How do you think Nate Thurmond would have fared against 2000 to 2002 Shaq

[coastalmarker99]

Do you think he would have slowed Shaq down as he did with Wilt and Kareem?

Or would Shaq's physical dominance and bully-bull playstyle be too much for Nate to handle as it was for Mutombo?

Watch on YouTube

[LAL1947]

Do you think he would have slowed Shaq down as he did with Wilt and Kareem?

Or would Shaq's physical dominance and bully-bull playstyle be too much for Nate to handle as it was for Mutombo?

Was Nate Thurmond's weight 225 pounds when he played?

Here’s a timeline of Shaq’s weight over 20 years.

- 1987 HS junior: 250
- 1991 LSU College: 294
- 1992 Rookie Season in Orlando: 301
- 1999 Lakers: 340
- 2000 Lakers: 345 pounds
- 2001 Lakers: 365 pounds
- 2002 Lakers: 395 pounds
- 2005 Heat: 315 pounds
- 2006 Heat: 325 pounds

[Outside]

Back in Thurmond's day, the weight you were when you entered the league was usually the weight you were listed the rest of your career.

Nate was strong and skilled enough to defend Wilt well. He'd wouldn't be able to stop Shaq's power drop-steps for dunks, but he would definitely bother his short post shots. He was arguably the best big man defender ever.

[70sFan]

Better than anyone in NBA history. Nate had three things neccessary to defend Shaq - length, lower body strength and quickness.

I'm pretty sure Thurmond would study Shaq post game and realize that the best way is to force him play more on the right block where he was far less efficient and deny the baseline dropstep on the left block. Shaq's hook shot was decent, but not hyper efficient.

[70sFan]

[
Was Nate Thurmond's weight 225 pounds when he played?

No, that was hos college weight. He weighed around 245 lbs during his prime if I remember correctly.

[ronnymac2]

Depends what team Thurmond is on. If he's on a high-profile team that creates intriguing matchups for the casual NBA fan, then he'll defend Shaq very well. If he ends up on a small-market team with a poor GM, Thurmond will have 30 dropped on him.

Strictly speaking about how they would matchup competitively, I think Thurmond would do as good a job as anybody in history. Great length and positioning. Nate's probably a top-5 all-time defensive C in history. I am taking this question to mean Nate grows up in this era (or Shaq's era at least) - this means Nate has access to a slower-paced era, superior nutrition/training, and possible deployment of performance-enhancing drugs to make sure Nate can keep weight on, which he'll need vs. Shaq. You can't play at 245 against Shaq. He would need to get up to at least 265, which I think he would do and flourish in all fairness.

Definitely be a very cool matchup. Nate was one of my favorite players to read about when I was young.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Nate himself: "Shaquille O'Neal, he's a different player. He presents a problem none of us had to face.

“He's more than 300 pounds, with speed, power and quickness. Most of the big guys I played against were lumbering types, nothing like Shaquille. I just feel that at my 6-11, 235, I would have had a problem with him. He moves people out of the way, dislodges them. Wilt was more finesse.

“How could I have had a solution for Shaquille? He's 100 pounds heavier than me.”

[capfan33]

Considering Ben Wallace and Rodman had some success guarding Shaq I think Thurmond would do quite well. I think Artis might be a better matchup however, that would be really interesting.

Better than anyone in NBA history. Nate had three things neccessary to defend Shaq - length, lower body strength and quickness.

I'm pretty sure Thurmond would study Shaq post game and realize that the best way is to force him play more on the right block where he was far less efficient and deny the baseline dropstep on the left block. Shaq's hook shot was decent, but not hyper efficient.

How do you think Artis would do?

[70sFan]

Nate himself: "Shaquille O'Neal, he's a different player. He presents a problem none of us had to face.

“He's more than 300 pounds, with speed, power and quickness. Most of the big guys I played against were lumbering types, nothing like Shaquille. I just feel that at my 6-11, 235, I would have had a problem with him. He moves people out of the way, dislodges them. Wilt was more finesse.

“How could I have had a solution for Shaquille? He's 100 pounds heavier than me.”

Nate always paid respect to younger players, that's who he was. He also said he wouldn't be able to defend Yao Ming and I'm sure you will disagree with that.

[70sFan]

Considering Ben Wallace and Rodman had some success guarding Shaq I think Thurmond would do quite well. I think Artis might be a better matchup however, that would be really interesting.

Better than anyone in NBA history. Nate had three things neccessary to defend Shaq - length, lower body strength and quickness.

I'm pretty sure Thurmond would study Shaq post game and realize that the best way is to force him play more on the right block where he was far less efficient and deny the baseline dropstep on the left block. Shaq's hook shot was decent, but not hyper efficient.

How do you think Artis would do?

Very, very well. He was huge, powerful and very disciplined.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Nate himself: "Shaquille O'Neal, he's a different player. He presents a problem none of us had to face.

“He's more than 300 pounds, with speed, power and quickness. Most of the big guys I played against were lumbering types, nothing like Shaquille. I just feel that at my 6-11, 235, I would have had a problem with him. He moves people out of the way, dislodges them. Wilt was more finesse.

“How could I have had a solution for Shaquille? He's 100 pounds heavier than me.”

Nate always paid respect to younger players, that's who he was. He also said he wouldn't be able to defend Yao Ming and I'm sure you will disagree with that.

As far as im concerned had to be offensively great enough to force Shaqs hand at the other end of the floor in addition to being a great defender. If you weren't forcing peak Shaqs hand at the defensive end (which is why you didn't see these 30+ppg series vs SA) you were BBQed chicken

Hakeem, Karl and Tim were. I don't know too much about Nate offensively to be honest???

I can't see any player in history playing any better fundamentally sound 1 on 1 defense as Mutombo did vs Shaq in the 01 Finals. He didnt bite on fakes and contested everything Shaq did....and he still got treated like a battering ram the entire series.

Although to be honest I thought the refs did a lousy and biased job in the '01 Finals regarding not whistling enough offensive fouls on Shaq.

(of course I'll likely be labeled a Shaq hater by some for the last paragraph ).

[Statlanta]

Nate himself: "Shaquille O'Neal, he's a different player. He presents a problem none of us had to face.

“He's more than 300 pounds, with speed, power and quickness. Most of the big guys I played against were lumbering types, nothing like Shaquille. I just feel that at my 6-11, 235, I would have had a problem with him. He moves people out of the way, dislodges them. Wilt was more finesse.

“How could I have had a solution for Shaquille? He's 100 pounds heavier than me.”

Nate always paid respect to younger players, that's who he was. He also said he wouldn't be able to defend Yao Ming and I'm sure you will disagree with that.

As far as im concerned had to be offensively great enough to force Shaqs hand at the other end of the floor in addition to being a great defender. If you weren't forcing peak Shaqs hand at the defensive end (which is why you didn't see these 30+ppg series vs SA) you were BBQed chicken

Hakeem, Karl and Tim were. I don't know too much about Nate offensively to be honest???

I can't see any player in history playing any better fundamentally sound 1 on 1 defense as Mutombo did vs Shaq in the 01 Finals. He didnt bite on fakes and contested everything Shaq did....and he still got treated like a battering ram the entire series.

Although to be honest I thought the refs did a lousy and biased job in the '01 Finals regarding not whistling enough offensive fouls on Shaq.

(of course I'll likely be labeled a Shaq hater by some for the last paragraph ).

I disagree that Mutombo couldn’t have played better defense. One of the reasons I believe Rodman did better, though on a smaller less experienced Shaq was because he could sell fouls. He wasn’t a Vlade level flopper but he could play stout and play the refs.

[No-more-rings]

BBQ chicken.

[tsherkin]

Better than anyone in NBA history. Nate had three things neccessary to defend Shaq - length, lower body strength and quickness.

I'm pretty sure Thurmond would study Shaq post game and realize that the best way is to force him play more on the right block where he was far less efficient and deny the baseline dropstep on the left block. Shaq's hook shot was decent, but not hyper efficient.

Shaq did also move around the post very well without the ball and played the post/repost game very well. He was more dynamic in that regard than Wilt or Kareem and was also a good passer (though not as good a passer as Kareem).

Nate would do a good job; he was a nasty straight up defender, but I think Shaq would still do well against him regardless. LA Shaq would be able to bully him more but watching 95 Shaq v Olajuwon, I dont see Nate doing a lot better than that.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Nate himself: "Shaquille O'Neal, he's a different player. He presents a problem none of us had to face.

“He's more than 300 pounds, with speed, power and quickness. Most of the big guys I played against were lumbering types, nothing like Shaquille. I just feel that at my 6-11, 235, I would have had a problem with him. He moves people out of the way, dislodges them. Wilt was more finesse.

“How could I have had a solution for Shaquille? He's 100 pounds heavier than me.”

Nate always paid respect to younger players, that's who he was. He also said he wouldn't be able to defend Yao Ming and I'm sure you will disagree with that.

Not saying that Yao is greater than anyone Nate faced but Yao along with peak Shaq has physical dimensions that Thurmond never faced his entire career.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

I disagree that Mutombo couldn’t have played better defense. One of the reasons I believe Rodman did better, though on a smaller less experienced Shaq was because he could sell fouls. He wasn’t a Vlade level flopper but he could play stout and play the refs.

What better could Mutombo have done defensively 1 on 1 vs Shaq? Imho he did almost everything humanly possible defensively vs Shaq.

I agree with you on Rodman. Theres no way he could've guarded any prime or peak version of Shaq without the flopping element.

[prolific passer]

Just looked it up and it looks like Thurmond outscored Wilt in their matchups including playoffs but Wilt was more efficient.

[70sFan]

As far as im concerned had to be offensively great enough to force Shaqs hand at the other end of the floor in addition to being a great defender. If you weren't forcing peak Shaqs hand at the defensive end (which is why you didn't see these 30+ppg series vs SA) you were BBQed chicken

Interesting idea, but I don't think it's true. Greg Ostertag defended Shaq better than anyone during his prime and he was liability on offense. Ostertag did marvelous job on him most of the time.

I can't see any player in history playing any better fundamentally sound 1 on 1 defense as Mutombo did vs Shaq in the 01 Finals. He didnt bite on fakes and contested everything Shaq did....and he still got treated like a battering ram the entire series.

I disagree, Mutombo didn't have strength to prevent Shaq from establishing deep position and that's the main key to defend Shaq. A lot of players did a better job on him - already mentioned Ostertag, Duncan, Smits, Hakeem...

[70sFan]

BBQ chicken.

Really? Do you really think Shaq is so much better than Wilt and Kareem offensively?

[70sFan]

Shaq did also move around the post very well without the ball and played the post/repost game very well. He was more dynamic in that regard than Wilt or Kareem and was also a good passer (though not as good a passer as Kareem).

I think Kareem was just as dynamic as Shaq without the ball. He couldn't establish deep position the same way, but he didn't need to because he had further range.

Nate would do a good job; he was a nasty straight up defender, but I think Shaq would still do well against him regardless. LA Shaq would be able to bully him more but watching 95 Shaq v Olajuwon, I dont see Nate doing a lot better than that.

Nate was considerably bigger and longer than Hakeem and he had just as good fundamentals, I think he had the tools to do a better job than Olajuwon.