Knicks · Two things from playoffs (page 1)

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

Just imagine if MJ played 4yrs with Ewing
Played 3 yrs with Gary payton and Kemp
Played 4 yrs with Shaq

won championships at every stop, would you still have the same level of respect you have for him now?

knicks1248 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

Just imagine if MJ played 4yrs with Ewing
Played 3 yrs with Gary payton and Kemp
Played 4 yrs with Shaq

won championships at every stop, would you still have the same level of respect you have for him now?

The bulls were so good that they almost won a championship without him.

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

Mentioned earlier on NBA thread. Funny how so many forgot so quickly how good LBJ is. Thought the same when Kawhi came back and was doing what he was doing last year in Toronto. Feel the same thing may happen next year with KD.

BRIGGS wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

Just imagine if MJ played 4yrs with Ewing
Played 3 yrs with Gary payton and Kemp
Played 4 yrs with Shaq

won championships at every stop, would you still have the same level of respect you have for him now?

The bulls were so good that they almost won a championship without him.

As a die hard Knick fan, I can admit that the Bulls probably would have won if we didn't get the benefit of a Hugh Hollins whistle.

Also keep in mind, Jordan won all of his rings with one of if not the greatest coach of all time. LeBron never had the benefit of playing for a coach on that level.

Uptown wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

Just imagine if MJ played 4yrs with Ewing
Played 3 yrs with Gary payton and Kemp
Played 4 yrs with Shaq

won championships at every stop, would you still have the same level of respect you have for him now?

The bulls were so good that they almost won a championship without him.

As a die hard Knick fan, I can admit that the Bulls probably would have won if we didn't get the benefit of a Hugh Hollins whistle.

Also keep in mind, Jordan won all of his rings with one of if not the greatest coach of all time. LeBron never had the benefit of playing for a coach on that level.

Imagine what Jordan could have done without hand-checking.

Uptown wrote:
As a die hard Knick fan, I can admit that the Bulls probably would have won if we didn't get the benefit of a Hugh Hollins whistle.

If refs had numbers, his would be high up on the MSG rafters.

Uptown wrote:Also keep in mind, Jordan won all of his rings with one of if not the greatest coach of all time. LeBron never had the benefit of playing for a coach on that level.

Jordan's Bulls were comparable to LeBron's Miami Heat, Pippen was arguably the second-best player in the league. But LeBron's Cavs were crap, MJ never won with crap like that.

Magic and Larry were both better. two amazing teams

GustavBahler wrote:

Uptown wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

Just imagine if MJ played 4yrs with Ewing
Played 3 yrs with Gary payton and Kemp
Played 4 yrs with Shaq

won championships at every stop, would you still have the same level of respect you have for him now?

The bulls were so good that they almost won a championship without him.

As a die hard Knick fan, I can admit that the Bulls probably would have won if we didn't get the benefit of a Hugh Hollins whistle.

Also keep in mind, Jordan won all of his rings with one of if not the greatest coach of all time. LeBron never had the benefit of playing for a coach on that level.

Imagine what Jordan could have done without hand-checking.

It’s a reasonable argument about what the defense could do back then. But we can only go by the reality of what is and Lbj is on the same championship plain as Jordan.

Chandler wrote:obviously subjective but IMO Lebron is better than MJ and it's not even close. He can play ever position, defend, pass better etc. If he were a ball hog shooting he'd no doubt be 30+ every year. That said, I can't stomach his arrogance (e.g. The King) and his perpetually surrounding himself with the best mercenaries. Not what sports is supposed to be about in my book

Magic and Larry were both better. two amazing teams

No. Jordan is atleast 1a lbj 1b due to handchecking.

GustavBahler wrote:

Uptown wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

Just imagine if MJ played 4yrs with Ewing
Played 3 yrs with Gary payton and Kemp
Played 4 yrs with Shaq

won championships at every stop, would you still have the same level of respect you have for him now?

The bulls were so good that they almost won a championship without him.

As a die hard Knick fan, I can admit that the Bulls probably would have won if we didn't get the benefit of a Hugh Hollins whistle.

Also keep in mind, Jordan won all of his rings with one of if not the greatest coach of all time. LeBron never had the benefit of playing for a coach on that level.

Imagine what Jordan could have done without hand-checking.

Check this video out if you haven't seen it before.

Westbrook in the 90s or early 2000s may have been a monster whose career would be looked at differently if he played in these eras.

Lebron had gone to 10 finals. 2 of them weren't really finals material in terms of roster around Lebron. That's what holds weight to me. The team team that did win its first faced off a Thunder team that had 3 future MVPs(KD, Westbrook, Harden) on it as well as Ibaka. So while Lebron did team up. You still have to look at the comp faced in the finals. The loss to Dallas really really hurts though.

newyorknewyork wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Uptown wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

Just imagine if MJ played 4yrs with Ewing
Played 3 yrs with Gary payton and Kemp
Played 4 yrs with Shaq

won championships at every stop, would you still have the same level of respect you have for him now?

The bulls were so good that they almost won a championship without him.

As a die hard Knick fan, I can admit that the Bulls probably would have won if we didn't get the benefit of a Hugh Hollins whistle.

Also keep in mind, Jordan won all of his rings with one of if not the greatest coach of all time. LeBron never had the benefit of playing for a coach on that level.

Imagine what Jordan could have done without hand-checking.

Check this video out if you haven't seen it before.

Didnt watch the whole thing, but it sounds mostly like a semantic argument. No, hand-checking wasnt entirely eliminated. It was reduced to the point where it has been much less prevalent. You cant lean on a player with the ball like before. That happened all the time. Even the narrator admits that.

The physicality of the game is another difference. What would be a hard foul back then is a flagrant now. Seen too many games, not to notice the difference. A few youtube clips cant rewrite history. Im all for revisting the past, but this is a very selective look from thousands of games.

GustavBahler wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Uptown wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

Just imagine if MJ played 4yrs with Ewing
Played 3 yrs with Gary payton and Kemp
Played 4 yrs with Shaq

won championships at every stop, would you still have the same level of respect you have for him now?

The bulls were so good that they almost won a championship without him.

As a die hard Knick fan, I can admit that the Bulls probably would have won if we didn't get the benefit of a Hugh Hollins whistle.

Also keep in mind, Jordan won all of his rings with one of if not the greatest coach of all time. LeBron never had the benefit of playing for a coach on that level.

Imagine what Jordan could have done without hand-checking.

Check this video out if you haven't seen it before.

Didnt watch the whole thing, but it sounds mostly like a semantic argument. No, hand-checking wasnt entirely eliminated. It was reduced to the point where it has been much less prevalent. You cant lean on a player with the ball like before. That happened all the time. Even the narrator admits that.

The physicality of the game is another difference. What would be a hard foul back then is a flagrant now. Seen too many games, not to notice the difference. A few youtube clips cant rewrite history. Im all for revisting the past, but this is a very selective look from thousands of games.

Look at it this way -- what kind of career would Charles Oakley have now? Anthony Mason?

KnickDanger wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Uptown wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

Just imagine if MJ played 4yrs with Ewing
Played 3 yrs with Gary payton and Kemp
Played 4 yrs with Shaq

won championships at every stop, would you still have the same level of respect you have for him now?

The bulls were so good that they almost won a championship without him.

As a die hard Knick fan, I can admit that the Bulls probably would have won if we didn't get the benefit of a Hugh Hollins whistle.

Also keep in mind, Jordan won all of his rings with one of if not the greatest coach of all time. LeBron never had the benefit of playing for a coach on that level.

Imagine what Jordan could have done without hand-checking.

Check this video out if you haven't seen it before.

Didnt watch the whole thing, but it sounds mostly like a semantic argument. No, hand-checking wasnt entirely eliminated. It was reduced to the point where it has been much less prevalent. You cant lean on a player with the ball like before. That happened all the time. Even the narrator admits that.

The physicality of the game is another difference. What would be a hard foul back then is a flagrant now. Seen too many games, not to notice the difference. A few youtube clips cant rewrite history. Im all for revisting the past, but this is a very selective look from thousands of games.

Look at it this way -- what kind of career would Charles Oakley have now? Anthony Mason?

BigDaddyG wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Uptown wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

Just imagine if MJ played 4yrs with Ewing
Played 3 yrs with Gary payton and Kemp
Played 4 yrs with Shaq

won championships at every stop, would you still have the same level of respect you have for him now?

The bulls were so good that they almost won a championship without him.

As a die hard Knick fan, I can admit that the Bulls probably would have won if we didn't get the benefit of a Hugh Hollins whistle.

Also keep in mind, Jordan won all of his rings with one of if not the greatest coach of all time. LeBron never had the benefit of playing for a coach on that level.

Imagine what Jordan could have done without hand-checking.

Check this video out if you haven't seen it before.

Didnt watch the whole thing, but it sounds mostly like a semantic argument. No, hand-checking wasnt entirely eliminated. It was reduced to the point where it has been much less prevalent. You cant lean on a player with the ball like before. That happened all the time. Even the narrator admits that.

The physicality of the game is another difference. What would be a hard foul back then is a flagrant now. Seen too many games, not to notice the difference. A few youtube clips cant rewrite history. Im all for revisting the past, but this is a very selective look from thousands of games.

Look at it this way -- what kind of career would Charles Oakley have now? Anthony Mason?

I look at guys like Draymond Green and PJ Tucker and think Mason would've been very successful in today's game. He was very good passer and Don Nelson wanted to run the offense through him.
He averaged about six assists a game for the Hornets in 98. Oakley was also a very underrated passer and I could see him as a reserve center if he played today.

Didnt Riley briefly experiment with Mason as a point forward?

Oakley would have to deal with more bigs who could shoot the 3. Agree he would be a reserve today. Agree Mason would thrive today with his speed.

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

I don't know about that, the thing I've taken is you can have great success with a variety of approaches, though maybe you need a PF/C who can switch between those two positions, rather than just a straight up C

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Uptown wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

Just imagine if MJ played 4yrs with Ewing
Played 3 yrs with Gary payton and Kemp
Played 4 yrs with Shaq

won championships at every stop, would you still have the same level of respect you have for him now?

The bulls were so good that they almost won a championship without him.

As a die hard Knick fan, I can admit that the Bulls probably would have won if we didn't get the benefit of a Hugh Hollins whistle.

Also keep in mind, Jordan won all of his rings with one of if not the greatest coach of all time. LeBron never had the benefit of playing for a coach on that level.

Imagine what Jordan could have done without hand-checking.

Check this video out if you haven't seen it before.

Didnt watch the whole thing, but it sounds mostly like a semantic argument. No, hand-checking wasnt entirely eliminated. It was reduced to the point where it has been much less prevalent. You cant lean on a player with the ball like before. That happened all the time. Even the narrator admits that.

The physicality of the game is another difference. What would be a hard foul back then is a flagrant now. Seen too many games, not to notice the difference. A few youtube clips cant rewrite history. Im all for revisting the past, but this is a very selective look from thousands of games.

Look at it this way -- what kind of career would Charles Oakley have now? Anthony Mason?

I look at guys like Draymond Green and PJ Tucker and think Mason would've been very successful in today's game. He was very good passer and Don Nelson wanted to run the offense through him.
He averaged about six assists a game for the Hornets in 98. Oakley was also a very underrated passer and I could see him as a reserve center if he played today.

Didnt Riley briefly experiment with Mason as a point forward?

Oakley would have to deal with more bigs who could shoot the 3. Agree he would be a reserve today. Agree Mason would thrive today with his speed.

Oakley was a really good outside shooter - the question is would he have been able to step out and develop a 3pt. I think so.

I guess the big question is foot speed. I wouldn't say either Oakley or Mase wouldn't have been able to adjust- part of what we loved about them was their intimidation and there were any number of regular fouls that would today result in immediate ejection. Obviously, they would have been able to limit those.

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

How about this- the best players end up winning the NBA Championship. If you don't have the best player in the league, you have no hope.

See Hinkie.

The NBA, unlike any other team sport, can be impacted more by individual talent. Depth and style of play are important, but unless you have the best player on the court, you're probably not winning.

And for us, there is a long way for the Knicks to have the kind of talent on the roster that will enable them to compete for the playoffs, let along the championship.

franco12 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Uptown wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

Just imagine if MJ played 4yrs with Ewing
Played 3 yrs with Gary payton and Kemp
Played 4 yrs with Shaq

won championships at every stop, would you still have the same level of respect you have for him now?

The bulls were so good that they almost won a championship without him.

As a die hard Knick fan, I can admit that the Bulls probably would have won if we didn't get the benefit of a Hugh Hollins whistle.

Also keep in mind, Jordan won all of his rings with one of if not the greatest coach of all time. LeBron never had the benefit of playing for a coach on that level.

Imagine what Jordan could have done without hand-checking.

Check this video out if you haven't seen it before.

Didnt watch the whole thing, but it sounds mostly like a semantic argument. No, hand-checking wasnt entirely eliminated. It was reduced to the point where it has been much less prevalent. You cant lean on a player with the ball like before. That happened all the time. Even the narrator admits that.

The physicality of the game is another difference. What would be a hard foul back then is a flagrant now. Seen too many games, not to notice the difference. A few youtube clips cant rewrite history. Im all for revisting the past, but this is a very selective look from thousands of games.

Look at it this way -- what kind of career would Charles Oakley have now? Anthony Mason?

I look at guys like Draymond Green and PJ Tucker and think Mason would've been very successful in today's game. He was very good passer and Don Nelson wanted to run the offense through him.
He averaged about six assists a game for the Hornets in 98. Oakley was also a very underrated passer and I could see him as a reserve center if he played today.

Didnt Riley briefly experiment with Mason as a point forward?

Oakley would have to deal with more bigs who could shoot the 3. Agree he would be a reserve today. Agree Mason would thrive today with his speed.

Oakley was a really good outside shooter - the question is would he have been able to step out and develop a 3pt. I think so.

I guess the big question is foot speed. I wouldn't say either Oakley or Mase wouldn't have been able to adjust- part of what we loved about them was their intimidation and there were any number of regular fouls that would today result in immediate ejection. Obviously, they would have been able to limit those.

Agree about Oak and the 3, he liked the baseline jumper. Strongly disagree about Mase. The biggest reason coaches flirted with the idea of Mason running the point was his foot speed. Which for his size, was more of a novelty back then. Like Zion is today. As fas as their speed, relative to their body type.