Would Cousy have excelled in this era?

[Kosta]

Just got to get this off my chest.

I think he would, but I've come across a lot of people on here who believe Cousy would get dominated by the bigger, stronger and more athletic guards of today.

So now putting Cousy's dominance in the 50's aside, would he be just average in today's game and get dominated by say a guy like Chauncey Billups?

And no disrespect, but it would be nice if we could get some replies in here from posters who actually know about Cousy's game in depth.

[TMU]

His skills as a passer and a ballhandler cannot be matched by the majority of today's players. However, his shooting mechanics were poor, and as a result his shots were inconsistent.

I personally think he was an overrated scorer, but if he demonstrates his pass-first mentality in today's league, he'll be one of the better PGs in the league.

[kooldude]

no

[ronnymac2]

Cousy was a master with the basketball. Great dribbler, passer, could control the game, direct the break, and was smart. Contrary to what some people will say, he COULD indeed dribble with his left hand (he broke his right arm once , so he learned to dribble with his left).

For his era for guards, he was a pretty good rebounder. In the dead-ball era, he could get 6 or 7 rebounds a game. That's pretty good. He was clutch and an excellent free throw shooter. Good team leader, too. High bball iq.

How would he translate today? Well imo, part of why he is legendary is because he was revolutionary with his passing and dribbling and being a great floor general. He wasn't a very good shooter then, but nobody shot a very high percentage in the 50's. At least pre-shot clock 50's. FG% would be below 40%.

I think with modern training, being taught the modern way to shoot, and given a system where he could flourish, he'd be a good player. Not a legend, but a good player. Physically, he may be a bit overmatched. But still a good player.

[Baller 24]

I think he'd be similar to Kidd, but a much worse shooter, even if thats possible.

[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.

[Warspite]

Cousys shot mechanics and slower release could be fixed. How he adapted to todays rules is the biggest question. His defense would never be above avg but I dont see a reason wh he couldnt play if he have an offseason or 2 to get his body from marathon to sprinter he would do fine today.

The closest person I think of is Tony Parker, TJ Ford ro Joes Calderon. He does need to be in the right system and with a great def frontcourt to be as effective. I have always been pretty hard on Cous but Ill admit your video was eye opening. Post a link in this thread and let people see for themselves because I would bet 99% of Real GM posters have never seen him play and have no idea what he did or even what he looks like.

[Kosta]

Cousys shot mechanics and slower release could be fixed. How he adapted to todays rules is the biggest question. His defense would never be above avg but I dont see a reason wh he couldnt play if he have an offseason or 2 to get his body from marathon to sprinter he would do fine today.

The closest person I think of is Tony Parker, TJ Ford ro Joes Calderon. He does need to be in the right system and with a great def frontcourt to be as effective. I have always been pretty hard on Cous but Ill admit your video was eye opening. Post a link in this thread and let people see for themselves because I would bet 99% of Real GM posters have never seen him play and have no idea what he did or even what he looks like.

The video doesn't really do him any justice, most of the highlights are from his last game in the NBA, in the '63 Finals. And just a few highlight reel plays over his career at the end. I'm trying to get some older playoff videos, I'm still looking around for them.

I would say Cousy's playmaking ability is that or better of Nash's today.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=g1zWW0uIkAU

[Kosta]

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.

"And no disrespect, but it would be nice if we could get some replies in here from posters who actually know about Cousy's game in depth."

[TheSheriff]

With his dribbling and speed he could get to the rim in today's game. And he was an amazing passer with great instincts, so he could drive and pass and create. His shooting would be below average for a guard, but he wouldn't kill his team in the half court offense.

[WesWesley]

Cousy was a good ball handler, and had great peripherals. He made some tricky passes, but at the end of the day all that matters is that you get the ball to the open man.

I truly think that a lot of people were more amazed at how Cousy got them the ball, as opposed to how effective he really was as a basketball player.

You can make the argument that all PGs shot a terrible percentage in the 50s. While the game has changed where the league has gotten bigger and stronger, mathematics has stayed the same. 35% in the 50s is still 35% today, and that's just not going to cut it. His assists numbers aren't that impressive either. Especially when you think about how he played in a time with no shot clock, and had more time to complete a set play.

Factor in how much more physical today's game, and I would say it would be harder for Cousy to complete his passes, as people play the lanes way more aggressively now.

So I think the answer is no, I don't think he would have "excelled" in this era. He could play though, but he would as others mentioned, have to adapt to today's game.

[TheSheriff]

Cousy was a good ball handler, and had great peripherals. He made some tricky passes, but at the end of the day all that matters is that you get the ball to the open man.

I truly think that a lot of people were more amazed at how Cousy got them the ball, as opposed to how effective he really was as a basketball player.

You can make the argument that all PGs shot a terrible percentage in the 50s. While the game has changed where the league has gotten bigger and stronger, mathematics has stayed the same. 35% in the 50s is still 35% today, and that's just not going to cut it. His assists numbers aren't that impressive either. Especially when you think about how he played in a time with no shot clock, and had more time to complete a set play.

Factor in how much more physical today's game, and I would say it would be harder for Cousy to complete his passes, as people play the lanes way more aggressively now.

So I think the answer is no, I don't think he would have "excelled" in this era. He could play though, but he would as others mentioned, have to adapt to today's game.

he lead the NBA in assists for 8 straight years, that is pretty impressive. Besides he played most of his career with the shot clock, which sped up the game.

[WesWesley]

I understand that he was a dominant PG for his era.

The game has grown so much since then. Way more people play, the talent pool is much thicker. His career assist average is 7.5. We're not talking about what he could do in the 50s, which was lead the league in assists for 8 straight years, but what he would do in this era. At least that's what I think this thread is about.

[Patterns]

I understand that he was a dominant PG for his era.

The game has grown so much since then. Way more people play, the talent pool is much thicker. His career assist average is 7.5. We're not talking about what he could do in the 50s, which was lead the league in assists for 8 straight years, but what he would do in this era. At least that's what I think this thread is about.

Dude, forget it.

10's, 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's players + modern day training = better players than today's because they knew "fundamentals" and they fouled hard.

[penbeast0]

Cousy -- assuming he adjusts to the modern game with the same type of relative game he had then which seems logical to me

+ Great ballhandler, passer . . . assists were HARDER to come by then, he'd be competitive for the league lead if he was given star minutes
- Mediocre shooter even for his era. Consistently below average, would have to cut back his shot attempts to raise his efficiency
- Average to below average defender.
? Intangibles. He had a rep as a jerk; on the other hand, he certainly didn't mess up the Russell led Celtic teams although he never took them anywhere playing with Sharman and HOF Ed McCauly.

Red Auerbach didn't want him, he got stuck with him. Cousy was more Rafer Alston than Steve Nash.

[WesWesley]

I think Red grew fond of Cousy though. I remember hearing a quote by him where he said something to the tune of "I didn't care how he got the ball there, just that he got it there."

[penbeast0]

btw Kosta . . . It's not all the 60s players that get dissed, stats play a big part if you haven't seen the players.

Sure, the best players of the era were Wilt, Russell, Oscar, and West . . . they were considered that then. But Havlicek, Sam Jones, and Bailey Howell off those Celtic teams were players whose numbers hold up well today. KC Jones, Cousy, and Sharman are players that don't seem to hold up.

I played the All-Time draft 2 summers ago with Clyde Lovellette (first outside shooting center) and Cliff Hagan in my rotation and did fine. I played the second ATL with 50s star Bob Pettit starting and won it all. It isn't just the players, it's how they fit together and whether you can bring convincing evidence to the table that they will play the roles you need them for.

[Kosta]

-= original quote snipped =-



he lead the NBA in assists for 8 straight years, that is pretty impressive. Besides he played most of his career with the shot clock, which sped up the game.

Actually he only played 4 seasons in the non shot clock era which was introduced in '54. He went on to lead the league in assists 6 straight seasons after that.

[Kosta]

btw Kosta . . . It's not all the 60s players that get dissed, stats play a big part if you haven't seen the players.

Sure, the best players of the era were Wilt, Russell, Oscar, and West . . . they were considered that then. But Havlicek, Sam Jones, and Bailey Howell off those Celtic teams were players whose numbers hold up well today. KC Jones, Cousy, and Sharman are players that don't seem to hold up.

I played the All-Time draft 2 summers ago with Clyde Lovellette (first outside shooting center) and Cliff Hagan in my rotation and did fine. I played the second ATL with 50s star Bob Pettit starting and won it all. It isn't just the players, it's how they fit together and whether you can bring convincing evidence to the table that they will play the roles you need them for.

Great points, how many teams were in this league? And was Petit your 1st pick? If not, who was?

[Stanford]

His assists numbers aren't that impressive either. Especially when you think about how he played in a time with no shot clock, and had more time to complete a set play.

And less possessions per game...