the smartest.
[QUOTE=atljonesbro]So you're saying you've always thought you were smarter than old people up until you were older? Sounds like you just finally got your excuse to fall back on that you were smarter and always thought you were the smartest.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm saying when I was 20 I used the very same reasoning you just have. You are not unique in this sense - most of us used the very same reasoning at around 20. It's natural.
BTW, I didn't say anything about any one of us being smarter than the other. I was talking about experience. You have more than a 10 year old does. A 40 year old has more than you do. Regardless of smarts.
Len Bias would've been decent.
Not 80s but Connie Hawkins would've been interesting to watch. He had athleticism and skill in one body.
[QUOTE=atljonesbro]Another thread for 35+ year olds to talk about how 15 ppg players would average 25 ppg in todays game. [/QUOTE]
For every one of those there are dozens of threads about how great today's players are. if it isn't a subject you care much about then don't participate in it.
[QUOTE=atljonesbro]Your childhood is gone get over it.[/QUOTE]
No thank you. If I didn't have several thousand vintage NBA games in my collection I wouldn't be watching basketball at all.
[QUOTE=atljonesbro]Or just you just have an extreme amount of bias and want to prove to all the dumb young whipper snappers that basketball when you were a little boy was the greatest.[/QUOTE]
I know basketball back then was the greatest and I have enough confidence in that belief that I do not have to shove it down everyone's throat. This thread was not created with that in mind.
And that belief I developed only a couple of years ago by simply comparing the two. The only nostalgic thing I have about the old times are jersey and court colors.
[QUOTE=9512]Len Bias would've been decent.
Not 80s but Connie Hawkins would've been interesting to watch. He had athleticism and skill in one body.[/QUOTE]
There's still Coke in DC. :confusedshrug:
Len Bias would be great in any era if he didn't die :cry:
I remember being a 18-19 year old thinking I was smarter than everyone, even adults. I'm 22 now and I realize it was just my ego speaking, the older you get, the more you realize you know very little.
A 19 year old may very well be smarter than a man in his 30's, but the guy in his 30's is always more knowledgeable about life and more wiser.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]I remember being a 18-19 year old thinking I was smarter than everyone, even adults. I'm 22 now and I realize it was just my ego speaking, the older you get, the more you realize you know very little.
A 19 year old may very well be smarter than a man in his 30's, but the guy in his 30's is always more knowledgeable about life and more wiser.[/QUOTE]
Smarts have nothing to do with age. Even a 5 year old kid can be smarter than all of us here. (And there are 5 year olds out there, who actually are). But no 5 year old has the same amount of experience we do.
And as you pointed out, being knowledgeable has at least as much to do with experience as it has to do with smarts. There are things you can not outsmart yourself of. You need experience for which you need time.
While someone is young, it's hard to realize. Noone can, actually. And interestingly, the smarter someone is, the more prone he is to think at a young age that he is as knowledgeable as everyone else. It's because he realizes he is smarter than most adults -- which is true. Yet, less knowledgable.
Interesting, how stuff like this works.
Isiah Thomas: 2 season MVPs + 2 FMVPs
Dominique Wilkins: 2 season MVPs + 1-2 FMVPs
Patrick Ewing: 2 season MVPs + 2 FMVPs
Hakeem Olaijuwon: 3 season MVPs + 3-4 FMVPs
[QUOTE=gengiskhan]Isiah Thomas
Dominique Wilkins
Patrick Ewing.
Hakeem Olaijuwon[/QUOTE]
Which of these players was underrated back then? They were stars.
[QUOTE=elementally morale]Which of these players was underrated back then? [B]They were stars.[/B][/QUOTE]
They were stars but could not become all-time great SUPERSTARS like Kobe, Duncan, LBJ
'00 onwards, all 4 of them '80s stars (isian, nique, hakeem, ewing) will be hogging season MVPs & FMVPs as TEAM LEADERS.
plain & simple.
They had it all. SELFISHNESS, SKILLS, STAMINA, ENDURANCE & CLUTCHNESS
Notice I deliberately left out Clyde, my fav growing up.
he was too GENTLEMENLY & wasnt SELFISH enough to go at full steam.
Just think about it. ISIAH has ZERO MVPs & NASH has 2 MVPS as PURE PGs.
does it makes sense.
A lot of perimeter players and swingmen would be on cloud 9. Guys like Bernard King, Alex English, Adrian Dantley, James Worthy. Someone mentioned Joe Dumars. He'd be above average for sure, but his game was defense oriented and with the elimination of handchecking, I wouldn't see him dominating.
Both the underrated and stars would tear up today's league.
[QUOTE=elementally morale]Smarts have nothing to do with age. Even a 5 year old kid can be smarter than all of us here. (And there are 5 year olds out there, who actually are). But no 5 year old has the same amount of experience we do.
And as you pointed out, being knowledgeable has at least as much to do with experience as it has to do with smarts. There are things you can not outsmart yourself of. You need experience for which you need time.
While someone is young, it's hard to realize. Noone can, actually. And interestingly, the smarter someone is, the more prone he is to think at a young age that he is as knowledgeable as everyone else. It's because he realizes he is smarter than most adults -- which is true. Yet, less knowledgable.
Interesting, how stuff like this works.[/QUOTE]
Not exactly on topic, but I think what your trying to say is summed up in Good Will Hunting when Williams is talking to Damon on the bench in the park. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEIQSbul9Os"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEIQSbul9Os[/URL]
[QUOTE=schism206]Not exactly on topic, but I think what your trying to say is summed up in Good Will Hunting when Williams is talking to Damon on the bench in the park. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEIQSbul9Os"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEIQSbul9Os[/URL][/QUOTE]
Yes.
Even more off topic, but here is this movie you can learn a lot from. I suggest you check it out if you haven't already.
[B]
21 Grams[/B]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv_kVbGHvsc[/url]
Bernard King would lead the league in scoring.
[QUOTE=Shepseskaf]Bernard King would lead the league in scoring.[/QUOTE]
Prove it
[QUOTE=elementally morale]Joe Dumars would be DPOY in 2012-2013.[/QUOTE]you think so? I agree he was a superb defender, but the award always goes to someone with sexy defensive stats.
[QUOTE=atljonesbro]Prove it[/QUOTE]
Unstoppable.
i think moses would dominate, but then again his game might not translate as well in todays game, and he was also very physical which the league has gotten away from
[QUOTE=atljonesbro]Prove it[/QUOTE]
King had a terrific mid-range game along with great runners.
Yes.
Even better than Kobe who has suspect mid-range game & King doesnt need to shoot like Kobe from distance to score.
So, in today's day & age. Kobe can be 2 x scoring champ. So can King easily if he chucks up enough FGA from mid-range.
[quote=Haymaker][IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RV0Ymg_SztY/UBrkwtYh05I/AAAAAAAAAOE/UDbVhyYEqRY/s400/rouge-black-hole.jpg[/IMG][/quote]
He averaged between 3-5 assists in his heyday in Utah.
[quote] Had he played for a lesser team I believe his numbers would have been much higher.[/quote]
Questionable. Magic got him lots of easy baskets that he wouldn't have got anywhere else.
[QUOTE] I watched the whole era, and people now put him below some of the other small forwards in the league like Wilkins, English, Dantly, king, etc. ,but the thing is none of those guys could stop Worthy, he played way bigger than any small forward in the league.[/QUOTE]
He was way bigger.
[QUOTE]there was no power forward in the league that could guard Worthy[/QUOTE]
How many can guard sf's?
[quote] he also had the best post up game of any small forward I've seen. [/quote]
That would be Dantley.
[QUOTE=gengiskhan]They were stars but could not become all-time great SUPERSTARS like Kobe, Duncan, LBJ
'00 onwards, all 4 of them '80s stars (isian, nique, hakeem, ewing) will be hogging season MVPs & FMVPs as TEAM LEADERS.
plain & simple.
They had it all. SELFISHNESS, SKILLS, STAMINA, ENDURANCE & CLUTCHNESS
Notice I deliberately left out Clyde, my fav growing up.
he was too GENTLEMENLY & wasnt SELFISH enough to go at full steam.[/QUOTE]
This shows how far the pendulum has swung.
Selfishness is being cited as a positive quality, while not being selfish is seen as a flaw.
:facepalm
how many of these SFs people mentioning would be able to put the ball on the deck and create? i think if your a perimeter scorer and you dont have good handles today, there is really a ceiling on how successful you can be.
[quote=ThaRegul8r]This shows how far the pendulum has swung.
Selfishness is being cited as a positive quality, while not being selfish is seen as a flaw.
:facepalm[/quote]
Some players were/are too unselfish. Stockton, Webber, KG come to mind.
[QUOTE=atljonesbro]Prove it[/QUOTE]
:facepalm
Because in his prime Bernard was a better scorer than anyone in the game right now. Because he led the league in scoring at 32.9 ppg, when defenses were much tougher.
[QUOTE=Shepseskaf]:facepalm
Because in his prime Bernard was a better scorer than anyone in the game right now. Because he led the league in scoring at 32.9 ppg, when defenses were much tougher.[/QUOTE]
What about all the other low 20 ppg seasons and sub 20 ppg seasons. Plus 32.9 ppg season was with a god awful team and was 1 year literally AND 55 games... His 2nd best season wouldn't even lead the league. I guess one random year of not a full season makes you guarenteed to lead the league in scoring despite MANY other low 20 ppg and sub 20 ppg seasons. Basically ur logic = He played n the 80s/90s hes a god.
In the 90s, there are few players that I know that would be great or would play better in today's league.. Pippen, Rodman, Harper, Kukoc, Longley, etc.. Most of these guys were pretty underrated..
I just want to express my appreciation that ISH has seemingly graduated from the rampant misuse of the word "dominate" in place of the correct "dominant".
:applause: