Moderators: Clav, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid, cupcakesnake, bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285
donnieme wrote:00 Spurs were disliked by masses/casuals and considered boring. Even on Rgm they weren't too popular. Fwiw don't agree with it.
Or you understand what was practised, what wasm't allowed under the rules, what wasn't conceivable. Yes the game is built on the backs of giants.Haldi wrote:Dutchball97 wrote:I don't understand how you could be alright with midrange chucking but the moment they take two steps back it is suddenly an issue.
Its jealousy and its pathetic. They recognize that their superstars they loved just weren’t good enough to shoot that well from further out from any type of pass, pumpfake or off any dribble like todays players can. Most don’t even admit that todays 3 point shooters are all miles ahead of even guys like Bird, Miller or Mullin and they all think if Bird would have a green light today he would be doing all the same stepback 3s and pick and roll pops that we see today. Truth is there is a reason players back then only took 3s when they were absolutely wide open. Any coach in the 80s would’ve met Curry or Dame and wouldve gave them the greenest of lights too.
Go look at 90% of Birds 3s and there isnt a defender within like 10 feet of him. Miller was shooting with defenders closer to him closing in from being picked but he couldn’t shoot of the dribble like guys today. Now guys are shooting from several feet behind the line with a hand challenge, off any type of move and still hitting at almost the same percentages as bird. If you can’t understand that, its either a severe lack of basketball knowledge or simply like I said before, just pathetic jealousy.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
prophet_of_rage wrote:Or you understand what was practised, what wasm't allowed under the rules, what wasn't conceivable. Yes the game is built on the backs of giants.Haldi wrote:Dutchball97 wrote:I don't understand how you could be alright with midrange chucking but the moment they take two steps back it is suddenly an issue.
Its jealousy and its pathetic. They recognize that their superstars they loved just weren’t good enough to shoot that well from further out from any type of pass, pumpfake or off any dribble like todays players can. Most don’t even admit that todays 3 point shooters are all miles ahead of even guys like Bird, Miller or Mullin and they all think if Bird would have a green light today he would be doing all the same stepback 3s and pick and roll pops that we see today. Truth is there is a reason players back then only took 3s when they were absolutely wide open. Any coach in the 80s would’ve met Curry or Dame and wouldve gave them the greenest of lights too.
Go look at 90% of Birds 3s and there isnt a defender within like 10 feet of him. Miller was shooting with defenders closer to him closing in from being picked but he couldn’t shoot of the dribble like guys today. Now guys are shooting from several feet behind the line with a hand challenge, off any type of move and still hitting at almost the same percentages as bird. If you can’t understand that, its either a severe lack of basketball knowledge or simply like I said before, just pathetic jealousy.
The trouble for the old school with the modern three point shooting is that it eliminates a lot of post play and the one-on-one battles that occurred below the free throw line.
Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk
donnieme wrote:00 Spurs were disliked by masses/casuals and considered boring. Even on Rgm they weren't too popular. Fwiw don't agree with it.
Nazrmohamed wrote:prophet_of_rage wrote:Or you understand what was practised, what wasm't allowed under the rules, what wasn't conceivable. Yes the game is built on the backs of giants.Haldi wrote:
Its jealousy and its pathetic. They recognize that their superstars they loved just weren’t good enough to shoot that well from further out from any type of pass, pumpfake or off any dribble like todays players can. Most don’t even admit that todays 3 point shooters are all miles ahead of even guys like Bird, Miller or Mullin and they all think if Bird would have a green light today he would be doing all the same stepback 3s and pick and roll pops that we see today. Truth is there is a reason players back then only took 3s when they were absolutely wide open. Any coach in the 80s would’ve met Curry or Dame and wouldve gave them the greenest of lights too.
Go look at 90% of Birds 3s and there isnt a defender within like 10 feet of him. Miller was shooting with defenders closer to him closing in from being picked but he couldn’t shoot of the dribble like guys today. Now guys are shooting from several feet behind the line with a hand challenge, off any type of move and still hitting at almost the same percentages as bird. If you can’t understand that, its either a severe lack of basketball knowledge or simply like I said before, just pathetic jealousy.
The trouble for the old school with the modern three point shooting is that it eliminates a lot of post play and the one-on-one battles that occurred below the free throw line.
Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk
What he said was categorically ridiculous. There are definitely more shooters today than ever, nobody can argue that but coaches coach to the trends of the league they grow up in and I don't think fans of today understand that it goes beyond skill, it's culture as well. Many coaches would've given Lillard the greenlight..... at SG or some other position that doesn't involve running an offense. Many coaches would've harped heavily on his defense, on his assist totals and the fact that at PG he's out here scoring 30 while the next best player is averaging 15. That would've been a problem back then. Many 3pt shooters wouldn't even get the opportunity to realize thier 3pt shooting greatness because for many coaches it would be like a QB throwing a hail Mary on every play.
I'm not trying to say today's player isn't really as good or that yesterdays player is any better. I just can't understand why fans of today can't understand that many behaviors weren't favored or fans of old can't acknowledge how much bigger and more athletic even a guy you might find soft is to yesterdays player. I think the difference between Bird of yesteryear and Bird today is that today he may never have played a minute of SF and played PF exclusively and yes, at stretch 4 I imagine him to be just as dominant. Good shooter, good passer, good rebounder. Maybe not a great defender but people out here acting like Luka plays any defense, like Harden plays any defense. He'd be to me in the same class of player. Maybe too slow at SF but then again, Luka isn't all that fast, Luka ain't all that athletic. He's crafty and that's what Bird was. The difference is today in practice, coach would be applauding him for extending his range not criticizing him for it.
It wasn't considered a good shot folks. And because it wasn't considered a good shot it wasn't valued. The moment it became valued everybody got better at it. There are guys in this league that started out not taking 3s and now take 3s. Brook Lopez is a solid 3pt shooter. You gonna tellme Larry Bird wouldn't become a good 3py shooter? Cmon. Have some ability to project, to extrapolate.
