Moderators: Sleepy51, Chris Porter's Hair, floppymoose
EvanZ wrote:I think Shaq probably would have stayed in better shape if he was playing today. He was so athletic I think he’s still be awesome today. Talent wise no reason he couldn’t be what Embiid is.
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
KevinMcreynolds wrote:BIG DICK BOB DOIN WORK
KGdaBom wrote:You can go back and read every post I made. Never said one bad thing about one person until Coxy came up with his Vagiclean comment
ShootersShoot wrote:CDM_Stats wrote:ShootersShoot wrote:
You know why there arent many like karl malone? Because he is a top 25-30 player of all time.
Ok so... where are the cut rate versions of him? Besides Europe and China, I mean. Who would be the best comp today anyways. Remember, you need a pick and roll post player with a midrange jumper who can only defend on the low block on post-ups. Quick hands too, though the game was much more contact oriented than now..Would I want draymond as a first. second, or third option over karl malone? No!
Would I take karl malone as a role player over draymond? Yes!
Now thats a terrible takeLike I said, put your money where your mouth is. Ask other people who arent warriors fans who would take draymond over karl malone and in wat scenarios..reddit/GB anywhere else.
Yes, rally the casual fan avengers.. lol I dont care at all what the majority thinks, its still wrong. You'd throw a plodding halfcourt guy onto the Warriors, someone who thrived in large part because of the rules of his era and call it a good move? This kind of bland thinking is why fans miss out on so many roleplaying fits.. its a team game that requires roster balance. Thank the basketball gods we've had a front office that's mostly understood this instead of just throwing talent together and hoping it works out.. kinda like the 04 Lakers? Or the 2012 Lakers?
Basketball's a strategic team game that requires balance, but most fans only care about the stats that can be counted
The 04 lakers had a 40 year old karl malone. How good do you think a 40 year old draymond would be?
2012 lakers lost kobe for the season before the playoffs.
Look, if I cannot convince you one of the best power forwards of all time is a better choice than draymond for a contender, especially as a top 3 player, then there is no convincing you. Let's just agree to disagree.
Twinkie defense wrote:Scotty2Hotty wrote:Twinkie defense wrote:All four of them will be in the Hall of Fame.
Klay and Durant will be in the HOF. What other 90s Jazz players will be?
If you seriously believe Steph and Draymond could have won rings without Klay and Durant…or with the 98 Jazz roster minus Stockton and Malone…a neurologist appointment may be in your near future.
The three are key - Steph, Klay, Dray. But don't underestimate the importance of Iggy, Livingston, Bogut... and of course Steve Kerr replacing Mark Jackson's archaic iso-ball offense.
My point is that Steph and Draymond are irreplaceable. Substitute Zach Randolph, Kevin Love, Kenneth Faried for Draymond and that's just not the dynasty Warriors we know. Those guys may be very good but the whole offensive and defensive philosophies change. We're no longer switching all five positions. There is no Death Lineup. We play more pick and roll and less motion. Steph changes, and I would say becomes a lesser version - by necessity becoming ball-dominant instead of leaning on his beautiful off-ball game that has flummoxed so many defenses.
Of course the Warriors can win and have won titles without KD, which is self-evident.
I love Klay. He has been a perfect compliment for Steph and Draymond. But substitute Manu Ginobili for Klay and the Warriors are still the dynasty Warriors we know.
Twinkie defense wrote:I also think Shaq would get played off the floor in today's NBA. The League has changed, the rules have changed, and we have different types of star players and different offensive and defensive philosophies as a result.
Scotty2Hotty wrote:Twinkie defense wrote:I also think Shaq would get played off the floor in today's NBA. The League has changed, the rules have changed, and we have different types of star players and different offensive and defensive philosophies as a result.
Yet the last three MVPs are Centers.
No, Shaq can’t shoot FTs or threes, but he would still be unguardable and get his 27-30 PPG in today’s game.
CDM_Stats wrote:ShootersShoot wrote:CDM_Stats wrote:
Ok so... where are the cut rate versions of him? Besides Europe and China, I mean. Who would be the best comp today anyways. Remember, you need a pick and roll post player with a midrange jumper who can only defend on the low block on post-ups. Quick hands too, though the game was much more contact oriented than now..
Now thats a terrible take
Yes, rally the casual fan avengers.. lol I dont care at all what the majority thinks, its still wrong. You'd throw a plodding halfcourt guy onto the Warriors, someone who thrived in large part because of the rules of his era and call it a good move? This kind of bland thinking is why fans miss out on so many roleplaying fits.. its a team game that requires roster balance. Thank the basketball gods we've had a front office that's mostly understood this instead of just throwing talent together and hoping it works out.. kinda like the 04 Lakers? Or the 2012 Lakers?
Basketball's a strategic team game that requires balance, but most fans only care about the stats that can be counted
The 04 lakers had a 40 year old karl malone. How good do you think a 40 year old draymond would be?
2012 lakers lost kobe for the season before the playoffs.
Look, if I cannot convince you one of the best power forwards of all time is a better choice than draymond for a contender, especially as a top 3 player, then there is no convincing you. Let's just agree to disagree.
its because we're having 2 different arguments, you keep reverting it back to what you want it to be.
Unless you actually do think Malone would not only survive today's game, but thrive more than Draymond. Then it is definitely a disgareement
CDM_Stats wrote:Dray is very replaceable - that’s why there are so many players with his skill set thriving. Versatile ace defenders that can also run a motion offense? Can’t turn around without bumping into 10 in the NBA, apparently
Scotty2Hotty wrote:CDM_Stats wrote:Dray is very replaceable - that’s why there are so many players with his skill set thriving. Versatile ace defenders that can also run a motion offense? Can’t turn around without bumping into 10 in the NBA, apparently
Never said there are Draymond clones. Said he is replaceable. Big difference.
Can compensate less defense with more points. Doesn’t have to be a dramatic dropoff in defense. Wouldn’t be as offensively handicapped when Looney is on the floor. Would have far less personal and technical fouls.
That is just a one-for-one trade. The wishful trade is a two-for-one i.e. trade Draymond + Kuminga for A.D. I’d rather take my chances with Street Clothes.
ShootersShoot wrote:CDM_Stats wrote:ShootersShoot wrote:
The 04 lakers had a 40 year old karl malone. How good do you think a 40 year old draymond would be?
2012 lakers lost kobe for the season before the playoffs.
Look, if I cannot convince you one of the best power forwards of all time is a better choice than draymond for a contender, especially as a top 3 player, then there is no convincing you. Let's just agree to disagree.
its because we're having 2 different arguments, you keep reverting it back to what you want it to be.
Unless you actually do think Malone would not only survive today's game, but thrive more than Draymond. Then it is definitely a disgareement
Malone was a 3x 1st team all defensive player, 11x 1st team all nba, 2x mvp. He is a bigger version of zion. He is clearly not much different stylistically offensively and even better than sabonis and way better defensively than both those guys..Why wouldnt he do well in this era? You are just way overthinking things. A first ballot hall of famer from the 90s wouldnt be able to play today? Stupid take and I truly mean that.
You were the one who brought up the 04 lakers and 12 lakers. But those teams were more hampered by big having names who were already way past their primes and injuries as well. Not a good example when comparing to prime draymond vs prime malone.
Scotty2Hotty wrote:CDM_Stats wrote:Dray is very replaceable - that’s why there are so many players with his skill set thriving. Versatile ace defenders that can also run a motion offense? Can’t turn around without bumping into 10 in the NBA, apparently
Never said there are Draymond clones. Said he is replaceable. Big difference.
Can compensate less defense with more points. Doesn’t have to be a dramatic dropoff in defense. Wouldn’t be as offensively handicapped when Looney is on the floor. Would have far less personal and technical fouls.
That is just a one-for-one trade. The wishful trade is a two-for-one i.e. trade Draymond + Kuminga for A.D. I’d rather take my chances with Street Clothes.
CDM_Stats wrote:ShootersShoot wrote:CDM_Stats wrote:
its because we're having 2 different arguments, you keep reverting it back to what you want it to be.
Unless you actually do think Malone would not only survive today's game, but thrive more than Draymond. Then it is definitely a disgareement
Malone was a 3x 1st team all defensive player, 11x 1st team all nba, 2x mvp. He is a bigger version of zion. He is clearly not much different stylistically offensively and even better than sabonis and way better defensively than both those guys..Why wouldnt he do well in this era? You are just way overthinking things. A first ballot hall of famer from the 90s wouldnt be able to play today? Stupid take and I truly mean that.
You were the one who brought up the 04 lakers and 12 lakers. But those teams were more hampered by big having names who were already way past their primes and injuries as well. Not a good example when comparing to prime draymond vs prime malone.
yeah, because the archetype is clearly there and thriving Sabonis.. what a success story there!
No I'm clocking it accurately, Malone's type isn't very useful in today's NBA. All defense team back in the 80s and 90s? Wow.. he must have been really good at the one kind of defense PFs were expected to play back then.
Really excited to hear what the GB thinks of it though
CDM_Stats wrote:Scotty2Hotty wrote:CDM_Stats wrote:Dray is very replaceable - that’s why there are so many players with his skill set thriving. Versatile ace defenders that can also run a motion offense? Can’t turn around without bumping into 10 in the NBA, apparently
Never said there are Draymond clones. Said he is replaceable. Big difference.
Can compensate less defense with more points. Doesn’t have to be a dramatic dropoff in defense. Wouldn’t be as offensively handicapped when Looney is on the floor. Would have far less personal and technical fouls.
That is just a one-for-one trade. The wishful trade is a two-for-one i.e. trade Draymond + Kuminga for A.D. I’d rather take my chances with Street Clothes.
It doesnt have to be a dramatic drop-off in defense? Ok.. so there are lots of players who can defend 1-5 and QB a defense? Or are you saying that there are options out there who can simulate that impact on offense? If so.. who? How do we get them? I dont think you guys at all understand how important Draymond is, even though we've had stretches without him where our team offense and defense took significant hits..
That wishful trade would be great, but.. there's a reason its wishful.
ShootersShoot wrote:CDM_Stats wrote:ShootersShoot wrote:
Malone was a 3x 1st team all defensive player, 11x 1st team all nba, 2x mvp. He is a bigger version of zion. He is clearly not much different stylistically offensively and even better than sabonis and way better defensively than both those guys..Why wouldnt he do well in this era? You are just way overthinking things. A first ballot hall of famer from the 90s wouldnt be able to play today? Stupid take and I truly mean that.
You were the one who brought up the 04 lakers and 12 lakers. But those teams were more hampered by big having names who were already way past their primes and injuries as well. Not a good example when comparing to prime draymond vs prime malone.
yeah, because the archetype is clearly there and thriving Sabonis.. what a success story there!
No I'm clocking it accurately, Malone's type isn't very useful in today's NBA. All defense team back in the 80s and 90s? Wow.. he must have been really good at the one kind of defense PFs were expected to play back then.
Really excited to hear what the GB thinks of it though
Sabonis is an all star player and a cornerstone of a top seeded team last season. Malone is a vastly superior player on both ends. Therefore he would perform better today. How can you not understand such a simple concept?
ShootersShoot wrote:CDM_Stats wrote:Scotty2Hotty wrote:
Never said there are Draymond clones. Said he is replaceable. Big difference.
Can compensate less defense with more points. Doesn’t have to be a dramatic dropoff in defense. Wouldn’t be as offensively handicapped when Looney is on the floor. Would have far less personal and technical fouls.
That is just a one-for-one trade. The wishful trade is a two-for-one i.e. trade Draymond + Kuminga for A.D. I’d rather take my chances with Street Clothes.
It doesnt have to be a dramatic drop-off in defense? Ok.. so there are lots of players who can defend 1-5 and QB a defense? Or are you saying that there are options out there who can simulate that impact on offense? If so.. who? How do we get them? I dont think you guys at all understand how important Draymond is, even though we've had stretches without him where our team offense and defense took significant hits..
That wishful trade would be great, but.. there's a reason its wishful.
Look, we all understand how good draymond is. But when people say stuff like some of the top players in the golden age of the nba couldnt cut it in the nba today, that is where the disconnect is.
Looney, malone, klay, steph would absolutely wreck the league.
CDM_Stats wrote:ShootersShoot wrote:CDM_Stats wrote:
It doesnt have to be a dramatic drop-off in defense? Ok.. so there are lots of players who can defend 1-5 and QB a defense? Or are you saying that there are options out there who can simulate that impact on offense? If so.. who? How do we get them? I dont think you guys at all understand how important Draymond is, even though we've had stretches without him where our team offense and defense took significant hits..
That wishful trade would be great, but.. there's a reason its wishful.
Look, we all understand how good draymond is. But when people say stuff like some of the top players in the golden age of the nba couldnt cut it in the nba today, that is where the disconnect is.
Looney, malone, klay, steph would absolutely wreck the league.
Big difference between "couldn't cut it" and "less impactful than one of the game's premier defenders/playmakers in an era where defensive versatility is key"
Maybe thats the problem. Your argument is TOO simple
CDM_Stats wrote:ShootersShoot wrote:CDM_Stats wrote:
yeah, because the archetype is clearly there and thriving Sabonis.. what a success story there!
No I'm clocking it accurately, Malone's type isn't very useful in today's NBA. All defense team back in the 80s and 90s? Wow.. he must have been really good at the one kind of defense PFs were expected to play back then.
Really excited to hear what the GB thinks of it though
Sabonis is an all star player and a cornerstone of a top seeded team last season. Malone is a vastly superior player on both ends. Therefore he would perform better today. How can you not understand such a simple concept?
You're right, its extremely simple. Simple isn't good when you want to talk accuracy. Like, for example, its an extremely simple take to look at somewhat similar skillsets and equate them across timelines. Also its extremely simple to frame Sabonis as a winner when his career highlight is being a #3 seed eliminated in the first round by a 6 seed
But here's something that will blow simple minds too: Sabonis is better than Malone in today's game
ShootersShoot wrote:CDM_Stats wrote:ShootersShoot wrote:
Look, we all understand how good draymond is. But when people say stuff like some of the top players in the golden age of the nba couldnt cut it in the nba today, that is where the disconnect is.
Looney, malone, klay, steph would absolutely wreck the league.
Big difference between "couldn't cut it" and "less impactful than one of the game's premier defenders/playmakers in an era where defensive versatility is key"
Maybe thats the problem. Your argument is TOO simple
Malone is a superior offensive force and a top flight defender/rebounder. Would I take that over elite defense and great passing but well below average scoring? 90% of the time yes. In what era can draymond be an mvp candidate? Would sabonis be a 2x mvp in the 90s? Such terrible understanding of basketball.
Return to Golden State Warriors
