-Truth-

All-Time NBA Draft: Discussion

751 posts in this topic

It's interesting to wonder if all the players have to play by today's rules or each can play by the rules of their era. For example, Russell would be called for three seconds, both offense and defense, every possession today if he played the way he did in the 60s. Not to mention the fact that he'd be whistled for a foul every time he went up to block one of today's superstars, whether it was warranted or not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this is because of Parks and Rec.

One of my favorite shows. Actually, I have made it a point to bring up Schrempf's name in as many basketball conversations as possible for years and years now. Great name that I love to type and say. Therefore, no one was happier than I was when he made his cameos on that show.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to wonder if all the players have to play by today's rules or each can play by the rules of their era. For example, Russell would be called for three seconds, both offense and defense, every possession today if he played the way he did in the 60s. Not to mention the fact that he'd be whistled for a foul every time he went up to block one of today's superstars, whether it was warranted or not.

I don't think it's relevant. 100-something players we're going to pick are/were extraordinary. I have no doubt that each one of them could adjust to any rules and conditions and still end up in top 100 or thereabouts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the name of a fast-moving game, does anyone want my board?

In the name of curiosity, I do :P. Wouldn't make draft any faster - I'm off for today.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the name of curiosity, I do :P. Wouldn't make draft any faster - I'm off for today.

If you're online when gabefergy picks, that'd prevent the few-hour lull we'd have overnight.

 

Although, if you're still interested in seeing who my guy is:

Sean_Marks_Hero_816.jpg?itok=DeT4vuWw

 

Surprised he's still on the board actually.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's relevant. 100-something players we're going to pick are/were extraordinary. I have no doubt that each one of them could adjust to any rules and conditions and still end up in top 100 or thereabouts.

Right, but you have to admit it would be harder for 7-footers in today's game, where there are more than just a couple of them. Not saying they wouldn't still be great enough to be drafted in this draft, just wondering if there level of play would still warrant as high a draft pick. Regardless, no issues with drafting the player with the most rings ever at number two.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're online when gabefergy picks, that'd prevent the few-hour lull we'd have overnight.

 

Although, if you're still interested in seeing who my guy is:

 

 

Surprised he's still on the board actually.

Lol. Good old Sean, two rings and counting....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, but you have to admit it would be harder for 7-footers in today's game, where there are more than just a couple of them.

That sounds very logical but quantity != quality. Russell would still face one at the time and there were only a handful of true match-ups to date.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds very logical but quantity != quality. Russell would still face one at the time and there were only a handful of true match-ups to date.

He would face, and mostly better, one per game, but he wouldn't be a huge x-factor that other teams aren't used to seeing and practicing against all the time. Like I said, not a bad pick. I just wanted to discuss something interesting on the discussion board.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He would face, and mostly better, one per game, but he wouldn't be a huge x-factor that other teams aren't used to seeing and practicing against all the time. Like I said, not a bad pick. I just wanted to discuss something interesting on the discussion board.

I'm not talking about Russell only, used him as an example because he is the only old-timer off the board. That x-factor is what I have in mind - these top 100 players have it x^2. So much that it just wouldn't matter when they had their careers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about Russell only, used him as an example because he is the only old-timer off the board. That x-factor is what I have in mind - these top 100 players have it x^2. So much that it just wouldn't matter when they had their careers.

I tend to agree, but that is just an opinion. That's why I thought it would make for good discussion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not actually my ideal pick, but I'm sketchy about depth at SF and I think Bird is still a quality guy to build a team around. Also, are we bothering with rosters?

Edited by Inqui
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree, but that is just an opinion. That's why I thought it would make for good discussion.

Yep, we'll never know. Would be great watching Russell go at some humongous specimens of recent times though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SF has solid depth unless there's a run... Lmao

I feel like SF plateaus a lot faster than the other positions - as does another position. Bird was on my shortlist, and that's why I went with him over the other guys I liked.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now