could Bob Cousy make the NBA team today ?

[bastillon]

I doubt that. do you ?

[NYK 455]

He wouldn't even come close.

[NYK 455]

The game is better now, much, much better. I'm not saying this out of ignorance, I've watched as much footage as I possibly could of every era. It's funny this topic was made because all morning I was watching footage of Russell's Celtics. Now, I respect the hell out of the guys who paved the way, but they really wouldn't stand a chance. I believe Russell's Celtics would get stomped by any modern team, even the bottomfeeders. I doubt Cousy would even come remotely close to making an NBA roster.

[writerman]

More "We're the Greatest" generationally biased nonsense from the kiddies...this whole idea that athleticism has evolved so much in fifty years is laughable.

Besides which, you go by one guy as an example, and extrapolate from that that guys like Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Gus Johnson, Bob Pettit, John Havlicek, Earl Monroe, Connie Hawkins, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Walt Frazier, Lenny Wilkins, Zelmo Beatty, Bill Bridges, Wes Unseld, Walt Bellamy, Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, etc., etc., wouldn't be stars today like they were in their own era...that's so dumb it would seem it wouldn't even have to be rebutted, but I keep seeing stupid statements like those in this thread repeated by posters who weren't even out of diddies when those guys played and wouldn't know Jerry Lucas from Lady Gaga...

Those guys were all good athletes, as good as those playing today--the game was different, true, there was less dependence on muscle and hops, but much more on stamina and ability to play the running game that would have a lot of today's muscle-bound athletes stepping on their tongues by halftime. In general, fundamentals were significantly better then as well. There were few or no "projects" in the league back then--guys who were weak in skills but very athletic. Everyone came into the league relatively polished, having spent four years in a top-level college program. You knew how to play the game right, or you didn't make it in the NBA, however good a pure athlete you were. Also, the showy dunks and trash talk so prevalent today would have ended up in the trash talker or show-off dunker being mugged and getting seriouslly bloodied or even bones broken in retaliation the next time he went into the paint. Someone like Dwayne Wade would be retired and a hardly able to get out of his wheelchair if he had played like he does now back then.

Bill Russell in shoes, as measured today, would go 6'10" - 6'10.5", and was a great athlete by the measure of any generation These guys would adjust to today's game as all top athletes are able to do, just as I assume today's athletes would have eventually adjusted to the rules and faster pace and less emphasis on above the rim play and much more physical defense in the paint of the game played back then.

Keep in mind they also had to actually play back then by the RULES AS WRITTEN--NO palming, NO killa crossovas, NO six or seven steps to the basket without dribbling, NO in the lane before the shooter shoots his free throws--NONE of that trash which is ignored today.

You've watched some old clips and think you know the game back then. That's nonsense.

[penbeast0]

If you took Cousy and gave him 50s style training, 50s style equipment, and 50s style enforcement of the rules (particularly palming as writerman mentioned) while everyone else got the benefit of modern training, equipment, and rules . . . no, he couldn't. And neither could anyone playing today given those limitations except a few of the dominant big men.

If you look at the level of domination against his peers, he is on the level of a Chris Paul type player . . . the key is that in his 1950s prime, the league was shooting under .400, not .480, and that average PG had under 5 assists/game under the much tighter assist rules so you have to allow for that and you can see how good a player he truly was . . . and I'm not much of a Cousy fan.

But anyone who peaked before '65 gets ridiculed for poor efficiency (Mikan, Wilt, Russell, Pettit, Baylor, Cousy, Sharman, etc.) and it's just not a fair comparisom any more than looking at rebounding numbers from 1962 without realizing that there were more than 25% more shots going up.

[Ortho Stice]

i'm pretty sure cousy has stated numerous times that he wouldn't be able to play in today's game and that the players are just too athletic now

[Manuel Calavera]

i'm pretty sure cousy has stated numerous times that he wouldn't be able to play in today's game and that the players are just too athletic now

And Jerry West stated that players today stink and his generation was better.

[DumbyTheWizard]

i'm pretty sure cousy has stated numerous times that he wouldn't be able to play in today's game and that the players are just too athletic now

And Jerry West stated that players today stink and his generation was better.

West is 10 years younger the Cooz.

[kasino]

great players adjust to the game.
and how great cousy was he would adjust and be a franchise pg-jason,nash

[pancakes3]

i'm pretty sure cousy has stated numerous times that he wouldn't be able to play in today's game and that the players are just too athletic now

And Jerry West stated that players today stink and his generation was better.

West is 10 years younger the Cooz.

mmmhmm. the magical leap of evolution between the 60s and 70s. i guess people just naturally started playing better after games were broadcast in color?

[NYK 455]

More "We're the Greatest" generationally biased nonsense from the kiddies...this whole idea that athleticism has evolved so much in fifty years is laughable.

Besides which, you go by one guy as an example, and extrapolate from that that guys like Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Gus Johnson, Bob Pettit, John Havlicek, Earl Monroe, Connie Hawkins, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Walt Frazier, Lenny Wilkins, Zelmo Beatty, Bill Bridges, Wes Unseld, Walt Bellamy, Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, etc., etc., wouldn't be stars today like they were in their own era...that's so dumb it would seem it wouldn't even have to be rebutted, but I keep seeing stupid statements like those in this thread repeated by posters who weren't even out of diddies when those guys played and wouldn't know Jerry Lucas from Lady Gaga...

Those guys were all good athletes, as good as those playing today--the game was different, true, there was less dependence on muscle and hops, but much more on stamina and ability to play the running game that would have a lot of today's muscle-bound athletes stepping on their tongues by halftime. In general, fundamentals were significantly better then as well. There were few or no "projects" in the league back then--guys who were weak in skills but very athletic. Everyone came into the league relatively polished, having spent four years in a top-level college program. You knew how to play the game right, or you didn't make it in the NBA, however good a pure athlete you were. Also, the showy dunks and trash talk so prevalent today would have ended up in the trash talker or show-off dunker being mugged and getting seriouslly bloodied or even bones broken in retaliation the next time he went into the paint. Someone like Dwayne Wade would be retired and a hardly able to get out of his wheelchair if he had played like he does now back then.

Bill Russell in shoes, as measured today, would go 6'10" - 6'10.5", and was a great athlete by the measure of any generation These guys would adjust to today's game as all top athletes are able to do, just as I assume today's athletes would have eventually adjusted to the rules and faster pace and less emphasis on above the rim play and much more physical defense in the paint of the game played back then.

Keep in mind they also had to actually play back then by the RULES AS WRITTEN--NO palming, NO killa crossovas, NO six or seven steps to the basket without dribbling, NO in the lane before the shooter shoots his free throws--NONE of that trash which is ignored today.

You've watched some old clips and think you know the game back then. That's nonsense.

First of all, it is significantly more than a few, I've watched as much as I possibly could. I love this game, and believe it or not, I respect the legends of yesteryear. I believe the best of the best could compete at this level, but the majority could not. But just because I respect them doesn't mean I'm going to immortalize their abilities just out of respect. I'm going to call it the way I see it. And if anything, your bias towards the older generations is laughable. I mean, you're the same guy who said Chet Walker was better than Dwyane Wade.

It's not just the massive athletic difference, it's the difference in skill as well. I mean, the ball handling skills of these guys are laughable. Just about every player had poor ball handling skills, and no left hand. Perimeter defense was AWFUL. Absolutely pathetic. Most guards had no 3 point range, even the midrange jumpers are bad. Post play was a bit better, but not much. No real post moves, post defense was mediocre, most bigs couldn't stretch the floor at all. A guy like Bob Cousy was a NBA Champion and an MVP, he wouldn't even come close to making an NBA team. A guy like Elgin Baylor, who averaged 27 and 13 for his career, probably wouldn't make an NBA team either. Comparing him to NBA players now, he has no shot, no range, no ball handling, no post up game, average athleticism. Wilt most likely would have made it, but wouldn't have dominated anywhere near the way he did in his era.

I'm not trying to "hate" either. I'm just calling it the way I see it.

[Ortho Stice]

i'm pretty sure cousy has stated numerous times that he wouldn't be able to play in today's game and that the players are just too athletic now

And Jerry West stated that players today stink and his generation was better.

and i'm sure cousy is the one being dishonest here

[old rem]

If you took Cousy and gave him 50s style training, 50s style equipment, and 50s style enforcement of the rules (particularly palming as writerman mentioned) while everyone else got the benefit of modern training, equipment, and rules . . . no, he couldn't. And neither could anyone playing today given those limitations except a few of the dominant big men.

If you look at the level of domination against his peers, he is on the level of a Chris Paul type player . . . the key is that in his prime, the league was shooting .400, not .480, and that average PG had under 5 assists/game under the much tighter assist rules so you have to allow for that and you can see how good a player he truly was . . . and I'm not much of a Cousy fan.

But anyone who peaked before '65 gets ridiculed for poor efficiency (Mikan, Wilt, Russell, Pettit, Baylor, Cousy, Sharman, etc.) and it's just not a fair comparisom any more than looking at rebounding numbers from 1962 without realizing that there were more than 25% more shots going up.

Cousy,in the modern world,would have the benefits of training/conditioning todays players have and would be a leader,ball handler,passer,who's effective. He'd have developed a 3. I doubt he'd have Nash's quick start but in ways would be a bit like Nash. Cousy had great insincts and hands,and was a winner who'd find what worked. That stuff still works.

Some players, Mikan for instance,would not likely change era's well. His prime was when a fairly agile 6-9 guy was rare. Wilt, Oscar, E Baylor would adapt very well, they were rare athletes then,would be very good athletes now.

[wallflower]

Wow Elgin Baylor wouldnt have made it?

[Point forward]

If you took Cousy and gave him 50s style training while everyone else got the benefit of modern training. . . no, he couldn't. If you look at the level of domination against his peers, he is on the level of a Chris Paul type player.

This.

BTW, do you think that Alexander the Great would be a bad general today, because he has no experience with tanks, guns and planes?

[Manuel Calavera]

If you took Cousy and gave him 50s style training while everyone else got the benefit of modern training. . . no, he couldn't. If you look at the level of domination against his peers, he is on the level of a Chris Paul type player.

This.

BTW, do you think that Alexander the Great would be a bad general today, because he has no experience with tanks, guns and planes?

The army wouldn't let him in because he was gay.

[Ortho Stice]

i tried to find the cousy quote i was thinking of but could only find this: "The players today are bigger, stronger, more athletic—I’m not saying they’re not. But, there wasn’t the number of teams then that there are now, and the talent level was much more concentrated." he has a good point; i think he could play in today's game because the league is so watered down. you have players like chris quinn getting minutes. but i think it would be absolutely RIDICULOUS to think cousy could be an mvp in today's game.

[Dr Positivity]

Assuming he developed a 3 point shot growing up in this era, I'd say he could play in today's league, but would be an also-ran for a PG rather than a star.

[writerman]

More "We're the Greatest" generationally biased nonsense from the kiddies...this whole idea that athleticism has evolved so much in fifty years is laughable.

Besides which, you go by one guy as an example, and extrapolate from that that guys like Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Gus Johnson, Bob Pettit, John Havlicek, Earl Monroe, Connie Hawkins, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Walt Frazier, Lenny Wilkins, Zelmo Beatty, Bill Bridges, Wes Unseld, Walt Bellamy, Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, etc., etc., wouldn't be stars today like they were in their own era...that's so dumb it would seem it wouldn't even have to be rebutted, but I keep seeing stupid statements like those in this thread repeated by posters who weren't even out of diddies when those guys played and wouldn't know Jerry Lucas from Lady Gaga...

Those guys were all good athletes, as good as those playing today--the game was different, true, there was less dependence on muscle and hops, but much more on stamina and ability to play the running game that would have a lot of today's muscle-bound athletes stepping on their tongues by halftime. In general, fundamentals were significantly better then as well. There were few or no "projects" in the league back then--guys who were weak in skills but very athletic. Everyone came into the league relatively polished, having spent four years in a top-level college program. You knew how to play the game right, or you didn't make it in the NBA, however good a pure athlete you were. Also, the showy dunks and trash talk so prevalent today would have ended up in the trash talker or show-off dunker being mugged and getting seriouslly bloodied or even bones broken in retaliation the next time he went into the paint. Someone like Dwayne Wade would be retired and a hardly able to get out of his wheelchair if he had played like he does now back then.

Bill Russell in shoes, as measured today, would go 6'10" - 6'10.5", and was a great athlete by the measure of any generation These guys would adjust to today's game as all top athletes are able to do, just as I assume today's athletes would have eventually adjusted to the rules and faster pace and less emphasis on above the rim play and much more physical defense in the paint of the game played back then.

Keep in mind they also had to actually play back then by the RULES AS WRITTEN--NO palming, NO killa crossovas, NO six or seven steps to the basket without dribbling, NO in the lane before the shooter shoots his free throws--NONE of that trash which is ignored today.

You've watched some old clips and think you know the game back then. That's nonsense.

First of all, it is significantly more than a few, I've watched as much as I possibly could. I love this game, and believe it or not, I respect the legends of yesteryear. I believe the best of the best could compete at this level, but the majority could not. But just because I respect them doesn't mean I'm going to immortalize their abilities just out of respect. I'm going to call it the way I see it. And if anything, your bias towards the older generations is laughable. I mean, you're the same guy who said Chet Walker was better than Dwyane Wade.

It's not just the massive athletic difference, it's the difference in skill as well. I mean, the ball handling skills of these guys are laughable. Just about every player had poor ball handling skills, and no left hand. Perimeter defense was AWFUL. Absolutely pathetic. Most guards had no 3 point range, even the midrange jumpers are bad. Post play was a bit better, but not much. No real post moves, post defense was mediocre, most bigs couldn't stretch the floor at all. A guy like Bob Cousy was a NBA Champion and an MVP, he wouldn't even come close to making an NBA team. A guy like Elgin Baylor, who averaged 27 and 13 for his career, probably wouldn't make an NBA team either. Comparing him to NBA players now, he has no shot, no range, no ball handling, no post up game, average athleticism. Wilt most likely would have made it, but wouldn't have dominated anywhere near the way he did in his era.

I'm not trying to "hate" either. I'm just calling it the way I see it.

You lost all credibility when you said Elgin Baylor couldn't make it today. Of all players in that era, his game is maybe the one that maybe most resembles the play of elite wingmen today--above the rim, great range on his shot (what vids were you watching to come to the absurd conclusion that he had no range?) and to say his athleticism was "average" is simply jaw-droppingly unbelievable, as any of his peers would tell you.

You also lose a ton of credibility when you fail to acknowledge that what you call "poor ball handling" stems from what I already pointed out as--unlike today's players--players in Cousy's era having to actually observe the rules in regard to steps and palming.

You also fall into the trap of most young posters here in seeing athleticism as consisting of only two attributes--hops and strength. there are a lot of other factors that go into making a truly great athlete--stamina, peripheral vision, forward and lateral foot speed, eye-hand coordination, fast muscle reaction. length as opposed to mere height, timing, etc., etc.

And only the most ignorant posters here would argue that prime Wilt wouldn't be lightyears better than any five in the league today--Yao, Howard, anyone you care to name.

Ypou also underrate fundamantals. Fundamentals in the game today are pretty putrid, with a large percentage of players in the league getting by on strength and hops. I can't remember the last time I saw a truly great outlet pass executed, or anyone box out. Too many players today have poor skills and fundamentals--things that were taken for granted in Cousy's era. You had them or you didn't play in the NBA.

I'll grant you, with certain exceptions (e.g. Walt Frazier, John Havlicek) perimeter defenses today are generally better--but the interior defenses today suck. That's because they are downright sissy compared to the physical defenses in the paint in Cousy's era. Things that would get suspensions today back then might draw a whistle. Things that get flagrants today were part of the game then, and seldom were even whistled. Guys like Dwayne Wade would have short careers. Driving into the paint was a dangerous busibess back then. Every team had an enforcer to see that such things didn't happen twice. That's why so few points were scored in the paint other than by the real giants--but on fast break layups and mid-range jumpers.
\
Conversly, there are a lot of players in the league today getting by on athleticism (hops and strength) alone that would not have made it back then--their skill level and fundamentals are too poor. Deprived of the above the rim game, as most of them would be by the brutal defenses of the past, they would be bench warmers at best--a perfect example--J.J. Hickson, who the Cavs fans see as a coming star. There are a lot of J.J. Hicksons in the league today, getting by on hops, strehgth, and minimal real skills.

[penbeast0]

It's not just the massive athletic difference, it's the difference in skill as well. I mean, the ball handling skills of these guys are laughable. Just about every player had poor ball handling skills, and no left hand. Perimeter defense was AWFUL. Absolutely pathetic. Most guards had no 3 point range, even the midrange jumpers are bad. Post play was a bit better, but not much. No real post moves, post defense was mediocre, most bigs couldn't stretch the floor at all. A guy like Bob Cousy was a NBA Champion and an MVP, he wouldn't even come close to making an NBA team. A guy like Elgin Baylor, who averaged 27 and 13 for his career, probably wouldn't make an NBA team either. Comparing him to NBA players now, he has no shot, no range, no ball handling, no post up game, average athleticism. Wilt most likely would have made it, but wouldn't have dominated anywhere near the way he did in his era.

I'm not trying to "hate" either. I'm just calling it the way I see it.

You "see", just not sure you understand what was going on then.

(1) Ball handling then was very different because they strictly inforced the rules against "carrying" or "palming" . . . if you touch the side or lower part of the ball or maintained contact/control of it, that lost you the ball. 90% of the ballhandling that is done today would have been an automatic foul call back then. That's pretty significant and is both a signicant reason why the ballhandling was different than and a significant factor in the great increase in slashing and one-on-one play today . . . it works much better with modern ballhandling officiating.

(2) Perimeter defense was much looser and players had no 3 point shot because . . . there WAS no 3 point shot. Even today, the lowest percentage shot in the game is the 20 foot 2-point shot. They wanted people to take that one, not drive or toss it into the post where percentages were much higher . . . so they played the post passing lane. That was good defense.

(3) Same reason that stretch the floor bigs weren't that common. It was a lower percentage shot. They existed, don't kid yourself. Clyde Lovellette, Zelmo Beaty, Jerry Lucas . . . they were all stretch the floor bigs that were all stars. Just was less common; everyone wanted the next Wilt.

(4) For similar reasons, the lane was much more clogged. So, there were more people slapping at you every time you got the ball down low. Good hands and hand strength were evern more important then. I will say that weight work (everyone does it today, back then Wilt was considered strange for his training regimen; people thought he would get "muscle bound") and steriod use has made a serious improvement in bulk and muscle definition. (my guess is somewhere around 80% of the league uses them, a higher percentage than that among bigs)

(5) Baylor, much more than Cousy played a modern game. He was a strong physical guy who could jump out of the building with great quicks and athleticism . . .the LeBron of his day. And, he apparently had so many twitches and fakes that opposing players wondered if he had Tourette's. His game was made for the more open lane and looser ballhandling rules. He'd be better today (adjusted for pace that is), not worse.