Knicks · Oak (page 1)

When you read the quotes from Oakley, do it but install the voice of "Mr T" in you head.

To get the voice right, listen.....

Charles Oakley doesn't care for Barkley or Garnett
Comments By Reid Cherner, USA TODAY Updated 14m ago
Toronto Raptors' Charles Oakley, left, looks to pass the ball while being double-teamed by Milwaukee Bucks' Ray Allen, right rear, and J.R. Reid in 1999. In a recent interview, Oakley talked about how little he respects certain players and announcers. CAPTIONBy Morry Gash, Associated PressFormer NBA star and legendary tough guy Charles Oakley tosses out compliments like man-hole covers.

However, the criticism is free-flowing.

Appearing on Jim Rome's radio show, he called Charles Barkley a coward, Kevin Garnett a faux tough guy and blamed Kendrick Perkins for getting dunked on.

On Garnett: "He's one of the weakest guys to ever play the game. He's a complimentary player and went to Paul Pierce's team and won a championship. I wouldn't consider him a top 10 tough guy."

On Barkley: Barkley for his size was a good player but he's a coward though....he wasn't a leader and wasn't a role model. Now he talks so bad about younger guys, I don't respect that from him…He's wants to be funny, that whole TNT thing and all that, they're like some clowns on that show.

On Perkins: He's just like Garnett. They holler and complain. If Kendrick Perkins would play basketball, Oklahoma City would win a championship the next three or four years…you're a power forward, you don't let guys dunk on you. I played 18, 19 years I got dunked on 3 times..."(Our thanks to Kevin Figgers of sportstalknetwork.tv for the interview script)

See photos of: Kevin Garnett, Charles Barkley, Kendrick Perkins

Wow, what an idiot. He hasn't accomplished one-tenth of what KG has.

Oak could not play in todays NBA.

Bonn1997 wrote:Wow, what an idiot. He hasn't accomplished one-tenth of what KG has.

So he is not allowed an opinion? SMH

ramtour420 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Wow, what an idiot. He hasn't accomplished one-tenth of what KG has.

So he is not allowed an opinion? SMH

He does.

Who said he can't speak his piece?

In return, it is the opinion of some he looks foolish.

Nalod wrote:
Oak could not play in todays NBA.

Oak played 18 years in the nba. He had over 12,000 points and 12,000 rebounds. Are you kidding with this?

CrushAlot wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Oak could not play in todays NBA.

Oak played 18 years in the nba. He had over 12,000 points and 12,000 rebounds. Are you kidding with this?

I know, Oak is legend status now who grows and grows. He is almost a cartoon comic book super hero.

THere are plenty of very good NBA players who would not play in todays NBA.

Debussure at 6-6 would not be a power forward, he would be wing and his handle was not strong enough to play there. Bill Bradley was too slow to play the 2, and would be now at the 3. Great role players in their day and some of my heroes. But lets be real, the game has changed.

20 years ago it was a more physical game and Oak was up to the challange. His offense was below average.

When paired with Ewing it was a very good fit. Next to Chandler, it would be a problem.

Nalod wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Oak could not play in todays NBA.

Oak played 18 years in the nba. He had over 12,000 points and 12,000 rebounds. Are you kidding with this?

I know, Oak is legend status now who grows and grows. He is almost a cartoon comic book super hero.

THere are plenty of very good NBA players who would not play in todays NBA.

Debussure at 6-6 would not be a power forward, he would be wing and his handle was not strong enough to play there. Bill Bradley was too slow to play the 2, and would be now at the 3. Great role players in their day and some of my heroes. But lets be real, the game has changed.

20 years ago it was a more physical game and Oak was up to the challange. His offense was below average.

When paired with Ewing it was a very good fit. Next to Chandler, it would be a problem.

The game has changed but it would have been nice to have Oak in the NJ game banging some guys. He wasn't a marginal player that fit a role that doesn't exist anymore. He might play center like Chuck Hayes, Dajuan Blair.

This notion of Bradley and Oak not being able to play today is very shortsighted. The game evolves all the time. Also, don't underestimate a competitor's instinct to adapt and finding ways to be effective. Bradley practiced very hard growing up -- if he were growing up today wanting to be an NBA player, he would taylor his game to be a good player for the present. He would be fine. Oak of course is a very different player -- he would also find a way to be a relevant role player.

Yeah, and we all know Harvard grads can't play in today's NBA.

what a thread full of shit.

Bonn1997 wrote:Wow, what an idiot. He hasn't accomplished one-tenth of what KG has.

but he was absolutely right about Barkley. I hate when former players become studio voices and forget what type of player they were. Barkley was a very average to below average defender. Barkley was known for being politically uncorrect and constantly threw in the public face that "he is and NBA players are not role models."

Now you see him and even worse Steve Kerr go on about defense and accountability...wtf. Steve Kerr couldn't spell defense much less play it and Barkley was getting drunk and throwing people out of bar windows for heaven's sake. The guy had extreme gambling issues and only started acting accountable when he got the cushy TNT gig and, even that took a minute.

I also agree about Perk. He had time to put a hard foul on Griff. Hell a flagrent 1 would not have been out of the question imo. You want to put me on a poster like that well, I want to put you on the floor like THIS. So, yeah, that's on you Perk.

On to Oak....get over the but hurt of the Camby trade already. We became better without you Oak.

Used to love Oak but, he's become such a bitter Old Woman that its hard to give a shyt about him.

nehemiah wrote:This notion of Bradley and Oak not being able to play today is very shortsighted. The game evolves all the time.

Exactly...not only is the game evolving but the comparison works both ways. maybe Oakley didnt have the skill to guard 4s in todays league but Garnett's wannabe gangsta in a lightweight frame wouldve been broken like a twig if he tried come in the lane against Oak, Mason or the Davis boys!!!

man, with these weak ass forwards, Oak would average 20 rebounds a game. Oak boxed out and intimidated guys out of rebounds.

Oak would just look at the ball and it would rebound into his hands.

this is all that need be said about Oak & people that want to pretend to be tough on or off the court...

http://hardboiledfiction.blogspot.com/20...

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:Oak would just look at the ball and it would rebound into his hands.

that gave me a good laugh

nehemiah wrote:This notion of Bradley and Oak not being able to play today is very shortsighted. The game evolves all the time. Also, don't underestimate a competitor's instinct to adapt and finding ways to be effective. Bradley practiced very hard growing up -- if he were growing up today wanting to be an NBA player, he would taylor his game to be a good player for the present. He would be fine. Oak of course is a very different player -- he would also find a way to be a relevant role player.

I agree with that sentiment about how so and so couldn't play in today's game. Possibly if you put Jim Thorpe in a time machine and dropped him into a 2011 championship game, he might not compete well. But if Thorpe, Jim Brown, Wilt Chamberlain, or any other athlete is able to utilize the same advantages that today's athletes have as far as nutrition, strength training, and gained knowledge of the sports from decades, then Thorpe and other athletes from the past would most definitely wreck shop in modern eras.

Nalod wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Oak could not play in todays NBA.

Oak played 18 years in the nba. He had over 12,000 points and 12,000 rebounds. Are you kidding with this?

I know, Oak is legend status now who grows and grows. He is almost a cartoon comic book super hero.

THere are plenty of very good NBA players who would not play in todays NBA.

Debussure at 6-6 would not be a power forward, he would be wing and his handle was not strong enough to play there. Bill Bradley was too slow to play the 2, and would be now at the 3. Great role players in their day and some of my heroes. But lets be real, the game has changed.

20 years ago it was a more physical game and Oak was up to the challange. His offense was below average.

When paired with Ewing it was a very good fit. Next to Chandler, it would be a problem.

Not sure if you watched the Knicks back then but Bradley DID always play the 3(small forward). I also think Debussure was such a great defensive player and rebounder(boxing out) that he could still flourish at PF. On offense he would have a field day bringing these bigger guys out trying to defend his outside shot.

BigRedDog wrote:

Nalod wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Oak could not play in todays NBA.

Oak played 18 years in the nba. He had over 12,000 points and 12,000 rebounds. Are you kidding with this?

I know, Oak is legend status now who grows and grows. He is almost a cartoon comic book super hero.

THere are plenty of very good NBA players who would not play in todays NBA.

Debussure at 6-6 would not be a power forward, he would be wing and his handle was not strong enough to play there. Bill Bradley was too slow to play the 2, and would be now at the 3. Great role players in their day and some of my heroes. But lets be real, the game has changed.

20 years ago it was a more physical game and Oak was up to the challange. His offense was below average.

When paired with Ewing it was a very good fit. Next to Chandler, it would be a problem.

Not sure if you watched the Knicks back then but Bradley DID always play the 3(small forward). I also think Debussure was such a great defensive player and rebounder(boxing out) that he could still flourish at PF. On offense he would have a field day bringing these bigger guys out trying to defend his outside shot.

Good points about evolution. Don't misconstrue my comments as hate. His numbers spoke for themselves. He complimented Ewing and many of his point were gotten from an effective mid range shot, hustle and being open when Ewing was doubled. Coming out of Virgina Union he made good long career. Perhaps he could have had a "Blair" type game. Not sure he had the wingspan at 6-7.

Regarding Bradley, he was a 2 out of college and after spending time in England as a Rhodes scholar he was a 2 his rookie year. He was a bit of a bust being a top college player his senior year and it was not until he moved over to the 3 and Cazzie was traded did he come into his own. I watched a lot of those teams and is the reason I am a knick fan. Bradley as a failed 2 was before my time but I have read so much of the era I am certain of it. A lot was expected out of Dollar Bill!

Debussure was a suburb athlete and Possibly would have been a Gallinari (Note white guy comparison) type player but with is height and build not a PF banger. The strong character could have driven him in other ways.

Yeah, good points about evolution.

what a thread full of shit.

Good line. Something "Oak" would say.

ProfessionalBill Bradley No. 24
Small forward / Shooting guard
Personal information
Date of birth July 28, 1943 (1943-07-28) (age 68)
Place of birth Crystal City, Missouri
Career information
College Princeton (1961–1965)
NBA Draft 1965 / Pick: Territorial
Selected by the New York Knicks
Pro career 1965–1977
Career history
1965–1966 Olimpia Milano (Italy)
1967–1977 New York Knicks
Career highlights and awards
2× NBA Champion (1970, 1973)
NBA All-Star (1972)
NCAA Final Four MOP (1965)
USBWA College Player of the Year (1965)
AP College Player of the Year (1965)
Helms Foundation College Player of the Year (1965)
2× Sporting News Player of the Year (1964–1965)
UPI College Player of the Year (1965)
2× Consensus NCAA All-American First Team (1964–1965)
#24 Retired by the New York Knicks

Career statistics
Points 9,217 (12.4 ppg)
Rebounds 2,354 (3.2 rpg)
Assists 2,533 (3.4 apg)
Stats at NBA.com
Stats at Basketball-Reference.com
Basketball Hall of Fame as player
Medals[show]Men's basketball
Competitor for the United States
Olympic Games
Gold 1964 Tokyo Team competition
Universiade
Gold 1965 Budapest Team competition

Bradley's graduation year, 1965, was the last year that the NBA's territorial rule was in effect, which gave professional teams first rights to draft players who attended college within 50 miles of the team.[30] The New York Knicks—one mile closer to Princeton than the Philadelphia 76ers[3]—drafted Bradley as a territorial pick the 1965 draft, but he did not sign a contract with the team immediately.[30][31] While studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics at Oxford, he commuted to Italy to play professional basketball in the Lega Basket Serie A for Olimpia Milano during the 1965–66 season,[19] where the team won a European Champions Cup.

Bradley dropped out of Oxford two months prior to graduation in April 1967, to go into the Air Force Reserves. After serving six months active duty as an officer (the requirement was 4 years active duty), he joined the New York Knicks in Dec. 1967. The following year Oxford let Bradley take "special exams" and he graduated Oxford in 1968. (On March 6, 1967, Lyndon B. Johnson in a Special Message to the Congress on Selective Service, declared that he would be issuing an Executive Order that no deferments for post-graduate study be granted in the future, except for those men pursuing medical and dental courses.)[32]

In Bradley's rookie season, he joined the team late, having also missed the entire preseason. He was placed in the back court, although he had spent his high school and college careers as a forward. Both he and the team did not do well, and in the following season, he was returned to the forward slot.[33][34] Then, in his third season, the Knicks won their first-ever NBA championship, followed by the second in the 1972–73 season, when he made the only All-Star Game appearance of his career.[35] Over 742 NBA games - all with the Knicks - Bradley scored a total of 9,217 points, an average of 12.4 points per game, with his best season average being 16.1 points per game in the 1972–73 season. Bradley also averaged 3.4 assists per game.[35]

During his NBA career, Bradley used his fame on the court to explore social as well as political issues, meeting with journalists, government officials, academics, businesspeople, and social activists. He also worked as an assistant to the director of the Office of Economic Opportunity in Washington, D.C., and as a teacher in the street academies of Harlem.[5] In 1976, he also became an author by publishing Life on the Run. Using a 20-day stretch of time during one season as the main focus of the book, he chronicled his experiences in the NBA and the people he met along the way. He noted in the book that he had initially signed only a four-year contract, and that he was uncomfortable using his celebrity status to earn extra money endorsing products as other players did.[36]

Retiring from basketball in 1977, he was elected to the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in 1982, along with teammate Dave DeBusschere.[37] In 1984, the Knicks retired his number 24 jersey; he was the fourth player so honored by the Knicks, after Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, and DeBusschere.[38]

[edit] Politics

Nalod wrote:

what a thread full of shit.

Good line. Something "Oak" would say.

I, on the other hand, have a much better j.