Panos wrote:Philc1 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:SergioNYK wrote:I did not see Bird in his prime but I've seen all those old Celtics/Lakers game and he was GREAT. Jokic is great too but he's got to get two more rings. Which I think he will.
But comparing players from the 80s to today is so dumb imo. The game is completely different. Players today have better training, better coaching, individual coaching, diet, ect.
Youre right about eras/ The 80s MUCH more physical. Larry Bird was one of a kind a superstar but Jokic(2nd rd pick) is a quiet chubby serbian who has more skills than t any big man of all time. He avg a triple double and won a championship with other players who are not stars. Jokic is so good we just dont understand it because he plays like hes throwing knuckleballs.
The quality of the basketball was better in the 80s and 90;s. The nba today is all about 3 point shooting and fast breaks due to rule changes in the early 2000;s to pump up scoring and favor the offense. Bird and Jokic play different positions. A more apt comparison would be Olajuwon or Patrick to Jokic
Love Patrick but you can't compare court vision. Patrick had none. He only passed the ball out of the post to demand it back again. He was a bit of a black hole
Yes I agree Jokic > Ewing. One has a ring the other doesn’t although the refs made sure no one not named Jordan could win a championship when no Pat was in his absolute prime with best supporting cast
You won't find too many bigger Ewing stans than myself but Jokic is better.
Depends which Ewing you're talking about. 80s Ewing imo would devour an 80s version of Jokic on both ends.
A modern Ewing would be more offensively equiped with the long range shot being a thing, but Jokic is far more versatile offensively. Defensively though, there's no question.
An image of a 90s Ewing vs peak Jokic is simply blurring the comparison.
If two league MVPs don't do it, the chip does. Jokic over Ewing.
Would Ewing be as effective in this era? Perhaps the younger Ewing for a time.
Jokic in any era would be pretty darn good.
We hold Ewing to a high standard in the parts.
Jokic vs Moses Malone. Jokic still has 3-5 years left at high level. Malone played until he was 39.
Moses Malone Played 82 games at age 35, and again at age 36. Run any comparison of Malone to Ewing and its not that Patrick comes up small. They compare very well. But.......Malone has 3 league Mvp and that Chip with Philly. His run in Houston was very very good. Malones rebounding is remembered but he put up more points than I recall.
Nalod wrote:If two league MVPs don't do it, the chip does. Jokic over Ewing.
Would Ewing be as effective in this era? Perhaps the younger Ewing for a time.
Jokic in any era would be pretty darn good. We hold Ewing to a high standard in the parts.
Jokic vs Moses Malone. Jokic still has 3-5 years left at high level. Malone played until he was 39.
Moses Malone Played 82 games at age 35, and again at age 36. Run any comparison of Malone to Ewing and its not that Patrick comes up small. They compare very well. But.......Malone has 3 league Mvp and that Chip with Philly. His run in Houston was very very good. Malones rebounding is remembered but he put up more points than I recall.
Emphasis on young Ewing. As you know his knees were shot not long after entering the league. Jokic has more tools in the toolbox. Ewing was a much better defender though.
Ewing was counted on more to be the number one option, from day one. Jokic made all rookie I believe, but he wasnt as important to the team's success. Grew into that role gradually. Less pressure, he wasnt the number one pick.
THere are 16 centers that have won League regular season MVPs.
Ewing is not on the list.
Willis has one and two rings.
THis is not to diminish Ewing or the era at all but proper context in the big picture.
Jokic has two and a chip.
These things matter. So does the team your own. Sometimes great players did not get proper support.
Ewing was better than Dave Cowens and Wes unseld, but in their time and place earned league MVP. Cowens had range and would be a 4 into Today's league. Same for McAdoo.
LivingLegend wrote:I used to play pick up with a guy that covers Nuggets on tv - at one time he said Luka was already better vs Bird and that was about 4 years ago —- and I scoffed.But now - kind of think Luka is also better- especially if he was running with McKale, Parrish, D- Johnson and Ainge.
I think it’s just the passage of time and skills getting better and better so hard to compare generations
A fair comparison has to be based on same generation. Does anybody doubt that Bird would be dominant today, adapted to the speed and intensity of today's NBA? I am certain Larry would be a top 10 player now.
Moonangie wrote:LivingLegend wrote:I used to play pick up with a guy that covers Nuggets on tv - at one time he said Luka was already better vs Bird and that was about 4 years ago —- and I scoffed.But now - kind of think Luka is also better- especially if he was running with McKale, Parrish, D- Johnson and Ainge.
I think it’s just the passage of time and skills getting better and better so hard to compare generations
A fair comparison has to be based on same generation. Does anybody doubt that Bird would be dominant today, adapted to the speed and intensity of today's NBA? I am certain Larry would be a top 10 player now.
This. Scoring is inflated due to pace, spacing and reliance on the three pointers. We're comparing legacies at this point, which is hard to do for a career that's still in progress. I have no doubt Mark Jackson would kill Bob Cousey one on one. But I'd still place Bob's career over Mark's.
BigDaddyG wrote:Moonangie wrote:LivingLegend wrote:I used to play pick up with a guy that covers Nuggets on tv - at one time he said Luka was already better vs Bird and that was about 4 years ago —- and I scoffed.But now - kind of think Luka is also better- especially if he was running with McKale, Parrish, D- Johnson and Ainge.
I think it’s just the passage of time and skills getting better and better so hard to compare generations
A fair comparison has to be based on same generation. Does anybody doubt that Bird would be dominant today, adapted to the speed and intensity of today's NBA? I am certain Larry would be a top 10 player now.
This. Scoring is inflated due to pace, spacing and reliance on the three pointers. We're comparing legacies at this point, which is hard to do for a career that's still in progress. I have no doubt Mark Jackson would kill Bob Cousey one on one. But I'd still place Bob's career over Mark's.
Decision making doesnt get enough emphasis in comparing players across generations. Not just the skillset. Bird was a better decision maker than Luka, it played a big part in the Celtics success.
