Jump to content

Tyronn Lue is the new Head Coach of the Cavs

AuroranHusker

By AuroranHusker
in The Haymarket Hardwood

 Share

Recommended Posts

jimmykc

jimmykc

Posted
Posted

Its always fun to speculate on how anyone from the past would rank on any sort of "all-time" list but ,in the end, as relevant as ,say, ranking the best armies of all time. I'm betting even the most destitute of today's third world dictatorships with a few tanks, a couple of planes, and a few dozen bombs could mop up Napoleon's legions in no time.

  • Replies 273
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

49r
49r

So, I'm watching the Pacers @ Cavs tonight as part of ESPN's "Crossover Wednesday" promotion - pretty cool, by the way, to watch NBA announce crews on college games and vice-versa - and something occu

49r
49r

Still better than having your semicolon removed...

brfrad
brfrad

Lue would have been perfect to take over for Buckner. Why didn't Miles wait until the Cavs season was over and offer him the job?

Posted Images

Norm Peterson

Norm Peterson

Posted
Posted
  On 5/25/2017 at 4:45 PM, jimmykc said:

Its always fun to speculate on how anyone from the past would rank on any sort of "all-time" list but ,in the end, as relevant as ,say, ranking the best armies of all time. I'm betting even the most destitute of today's third world dictatorships with a few tanks, a couple of planes, and a few dozen bombs could mop up Napoleon's legions in no time.

Expand  

 

 

Fullbacksympathy

Fullbacksympathy

Posted
Posted
  On 5/25/2017 at 3:11 PM, colhusker said:

Dean is spot on here. Look how scoring has increased again over the last few years.  When the Pistons were the "Bad Boys" they knocked guys into the basket standard on a regular basis.  Today that would be a Flagrant foul and then some.  More physical today?  Not only no, but hell no.

 

In defense of today's players part of taking the physical play away is the large contracts.  Same reason football is getting watered down and to an lesser extent, baseball.

Expand  

 

Scoring has increased because long range shooting is way better.  Shooting is way better because the lane became more clogged after zone, etc., was installed.  To give you an idea, Larry Bird was two percentage points better from three than Lebron.  The idea that someone got decked to the floor every time they went up for a layup in the 80s is ridiculous.  Were there more cheap shots?  Yes.  There is way better help defense now because of the rules, so there are way more kick outs.  

 

Also, there wasn't an emphasis on jumping straight up and allowing contact back then, so you might as well foul the hell out of someone since you're going to get called for it anyway when he jumps into your chest.  There are way more no-calls around the rim today when two players collide, and rightfully so.  

Fullbacksympathy

Fullbacksympathy

Posted
Posted
  On 5/25/2017 at 3:23 PM, Norm Peterson said:

There's something inherently flawed about trying to compare players of different eras by suggesting what the modern guys would have done if they'd played against guys from 30 years ago.  If Lebron had been around in the 80s, he wouldn't be 30 pounds heavier.  He'd weigh what those guys weighed.

 

It's like the argument about the best college football teams of all-time.  According to some pundits, the 70-71 Huskers were among the best college football teams of all time.  But I've heard people like Kirk Herbstreit make the claim that they would get destroyed by 2014 Ohio State team.  Well, yeah, with modern weight training, etc., of course Ohio State would obliterate the '71 Huskers.  But compare them against their peers.

 

If Michael Jordan were playing the game today, he'd be stronger and even more explosive.

 

If Lebron had played 30 years ago, he'd be a smaller, less physically dominant guy.

 

You can't put Lebron of 2017 onto a 1980s basketball court and say that you're making a relevant comparison.  In that case, few players from the last century would even play in the modern NBA.

 

The better comparison is how did they do against the guys they played against back when they were playing.

 

 

 

By the way, Dustin Johnson of 2017 would absolutely obliterate Jack Nicklaus of 1964 off the tee.  Who owns more Major Championships?

Expand  

 

I think this is a somewhat flawed argument, though I get your good point.  Human beings evolve.  We have grown taller, stronger, and smarter across the board.  We build upon the knowledge that comes before us.  I don't make those comparisons to demean the players of the past because they were the best we could possibly have at the time.  Human being evolution is a byproduct of technology.  Also, popularity of the game has increased the pool of players to choose from.  When I look at today's computers, I know they are better than the computers of the past, but they wouldn't exist without prior models.  Regardless, they are still better overall.  Magic's Lakers would've destroyed Cousy's Celtics for the same reason.  

 

Lebron James at age 32 is 6'8" and 250-260lbs.  That's who he is.  We've never seen a player that can do what he can do carrying that kind of weight.  Having said this, that isn't entirely because it's 2017.  We've had heavier players in the league since the early to mid-90s.  Weight is leveling off, so there has literally been a critical mass, so to speak.  In other words, your argument has proven it's flawed nature because current weights are about as heavy as NBA players are likely to get.  We aren't going to see a specimen like Lebron again at that position.  We aren't going to see a 2001 Shaq again who had freakshow athleticism at 330lbs.  We aren't going to be able to make this argument 20 years from now because weights are going to be the same, just like height basically leveled off in the late 80s.  

 

I am absolutely making the claim that few players prior to, say, 1980 could play in today's NBA, but that doesn't discount the fact that there were GREAT players back then who would dominate today.  I still have Jordan #1.  I have Shaq, Duncan, Bird, Magic, Pippen, Kareem, etc. in my top 10.  I think the top tier talent was at least as good, if not better, in the mid-80s and 90s.  It's mainly ballhandling, speed, explosiveness, and shooting (at every position) that is so much better now overall.  

 

 

 

hskr4life

hskr4life

Posted
Posted
  On 5/25/2017 at 5:05 PM, Norm Peterson said:

 

 

Expand  

 

Is it sad that I took 20 minutes of my life to watch this.  My breakdown of the match.

 

Roman strategy to begin with was poor.  Why not spread out a little more!?!?  It was all individual play and that played right into the hands of the Americans.  From the beginning, the Romans had an "uphill battle"... LITERALLY!  But it was almost impossible for them to take this with the strategy that they pulled.  Playing me me me war games isn't going to win you very many battles.  They should have worked much better as a team.  Something to learn for next time I guess.

 

The Americans however never faltered.  They came out throwing punches and never let up.  Even when the line was breaking, they never faltered or let up.  They "stuck to their guns" and played their match.  Very good performance here by the Americans.  I am sure it would have been much more close had the Romans worked together in this one and not went so one on one.  

 

Big props to the Americans for defending the home field.  They came out ready to play.  The Romans... not so much.

 

:lol:

uneblinstu

uneblinstu

Posted
Posted
  On 5/25/2017 at 1:16 PM, jimmykc said:

Jacob: Another couple of books for your must read list are , of course , "Nebrasketball" which I assume you have already read, and John  Feinstein's book " The Legend's Club" which actually makes you like Mike Krzyzewski and be able to spell his name without looking it up.

Expand  

Another way to learn how to spell his name is use it as a log in password. I don't think I could forget it now if I tried.

HuskerFever

HuskerFever

Posted
Posted
  On 5/25/2017 at 8:20 PM, cipsucks said:

The last NBA game I've watched was Game 5 of the Lakers/Sixers finals in 2001.  My, how time flies.....

Expand  

 

Well, @jimmykc might have some reading material for you to catch up. If he suggests reading through the scripts of the NBA playoffs over the years, just skip to the fourth quarter of those stories. Nothing really happens until that time.

49r

49r

Posted
Posted
  On 5/25/2017 at 6:03 PM, hskr4life said:

 

Is it sad that I took 20 minutes of my life to watch this.  My breakdown of the match.

 

Roman strategy to begin with was poor.  Why not spread out a little more!?!?  It was all individual play and that played right into the hands of the Americans.  From the beginning, the Romans had an "uphill battle"... LITERALLY!  But it was almost impossible for them to take this with the strategy that they pulled.  Playing me me me war games isn't going to win you very many battles.  They should have worked much better as a team.  Something to learn for next time I guess.

 

The Americans however never faltered.  They came out throwing punches and never let up.  Even when the line was breaking, they never faltered or let up.  They "stuck to their guns" and played their match.  Very good performance here by the Americans.  I am sure it would have been much more close had the Romans worked together in this one and not went so one on one.  

 

Big props to the Americans for defending the home field.  They came out ready to play.  The Romans... not so much.

 

:lol:

Expand  

 

Of course the Marines had the benefit of never needing to reload either.  Doesn't seem all that realistic to me.  Especially how they were able to just continuously fire round after round like that. Each one must have shot 100,000 rounds at least.  Which leads me to another thought.  By the time the battle was over wouldn't they all be like hip deep in spent shells?

khoock

khoock

Posted
Posted

If LeBron and Co. somehow pull off the upset and beat GS again then he undoubtedly belongs in the conversation of best ever.

 

The Warriors are loaded (Starting 4 All Stars and a Finals MVP off the bench) and will realistically win in 5 or 6.

Norm Peterson

Norm Peterson

Posted
Posted
  On 5/25/2017 at 10:16 PM, 49r said:

 

Of course the Marines had the benefit of never needing to reload either.  Doesn't seem all that realistic to me.  Especially how they were able to just continuously fire round after round like that. Each one must have shot 100,000 rounds at least.  Which leads me to another thought.  By the time the battle was over wouldn't they all be like hip deep in spent shells?

Expand  

 

I thought it was totally realistic.  Especially the part where the Marines in the back rank fired right through the Marines in the front rank ... without killing any of them!  That's exactly the way it happens in real wars.  Especially the kind of wars that pit armies from the first century B.C. against 1940s era U.S. Marines.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...