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

[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.

[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.