Re: ESPN's Top 10 C's of all Time <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Im not even a Shaq fan. But what I have seen is him dominant whoever he plays. And what I do know is that everyone back in the 60's and 70's had alot better numbers. And I fail to believe it is becasue they are so much better than todays players and players in the 90's. The game is so much more developed now then it was back then, and the competition was much worse in Wilts era. Do you honeslty think that Wilt could do anything close in todays era that he did back then? Or even Bill Russel or Kareem? If you do, you are out of your mind.</div>Don't be stupid. WIlt and the young Kareem were the two greatest centers ever. Say what you want about the competition in the 60's, but Shaq wouldn't have the stamina to run with those guys. Also stop using competition as a f*cking crutch, learn the history. But no matter how good his opponents were, Wilt was an amazing player who put up some amazing numbers. Don't even try to argue that.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Except for the fact that Kareem dominated Wilt every time they played.In their first eleven meetings wilt sort of kept up with kareem, averaging 3 points less and 2 rebounds more. But past that point it was all Kareem.In the 1971 season, not only did kareem dominate wilt in the playoffs but his team beat wilt's team 4-1 en route to a championship.In the 1972 season, Kareem averaged over 40 points per game in his five matchups against wilt whereas wilt only scored 14 points per game against kareem. Doesn't exactly sound like eating kareem for breakfast. In that year's playoffs, Kareem averaged 34 points per game against wilt whereas Wilt averaged 11 against Kareem. Wilt really dominated him.</div>Scoring wasn't Wilt's job at that time he had Gail Goodrich and Jerry West to do it for him. As for the "being eaten for breakfast" part, yeah, I'd say it's pretty bad for a 20 something getting outrebounded, outworked and his shot's blocked by a 36 year old vet.
Re: ESPN's Top 10 C's of all Time <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Mar 31 2007, 02:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Don't be stupid. WIlt and the young Kareem were the two greatest centers ever. Say what you want about the competition in the 60's, but Shaq wouldn't have the stamina to run with those guys. Also stop using competition as a f*cking crutch, learn the history. But no matter how good his opponents were, Wilt was an amazing player who put up some amazing numbers. Don't even try to argue that.</div>You seriousely don't think that Wilt could've put up those numbers in the NBA today do you. He was a great player but there was no center who could matchup against him. He was really scoring most of his teams points which also would never happen today. Defense in the NBA today is 10-15x better, back then it was man to man defense with no help or double teams on big men. As I said in the other thread Wilt when he joined the Lakers the NBA had evolved into a big man oriented game. Wilt was built for the NBA back then, he would never put up those kinds of numbers in the NBA today.
Re: ESPN's Top 10 C's of all Time No? He'd be good for what, 25 and 20 per game. Scoring was always the variable with Wilt, he did what his coaches asked. The rebounding was constant though, he dominated the glass then and would dominate today. All the centers today wouldn't be strong enough to keep him out of the paint (except Shaq, but Wilt could just go around him). So yeah, he'd be the best center today. Wilt wasn't built for anything, he was just a great athlete. Not a lot of people know about his sheer athleticism, it was amazing.
Re: ESPN's Top 10 C's of all Time <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Mar 31 2007, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No? He'd be good for what, 25 and 20 per game. Scoring was always the variable with Wilt, he did what his coaches asked. The rebounding was constant though, he dominated the glass then and would dominate today. All the centers today wouldn't be strong enough to keep him out of the paint (except Shaq, but Wilt could just go around him). So yeah, he'd be the best center today. Wilt wasn't built for anything, he was just a great athlete. Not a lot of people know about his sheer athleticism, it was amazing.</div>Wilt was 7'1" that was huge in the NBA back then, now that's big but not that much larger than the other centers. He would average 10-12 RPG, there are plenty of 7 footers in the NBA today. If you really think C's in the NBA will still just bow down to Wilt to give him boards you're overrating Wilt very much. It doesn't matter how athletic he was, no one in the NBA today could grab 20 boards a game. Wilt is not the G.O.A.T, he may have been one of the best C's in the NBA today but he wouldn't own the league like he did back then. 25 PTS and 20 RBDS a game could not happen in the modern NBA.
Re: ESPN's Top 10 C's of all Time Why not? 20rpg today isn't out of reach. It's not like I'm saying he'd grab 27rpg. I know the game has changed and numbers are different but still 20rpg is not that hard to do. I never said players would bow down to Wilt, they wouldn't have to. Wilt took pride as a rebounder, that was the part of his game that he loved the most, he only scored so much because he had to.Anyway, Tyson Chandler has no trouble getting 20 rebound games, with his athleticism all he needs to do is be more consistant with it and he could do it. Of course there will be games where there aren't enough rebounds available, but there are also those games where there are.
Re: ESPN's Top 10 C's of all Time <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Mar 31 2007, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why not? 20rpg today isn't out of reach. It's not like I'm saying he'd grab 27rpg. I know the game has changed and numbers are different but still 20rpg is not that hard to do. I never said players would bow down to Wilt, they wouldn't have to. Wilt took pride as a rebounder, that was the part of his game that he loved the most, he only scored so much because he had to.Anyway, Tyson Chandler has no trouble getting 20 rebound games, with his athleticism all he needs to do is be more consistant with it and he could do it. Of course there will be games where there aren't enough rebounds available, but there are also those games where there are.</div>20 rebounds in one game is a huge accomplishment for Big men. It is something they strive to do on the rebounding part. Tyson Chandler's defensive game and rebounding game is not ever going to get even close to the point that someone gets 20 RPG. This is highly unlikely, I've never heard of someone since Wilt to average the points/rebounds that he did in that period of the NBA.
Re: ESPN's Top 10 C's of all Time <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>20 rebounds in one game is a huge accomplishment for Big men. It is something they strive to do on the rebounding part. Tyson Chandler's defensive game and rebounding game is not ever going to get even close to the point that someone gets 20 RPG. This is highly unlikely, I've never heard of someone since Wilt to average the points/rebounds that he did in that period of the NBA.</div>Dennis Rodman averaged close to 19 rpg, which is phenomenal, but Dennis was a much better rebounder than wilt or russell. Getting 19 boards per game in the 90s is a lot more impressive than 27 in the 60s, because of pace and competition
Re: ESPN's Top 10 C's of all Time Discussions and comparisons of players of different playing eras is highly entertaining but unfortunately skewed by our own memories and opinions. Individual stats vs team concept ect. Of importance in formulating a "best of all-time" falls down those basic two lines of argument. The bottom line for me is not only physical talent and stats, but the will and heart to persevere and ultimately win over any adversity, injuries ect. Several stats stand out for me, 11 out of 13 years of play, his team won the NBA Championship. Seven years the championship went to the 7th game, his team won 7 out of 7 championship pressured games! Yes, I'm skewed by my memories, Bill Russell is the man. The most important point is Mr. Russell would not engaged in this conversation, letting others voice their opinions. :dribble:
Re: ESPN's Top 10 C's of all Time <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>but the will and heart to persevere and ultimately win over any adversity, injuries ect.</div>Unlike most champions, russell never really had to will his team to win over any adversity. they always had the most talented team in the league by far and were never missing enough players that they weren't that favored.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, I'm skewed by my memories, Bill Russell is the man. The most important point is Mr. Russell would not engaged in this conversation, letting others voice their opinions.</div>what? that made as much sense as canadian currency
Re: ESPN's Top 10 C's of all Time <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Apr 9 2007, 07:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Unlike most champions, russell never really had to will his team to win over any adversity. they always had the most talented team in the league by far and were never missing enough players that they weren't that favored.what? that made as much sense as canadian currency</div>tHe_pEsTiLeNcE, Thanks for your response, this Forum certainly provides a wide range of intriguing NBA topics. My post should have provided factual stats to back up my summation of my own opinion. With respect to the statement "they always had the most talented team in the league by far ect..." The Celtics Championship Teams of 1965-1966, 1966-1967, 1967-1968, 1968-1969 they were not even division winners, the 68-69 team was seeded in 4th place in their division. As a key component of the Celtics philosophy was defined roles for the players. Rebounding, Interior defense, the outlet pass, and trailing on a break was Russells forte. Throughout the history of the Championships, Key Role players such as Don Nelson contributed very effectively to the Team concept. Today Nellie I believe is the 2nd ranked winning coach in history, he helped create the concept of the "Point forward", another role, that is successful at the NBA level.Nellie appears to be shaping Golden State for a nice run for the playoffs. As for the sense of the Canadian currency, I agree that current conversion/exchange rate is confusing. Last time I was in Toronto, purchasing gasoline, litre to gallon, Canadian dollars to USA dollars was more confusing than Doc Rivers game plan and substitution rotations.
Re: ESPN's Top 10 C's of all Time <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>As for the sense of the Canadian currency, I agree that current conversion/exchange rate is confusing. Last time I was in Toronto, purchasing gasoline, litre to gallon, Canadian dollars to USA dollars was more confusing than Doc Rivers game plan and substitution rotations.</div><span style="font-family:Arial">I don't think that's possible... </span>
Re: ESPN's Top 10 C's of all Time <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Dennis Rodman averaged close to 19 rpg, which is phenomenal, but Dennis was a much better rebounder than wilt or russell. Getting 19 boards per game in the 90s is a lot more impressive than 27 in the 60s, because of pace and competition</div>That's my point. Rodman was not some overpowing beast of a man. He just busted his ass out there. The problem with today's game is the culture. I mean, it seems that most players today would rather look cool than put in the effort to get 20rpg.
