RealGM

Who was the better player in terms of helping teams win games, Draymond Green or Bobby Jones. They are both great defenders. Draymond is gritty and brilliant on defense while Bobby Jones was also smart and ad length and athleticism and got blocks and steals.

As a 1980s Celtic fan I appreciated Bobby Jones but as a current Warrior fan with Warriors beer goggles I think Draymond is better. Bobby Jones and Bird were great but there might have been some people clinging to them for racial reasons. I loved Caldwell Jones for how he slowed down my Celtics more than I loved Bobby Jones. Bobby Jones got a lot more attention than Caldwell Jones. Caldwell Jones was underrated. Bobby Jones was not underrated in his time but he might be underrated now.

Bobby Jones had highlight reel dunks and he was a very accurate medium volume mid range shooter who did not usually shoot contested jump shots. Bobby Jones had a health based usage limitation.

Bobby Jones was a very efficient medium volume scorer. Draymond is a great passer and screen setter.

Bobby Jones got in the Hall of fame finally in 2019, a borderline Hall of famer. There are mixed opinions about whether Draymond will get in the Hall of fame.

Strangly I could not find add poll while making this thread.

I think Jones might peak higher on per minute basis, but he couldn't play the same amount of minutes as Green.

The only years that Jones played comparable minutes to Draymond were his early ABA years, as his health issues significantly lowered his minutes after that. So while Jones' stats compare very favorably with Green on a per 36 minutes or per 100 possessions basis, that isn't fair to Draymond since he was able to play more minutes per game. From the eye test, I think Draymond has more impact on the game with his defense than Jones. But just as looking at a per 36 minutes or per 100 possessions penalizes Draymond, I think a big part of Green's defensive impact advantage is largely due to how they were used on defense by their coaches. While Draymond is an excellent man defender, the Dubs defense is at their best when Green plays more of a free safety role. This wasn't possible during Jones' time as zone defenses weren't legal until long after Bobby retired. If Jones didn't have his health limitations and had comparable endurance, I think his natural defensive attributes (length, athleticism, high bbIQ) would have enabled him to be used in a similar manner defensively. The one major advantage Green has is that he has the strength and girth to guard bigs (to a point) in the low post better than Jones. Both excel at being able to guard most any position but Green can defend bigger players in the low post a little better despite lacking the height that Jones had. Jones could be outmuscled by bigger players down low and he refused to engage in any of the "dirty tricks" to give him an advantage when fighting for position under the basket.

Green is clearly the better passer and ball handler and Jones the better shooter.

I think people's opinions about the two are more likely driven by their personalities rather than their on-court performance. Jones never swore, never argues with a referee (he felt it would be pointless since a ref isn't going to change his mind by yelling at him), always raised his hand when whistled for a foul to make it easier for the scorer to identify who the foul was on and refused to engage in any 'less than legal' tactics to give him a defensive or rebounding edge (no grabbing, pulling, etc.). He'd be in the running for 'most perfect gentleman' in NBA history; teammate Charles Barkley once said that if everyone were like Bobby Jones, the world wouldn't have any problem. In many respects, he behaved in an almost complete opposite manner than Green on the court. Sometimes a fan's preference for a certain type of behavior can influence who they feel is the better player.

The only years that Jones played comparable minutes to Draymond were his early ABA years, as his health issues significantly lowered his minutes after that. So while Jones' stats compare very favorably with Green on a per 36 minutes or per 100 possessions basis, that isn't fair to Draymond since he was able to play more minutes per game.

Not sure where this is coming from. Each player's first 10 years Jones played in more games (791-685) and more min/g (29-28) than did Green.

As for who is the better player it's Jones and it's not even close. Both were/are great defenders. I would say Jones was the better overall defender but there are cogent arguments for both players as being the better. The are both the best among the best on defense.

But offensively it's not even close, no contest. On offense Green is nothing more than a PG masquerading as a PF. And among today's PGs not a very good offensive PG. Jones is the far better shooter, the far better scorer, drew far more fouls, and was even the better FT shooter.

His first 10 years in the league Green averaged all of 2.1 FTA/g, scored just 8.7 pts/g. Think about that.

Not only that, Jones was twice the offensive rebounder Green is.

Jones his first 10 years scored 13.0 pts/g, shot much better than Green, and averaged 3.7 FTA/g while shooting a better FT%.

No amount of assists by Green makes up for these differences. And I can't wait to hear from Warriors fans on how Curry and Thompson are great shooters because Green is such a great passer. Not a chance.

If Green did not play on Golden State people would be claiming yeh he's a great defender but his lack of offense kills his team.

kcktiny wrote:

The only years that Jones played comparable minutes to Draymond were his early ABA years, as his health issues significantly lowered his minutes after that. So while Jones' stats compare very favorably with Green on a per 36 minutes or per 100 possessions basis, that isn't fair to Draymond since he was able to play more minutes per game.

Not sure where this is coming from. Each player's first 10 years Jones played in more games (791-685) and more min/g (29-28) than did Green.

As for who is the better player it's Jones and it's not even close. Both were/are great defenders. I would say Jones was the better overall defender but there are cogent arguments for both players as being the better. The are both the best among the best on defense.

But offensively it's not even close, no contest. On offense Green is nothing more than a PG masquerading as a PF. And among today's PGs not a very good offensive PG. Jones is the far better shooter, the far better scorer, drew far more fouls, and was even the better FT shooter.

His first 10 years in the league Green averaged all of 2.1 FTA/g, scored just 8.7 pts/g. Think about that.

Not only that, Jones was twice the offensive rebounder Green is.

Jones his first 10 years scored 13.0 pts/g, shot much better than Green, and averaged 3.7 FTA/g while shooting a better FT%.

No amount of assists by Green makes up for these differences. And I can't wait to hear from Warriors fans on how Curry and Thompson are great shooters because Green is such a great passer. Not a chance.

If Green did not play on Golden State people would be claiming yeh he's a great defender but his lack of offense kills his team.

But in the playoffs it's really not even close, from '15-'19 Green averaged 38 mpg, Jones peaked at 33 mpg in his first season and was averaging under 30 mpg by '81. Especially when you consider the era and averaged minutes for starters/high quality players its a pretty significant gap.

I'd take Green. He was a more versatile player and of course could play more. But I think Green's playmaking abilities put him over Bobby.

Green was a better defender relative to his era as well. Green is maybe the 1st or 2nd best defender in many years of his prime and would get even better during the PS.

Green was a better defender relative to his era as well.

Through age of 32 Draymond Green was all-defensive 1st team 4 times.

Through the age of 32 Bobby Jones was all-defensive 1st team 8 times. Plus twice in the ABA.

Just out of curiosity are there any other players you think were better defenders in their "era" that made half as many all-defensive 1st teams as some other player did in their "era"?

kcktiny wrote:

Green was a better defender relative to his era as well.

Through age of 32 Draymond Green was all-defensive 1st team 4 times.

Through the age of 32 Bobby Jones was all-defensive 1st team 8 times. Plus twice in the ABA.

Just out of curiosity are there any other players you think were better defenders in their "era" that made half as many all-defensive 1st teams as some other player did in their "era"?

Sure. Kobe Bryant made 9 all-defense 1st teams. Andre Iguodala only made 1. Tony Allen only made 3. Draymond Green as you pointed out, only made 4.

And I am sure many defenders better than Bryant have not had more than 5 1st defensive teams.

Draymond Green not getting 1st defensive team accolades doesn't mean that he was in argument for best defender of his generation. Outside of Gobert, who has an argument against him?

Sure. Kobe Bryant made 9 all-defense 1st teams. Andre Iguodala only made 1. Tony Allen only made 3.

???

Bryant last made an all-defensive 1st team in 2010-11. Made it each year from 2005-06 to 2010-11. Are you saying he shouldn't have?

Those 6 years Tony Allen never played even 1500 minutes in a season, played less 1000 minutes in 4 of those seasons. Are you saying he should have been named to an all-defensive 1st team over Bryant in any of those 6 seasons?

Iguodala played primarily SF in his career.

And I am sure many defenders better than Bryant have not had more than 5 1st defensive teams.

So what SG or SGs should have been named to an all-defensive 1st team over Bryant in the years he was named? I ask as voting for the all-defensive team at that time was done by NBA head coaches - you know, the individuals who had to game plan against the Lakers on a nightly basis, and likely watched more film of the guy than any fan.

Draymond Green not getting 1st defensive team accolades doesn't mean that he was in argument for best defender of his generation. Outside of Gobert, who has an argument against him?

Gobert, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Anthony Davis, Kawhi Leonard.

kcktiny wrote:

Sure. Kobe Bryant made 9 all-defense 1st teams. Andre Iguodala only made 1. Tony Allen only made 3.

???

Bryant last made an all-defensive 1st team in 2010-11. Made it each year from 2005-06 to 2010-11. Are you saying he shouldn't have?

Obviously he shouldn't have made all of those teams.

But no, that isn't what I am saying...what I said was actually in plain English. It's almost like you only read my post in a vacuum and did not read the post I was responding to.

Those 6 years Tony Allen never played even 1500 minutes in a season, played less 1000 minutes in 4 of those seasons. Are you saying he should have been named to an all-defensive 1st team over Bryant in any of those 6 seasons?

No, that is not what I am saying. You should re-read what I said.

Iguodala played primarily SF in his career.

That's irrelevant, I don't think you actually read what I said. He has only one first team selection - Kobe Bryant has 9. It is just bonus points that Kobe and Iggy's career have some overlap, they could have played in different eras and the point would remain the same.

Andre Iguodalla only has ONE first team. Are you saying you cannot think of ANY defenders who have two first team selections that were worse than him? If not, re-read the thread.

So what SG or SGs should have been named to an all-defensive 1st team over Bryant in the years he was named? I ask as voting for the all-defensive team at that time was done by NBA head coaches - you know, the individuals who had to game plan against the Lakers on a nightly basis, and likely watched more film of the guy than any fan.

Coaches do not do what you said, and no coaches are not the #1 arbitrator of who are the best defenders. Analyst would obviously be better at seeing who the best defenders are, as that is their job.

No, coaches do not have the time to look every player in every single team and judge the absolute level of their defense. It's nice that you think that is what they do, but they do not. They have finite time to look at other teams and are only worried about how their opposing teams match up against their teams for one single game.

Why would the coach of the Nets watch countless hours of footage of a team that he only plays twice a year? Also, your argument for why coaches know more than fans is because...they watch more footage? Footage is literally one of the few things a fan can match a coach in - a fan can watch more basketball than a coach, in fact they have more free time than coaches do...I don't think you actually really thought about what coaches do if you think THAT's what make coaches experts. That they watch tv? The guys who are putting together the films for them to watch alone already watch more than what they do. Did you even think about that?

Also, coaches literally know the players and are involved in the league hands on - which makes them bias. (bias does not mean that they have vendettas or play favorites in case you are going to go that route, because based on your responses it seems like you would jump to that conclusion)

Not to mention that even after all of that, that does not mean that a coaches perception would be right....as many coaches are often not.

You can talk to coaches for yourself - go email college ones as they are accessible and ask them what their day to day is.

Is an NBA head coaches job the ability to arbitrarily detect who the best defender is at their position for that entire season? No, it is not. If that's what you think then you should think more deeply about how NBA franchises and teams are put together, and what their actual roles are.


You are basically conceding that you don't really know how to argue if Kobe Bryant is worth those awards which is why you defer to the election process. You're basically saying well, the coaches said so, and that's proof - you're using others opinion to back up your opinion likely because you do not how to argue your own opinion. You misjudged what coaches actually do and their relationship to players and likely think it's analogous to someone who knows nothing about medicine debating with a doctor - if that's what you think then no, that isn't analogous.

Mark Jackson is very much an NBA coach. He is not an expert at rating players attributes. He does not have PhD level knowledge of what makes basketball players good or bad. You can, indeed, argue and disagree with Mark Jackson about his opinion on players.

Draymond Green not getting 1st defensive team accolades doesn't mean that he was in argument for best defender of his generation. Outside of Gobert, who has an argument against him?

Gobert, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Anthony Davis, Kawhi Leonard.

[/quote]


I find it highly unlikely that a lot of people are putting Kawhi Leonard and Anthony Davis over Draymond Green for the past generation.

Kawhi Leonard, who even when he won his DPOY's head to head with Green got much skepticism for it, and since then his defense has been criticized as being lazy, bad or he simply does not play due to injury.

So how can you rationalize that Kawhi Leonard is the best defender of his generation? On a year to year basis Green has been a better defender than Kawhi Leonard, and could make the argument that there was never a year Leonard was even better, as it wasn't exactly unanimous that Kawhi was the best defender back in 2015.

Break that one down.

Obviously he shouldn't have made all of those teams.

Says who? You? Fine, if you believe this then who do you feel should had made those all-defensive 1st teams at SG instead of him?

Andre Iguodalla only has ONE first team. Are you saying you cannot think of ANY defenders who have two first team selections that were worse than him?

From 2004-05 to 2016-17 (13 years) the SFs that made the all-defensive 1st team were Bruce Bowen, Lebron James, and Kawhi Leonard (Iguodala once). So which of the other 12 years are you saying Iguodala deserved it over 1 of those 3 players?

Coaches do not do what you said

NBA coaches - and their staffs - watch a ton of film, and watch a ton of basketball. They game plan against opponents - that's what they do.

and no coaches are not the #1 arbitrator of who are the best defenders.

Well then who is?

Analyst would obviously be better at seeing who the best defenders are, as that is their job.

Analysts? What analysts? Analysts that work for NBA teams? Are you one of these analysts? Can you name a single one of these analysts - by name - that determines which players are the best defenders, better than NBA coaches and their staffs?

No, coaches do not have the time to look every player in every single team and judge the absolute level of their defense.

Guess again. This is what NBA coaches and their coaching staffs do. On a daily basis.

Not to mention that even after all of that, that does not mean that a coaches perception would be right

Well then who's perception is? Yours as a fan? Tell us - who has the best perception to determine who the best defenders are?

You are basically conceding that you don't really know how to argue if Kobe Bryant is worth those awards which is why you defer to the election process.

On the contrary, I say him play a lot, over the length of his career, and think he was an excellent defender for most of his career. But I also value the opinions of those who watched him play even more, like NBA coaches.

You're basically saying well, the coaches said so, and that's proof - you're using others opinion to back up your opinion likely because you do not how to argue your own opinion.

On the contrary, I am valuing the opinions of those that watched a lot of basketball. Did you watch a lot of Kobe Bryant when he played? In particular between 1999-00 and 2011-12?

You misjudged what coaches actually do

Fine, if you do not believe NBA coaches and their staffs watch a lot of film, and do not rate players on their defensive abilities, then what exactly do they do? And then who does rate the players?

Mark Jackson is very much an NBA coach. He is not an expert at rating players attributes. He does not have PhD level knowledge of what makes basketball players good or bad.

No? Then who does? Who does have this level of knowledge of what makes basketball players good or bad? You just named a specific NBA coach who does not have this knowledge. Now how about naming an individual who is not a NBA coach that does?

Or are you only good at naming individuals who don't but can't name individuals who do?

I find it highly unlikely that a lot of people are putting Kawhi Leonard and Anthony Davis over Draymond Green for the past generation.

Kawhi Leonard has two DPOY awards. Draymond Green has one. Leonard was named all-defensive 1st team 3 times, 2nd team 4 times. Green was named all-defensive 1st team 4 times, 3 times the 2nd team.

Evidently a lot of people, the people who voted for these awards, that watched a lot of basketball, have them neck-and-neck as great defenders.

What people are you talking about?

So how can you rationalize that Kawhi Leonard is the best defender of his generation?

I just did.

On a year to year basis Green has been a better defender than Kawhi Leonard, and could make the argument that there was never a year Leonard was even better, as it wasn't exactly unanimous that Kawhi was the best defender back in 2015.

This your opinion? Or you have some way to validate this statement?

Break that one down.

It's already broken.

kcktiny wrote:
Not only that, Jones was twice the offensive rebounder Green is.
.

The league does not believe much in offensive rebounding now like they did not believe in shooting 3s in 1982.
League average offensive rebounds in 1982 14.3

League average offensive rebounds in 2022. 10.3
Draymond regular season career average offenive rebounds per game 1-1
Draymond playoff career average offenive rebounds per game 1.7

Jones regular season career average offenive rebounds per game 1.9
Jones playoff career average offenive rebounds per game 2

In this year’s NBA finals when defensive rebounding 3s, I see one defender on the 3 point shooter and 4 defenders forming a box in front of the hoop to grab the defensive rebound and often no offensive rebounder contesting the rebound. When an offensive rebounder does compete against the 4 defensive rebounders on 3s the offensive rebounder has fairly good success.

The offensive rebounder against the 4 defender defensive rebounding box on the 3s does not have to gather control of the rebound because deflecting the ball out of the box will knock the ball towards a teamate.I know the coaches fear the fast break but I think one offensive rebounder should get into the middle of that defensive rebounding box when 3s are shot.