Would Cousy have excelled in this era?

[writerman]

-= original quote snipped =-



Cousy didn't like Wilt (probably the same with Oscar) and the rest are homer picks. But do you think you're a better judge of impact than the player himself that knows his limits when he played compared to the players he watch right now?

He also thought John Havlicek would never amount to anything in the league.

Take that, along with his other wildly incorrect assessments listed above, and regardless of how good or bad he would be in this era, it should be clear this is not a man who was a great judge of basketball talent/ability, and it's not a stretch to say perhaps his own included.

[cwas2882]

I'd disagree. I'd say there's a huge difference in evaluating yourself v. someone else.

About the Havlicek thing, when did he say that? Was it before or after they drafted him?

[writerman]

I'd disagree. I'd say there's a huge difference in evaluating yourself v. someone else.

About the Havlicek thing, when did he say that? Was it before or after they drafted him?

An NBA All-Rookie Team selection for 1962-63, Havlicek displayed great hustle and tenacious defense, but he didn't impress everyone in his first season. According to Sports Illustrated, Cousy assessed him as a "non-shooter who would probably burn himself out."

http://www.nba.com/history/players/havlicek_bio.html

[writerman]

-= original quote snipped =-




I've stated that I think Cousy would be an NBA player, but I don't think that he would have excelled in today's era. I can't say that he would have been a good shooter, or that he may have played on a team that gets him more open shots. To me these things are external factors to the actual evidence we have at had.

I can say that the competition for PG is much tougher now as more people play the game. I can say that the defense is better now. Guards are bigger and stronger. There are more run and jump athletes in the game now.

I don't buy that players now would be more gassed playing in the 50s/60s. Today's athletes are premier ones who keep their bodies in impeccable shape for the most part. Science has come a long way since then, and we've developed state of the art training facilities that allow athletes of today to keep their bodies at an elite level.

If we're talking about a mirror image of Cousy playing in today's game, (which I have been) I can't see him being one of the best.

that the diference in size between today's average NBA player and and in Cousy's era is less than an inch--and that is largely a function of how they are measured in their respective eras (shoes today, barefoot in the 60's) Also don't be fooled by the rerlatively slight-sounding weights assessed to players of that era. Teams listed players at their college wei even when it was obvious those weights were wildly inaccurate.

I've been watching the NBA since the days of the great Russell Celtic teams, and all this stuff--and that's what it is, ignorant stuff at that--about today's players being bigger/stronger/faster is just a crock.

Typical perceptions of today's posters--and even a relatively informed poster at that--was in another thread when someone stated in a inter-era matchup they would use Chauncey Billups (who IMO is a helluva player, BTW) to overpower Walt Frazier. I had to point out that (and all you have to do is check the stats) Frazier was not only taller than Billups (6'4" to 6'3") but virtually identical in weight (200 to 202), and Frazier was as physically honed as anyone playing today.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/frazier_summary.html

http://www.nbaobsessed.com/wp-content/u ... illups.jpg

[kooldude]

-= original quote snipped =-



He also thought John Havlicek would never amount to anything in the league.

Take that, along with his other wildly incorrect assessments listed above, and regardless of how good or bad he would be in this era, it should be clear this is not a man who was a great judge of basketball talent/ability, and it's not a stretch to say perhaps his own included.

Look at the Hondo quote; it's from his first season. For all we know (you probably do), Hondo could have vastly improved upon his rookie year and developed tremendously.

And judging others is much different from judging one self. Witnessing a player can only go so far in fully determining that player's abilities and impact.

I like how old fans here feel that by discrediting Cousy's judgment of players, they somehow know more about Cousy and what he can do than Cousy himself. haha

[WesWesley]

[quote="writerman"][/quote]

Firstly, Walt Frazier and Cousy did not play during the same years.

And there were some players from the 50s and early 60s that were as big as players today in the NBA. Cousy played with guys like Mikan and Dolph Schayes.

Schayes was 6-7 195, and grabbed 16.4 rebounds per game in one season.

You can say all you want. Footage doesn't lie. It clearly shows that more players now can jump much higher, there are more faster players (which is not to say that some players in the 50s weren't fast), and overall there is more competition for positions.

[prekazi]

I can't believe you guys continue to compare guys that played in the archaic 50's or 60's into today's game. Bob Cousy? If he was playing in this era he would be warming the bench for the BK Ventspils which is a lousy Latvian team.

OK, I've just wathched a Celtics-Lakers game played in 1963 and I want to apologize from you guys. I said he would be a bench warmer in BK Ventspils. I was totally wrong because he cannot be a professional basketball player in today's game, It's totally anachronism to compare the guys from 60's to today's because it's not even the same game. Saying Cousy, West or Russell would still be dominating the league if they were playing today is like saying Rod Laver would beat Roger Federer in today's tennis. It's not even anachronism, this needs a new premise.

[penbeast0]

He might not beat Federer today but give Federer a wooden racket and a year of eating drinking beer like an Aussie and I'm betting on Laver . . .

[penbeast0]

And Wes . . . I know we've beaten this point to death but 6'7 195 is his college measurement in socks . . . as a Pro measured in modern shoes he would probably list out at around 6'9 235 in his prime and his pace adjusted numbers for rebounding come out to about 11 which isn't unreasonably for one of the top 5 rebounders in the league of his day.

[Curtis Lemansky]

-= original quote snipped =-



He also thought John Havlicek would never amount to anything in the league.

Take that, along with his other wildly incorrect assessments listed above, and regardless of how good or bad he would be in this era, it should be clear this is not a man who was a great judge of basketball talent/ability, and it's not a stretch to say perhaps his own included.

Didn't you once said that David Harrison will be a better player than Dwight Howard ?

[thamadkant]

Stupid comparison.

You have to factor in, that when Cousy played, the skills were very under developed. There wasnt coaching nor videos to study.
There wasn't physical enhancers like nutrition, hyperbolic chambers, fat % measurer.

Heck they didnt have shock absorbers in their basketball shoes...



Its like comparing a fetus to a baby.

The game and players evolved significantly as coaching, basketball teachers, physical enhancers etc improved.


Only comparison would be... what if Cousy was born in 1979. And grew up with all the developments to the game already established.

I believe Cousy had raw skills and talent for the game, so if he did grow up in our era, he would be a good player.

But its difficult to say, since HE IS one of the pioneers of the game. Without him the way he was back then, basketball today might not even be the same.