Remove this Banner Ad

Picking an all-time CFC lineup

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Knightmare said:
I'd also be interested if for those who saw them. Len Thompson and Peter Moore. Could either/or/both play as tall wings? *Think Richo/N.Riewoldt on a wing?

Also interested for those who saw Peter McKenna how he would fit into the modern game and whether he would if he played today stack up favourably v Cloke/Tarrant/S.Rocca/A.Rocca? And where positionally at 191cm and 87kg he could today assuming he's that same height/weight with the game he played fit best and whether he would still be best as a genuine key forward? Third tall close to goal? Flanker? I'd also be fascinated to know why he wasn't part of Collingwood's team of the century. Is it just a group of salty selectors that he joined Carlton for a year? Or is there something else I'm missing?
Click to expand...
Moore flashy but he always frustrated with bad decisions
Ran around as my late father said like a headless chook

2 Brownlows for blond hair
Lol
He played as a follower not a ruckman

Would have been restricted as a wingman
 
Knightmare said:
That comparison doesn't bring any more clarity or answer my question, or at least in the way I had hoped.

eg. Cox I'd be incredibly comfortable playing either forward or on wing. He covered the ground so easily that he would have been an all-time level threat on a wing and when he played forward when Nic Nat played more than 50% ruck minutes, his play as a forward was exceptional also.

Did Thommo have endurance like Cox? Or that versatility to play other positions beyond just being great through the ruck? They're the things I'm really curious about. His disposal and mark numbers make me think he might, but I didn't have the pleasure to watch him, and would love to get that specific feel from those who did.

50 years from now, we'll be looking at 200cm ruckmen like they're irrelevant, just as we would look at a 180-185cm key forward as something of a novelty act, and not what you'd build your front half around, and more a type you would want as a component to a front half but not a focal point.

Nathan Buckley as an example is about as future proofed of a player as you can get because other than ruck, he could play any other position on the field and be your best player. Whether it's from a skill, athleticism or production standpoint. There is no way, no how he would ever be able to be left out of an All-time Collingwood team, as you can put him anywhere, and in any spot he's probably just about better than any alternative past, present, and maybe even future.

I'm curious with a Thompson, as maybe it's Grundy if he plays another 10 years and can continue to elevate his game, or more likely someone else down the line who takes that mantle as the clear best ruckman in club history. And we might be talking about a 215cm guy with a ridiculous wingspan and whatever other unique capabilities. If the AFL ends up with those kinds of guys down the track, and they're dominant on another level, I'm curious particularly with a Thompson as to whether he could slip onto a wing as I'd say in an all-time team a Dean Cox or Peter Moore easily could. And see all that way down the line, even if that superior ruckman comes along, that he could hold his spot in the club's all-time team, as you'd want him to as a 300 gamer, Brownlow medallist and one of the best I'd personally say at least at the present time top-five in club history on volume of work.
Click to expand...
Thompson's a lock
Collier's a lock
Buckley's a lock
Daicos a lock

Thomo played against the best ruckman ever

He more than held his own
Brilliant technical ruckman
Great director of play
Leader
Made others better

Amazing how
Full time athletes
Best medical facilities
Best footware
Controlled conditions
 
Knightmare said:
It's an interesting thought to ponder, and it's one as an NBA fan I ponder as the rules made the game and what players were able to do or not do so different. And it would be the same with the AFL when comparing eras.

Daicos in my view, and this is why I mentioned him as someone who fits regardless of era, would have no trouble slotting into a forward pocket even today. If he can play midfield at any point in his career, he could play as a forward in the modern game. Forwards then didn't pressure like they do now, and that's the relative drawback that immediately springs to my mind, but if he's going to kick 2+ goals per game without needing to be that primary target, he's hard not to pick, even today. It's a bit like asking whether a prime Didak could still play today. The game hasn't progressed all that far since that 2010 flag side, and Didak could still play and play well today, as Daicos is as I'd imagine would be the consensus the better player during any era.
I know if I could, I'd be trading a prime Daicos in for an of the club's current forwards.

I can't imagine the players of today would have any trouble fitting into the 1920s. For height, size, athleticism and game sense, the players of then would even under the rule sets of then get entirely overwhelmed.

Imagine Brodie Grundy in the ruck against a 182cm Syd Coventry? Or a Scott Pendlebury or Steele Sidebottom through the midfield against those guys. Introducing those teams to the sheer power of a Jordan De Goey. Any number of players, even changing the rules on the current players would cause the players of 100 years ago endless problems in any number of categories.

Ultimately anyone pre 1960s it's hard to make a realistic case for being able to stack up. Not only did the handball not exist but just looking at the athletic profiles of the players, it's just unreasonable to try to compare them to anyone current.



Thanks for the insight. Sounds like a lighter build going off everything I've read. How did McKenna go covering the ground? If he played today could he be something like a Chris Tarrant circa 2003? Would be interesting to hear how they compared - for endurance, speed and leap particularly.
Would also be interested whether there is a modern players if McKenna played today, in the state that he was then, he might play like today, noting that his impact obviously wouldn't be anywhere near where it was when he played.
Click to expand...

RUBBISH

You can't compare players from different eras due to size or athletisicm

The best players in the 79s did pro running they were more professional than others or like max oppie they cut lumber in the ottways
And reaped the rewards
That mentality would have seperated them from the back

By the way most players are one sided
Can't kick ,certainly can't handball can't take a contested mark and gave little interest in Shephard s
Most wouldn't have the courage to play on hard guys
Imagine Dyer against Grundy lol
He'd hit him once with a shirt front

Oh and Barry price at any age would still be the best kick in the club

The point you miss is the inner drive that seperates champions from also rans
 
Knightmare said:
I'd like to agree but can't.

The ruleset of today's game instantly makes the Coventry's, Collier's, Lee, Fothergill, Rose, Regan irrelevant if your criteria is to win a game today with the modern rules and need to understand today's structures. They're guys who would make it if you count their domination at the time and we're looking at level of domination for their period of play as the criteria, but with those guys playing before the handball was a rule, you could give them a rulebook 30min before a game today of what has changed and tell them the structures they need to play within, and they wouldn't be the same players. That's why I make the point, there are so few who make it under all circumstances as there are so many variations depending on your criteria.

Those sub 200 gamers for volume of work would be pretty quickly eliminated as Collingwood have more than enough 200+ and 250+ gamers for their value from duration perspective to make them more valuable from that perspective.

Millaine for volume of work as a sub 150 gamer wouldn't meet the criteria if you want someone for a career span of work. If I could have the whole career of Millaine or someone at the same position who played 250 games or more and played at a similar level, and the criteria isn't based on peak performance, Millaine would not have a spot either. And if peak performance is the criteria in the modern game, I'd rather Dale Thomas who in 2010 and 2011 was a gamechanger on a level even above Millaine, particularly with the game today geared towards forward pressure and scoring off the turnover. And I'd probably go Sidebottom on the other wing if again it's today's rules, understanding of modern structures needed and we want that peak performance, with Sidebottom's 2018 season big time with the 24 Brownlow votes and 764 disposals, and again you're getting as with Thomas that better two way player. And likewise for volume of work Sidebottom easily has Millaine beat.

Only maybe Thompson from your list of untouchables beyond Buckley/Pendlebury/Swan/Daicos has a case for meeting all criteria, no matter what you're looking for, but then through the ruck Collingwood have also had Peter Moore and Brodie Grundy who depending on your criteria could arguably be seen favourably and are firmly in that conversation. If you want to win today under today's rules and the argument is about prime play, Grundy who doesn't yet have that same volume of work may have a case and would physically bully Thompson and Moore both at ruck contests, when the ground ball is there to be won and tackle harder as the stronger and more powerful player they both would be entirely unprepared for. Then you have Moore who played a pretty comparable standard to Thompson and some may also view favourably depending on criteria.

I'd personally advocate a Thompson and Moore combination under most scenarios and certainly for volume of work as Grundy is only half way through his career. But in the modern game, with the modern rules and need to understand modern structures, and Grundy having knowledge of those guys, but then having no knowledge or tape of Grundy if they're being plucked out of their eras. That would be hard for those guys. Grundy in that kind of argument I feel would be even perhaps wrongly overlooked as frankly for mine he was competition's best player in 2018 and 2019 and would have to as a bare minimum under that criteria be in the discussion, if not viewed favourably. That's the challenge with the ruck and saying it's this one guy, because of that positional scarcity that makes it hard to fit everyone in. For peak performance would that slot Grundy into the ruck and Moore and/or Thompson either as tall wings or key forwards? I'd honestly for a peak performance discussion be looking at a creative structure along those lines, though it depends on how regimented you want the structures to be and how fixed you are on the position they played to be the position you want them to represent in such a team.
Click to expand...
Gee you're easily seduced by a ruckman/follower who Rove's his own taps and can't direct it to advantage
A guy who gets loose ball on a wing in non dangerous spots
A guy who doesn't damage
Who can't mark

Obviously overrated
Forget supercoach stats
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Darkyprotector said:
Bill Russell slaughtered everyone
Best team player
Created the modern basketball style
Click to expand...

I'm a Bill Russell fan and as I'd say of Wilt, if he played today, while he's not scoring like Wilt is, he'd be the best big in the NBA and I'd make the case he'd be a better AD. Far superior passer, superior athlete, could run the floor like a wing dribbling, far better rim defender even with how he directed the 8+ blocks he would get per game towards teammates. He's not the same scorer and he's not going to stretch the floor like an AD, but playing off the ball he would still get his points. You're right in the notion that he's the ultimate team player and the most unselfish guy, and as a result that in today's NBA would make him the ultimate co-star in the way AD is, needing that LeBron, Harden, Doncic or some prominent ball handler around him and that would mean chips.

With that said, there is distinct separation between Wilt and Russell, and in today's NBA it would show up to an even greater extent.

To be specific. Wilt creates ridiculous gravity on the offensive end like no one in the history of the NBA. Fouls were rarely called when Wilt was fouled because otherwise there would be no game and everyone would be fouled out. Teams would get four or five guys on him and try everything. He can get to the rim at will but then had a ridiculous mid-range game with his fadeaway jumper similarly unstoppable. As a passer, he was also very able be it the full court pass or out of the post which like with Russell could set up 3 point shooters. As a rebounder he was superior, as a defender he was equal if not superior as an even higher volume block shot who would cause today's athletes even more trouble getting to the rim. He could intimidate guys in a way where they wouldn't and even today wouldn't try getting to the rim. And importantly against today's athletes Wilt would have much more of a licence to go full power and exert himself physically as when he played he was scared he'd kill guys, such was his power. With Wilt, all you need is 3 point shooters around him and ideally that outside gravity guy on the perimeter and he could win chips today. Give him Steph, Lillard or Trae and he's win chips. Wilt in a more modern context is a more dominant Shaq, but with the mid range fadeaway that could not be stopper, better passing, far better rebounding and rim defence and an even more legendary athletic profile - from speed, to endurance, to leap, to strength, to length.

Taking Wilt today is a no brainer, and had Wilt had those Celtics to play alongside, while Russell made those Celtics better, had Wilt had Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, KC Jones, Ramsay and Havlicek to play alongside, it would have been even more unfair and the NBA would have had to have made even more rules to try to make Wilt less dominant, as he's the one player in NBA history to make the NBA so extremely unbalanced that they had to change rules to make him less dominant. Wilt would be dunking from the free throw line if you let him, they even had to change that rule because of Wilt. It's such a shame because that would be insane to watch and would make free throws so much more entertaining - be it letting guys take free throws or try dunking from behind the free throw line. And that because people were so scared of Wilt even before he came into the NBA.
 
Darkyprotector said:
Gee you're easily seduced by a ruckman/follower who Rove's his own taps and can't direct it to advantage
A guy who gets loose ball on a wing in non dangerous spots
A guy who doesn't damage
Who can't mark

Obviously overrated
Forget supercoach stats
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like you value guys who win their own ball, nor dominate the ruck hitouts. Grundy carried the midfield in 2018/2019 win his contested ball winning and clearances. It's a ridiculous sentiment to suggest anyone who can have the highest Supercoach points in the competition is anything but a star - it's a competition that directly indicates not only quantitative, but qualitative metrics to suggest impact on games.

The problem for Grundy has been he's never had a premier first possession winner. Inject a Clayton Oliver into the Pies midfield and Grundy's taps would look better. It's not necessarily going to make him a couple in the game tap ruckman, but he'd look much more proficient in that area of the game.

Darkyprotector said:
Thompson's a lock
Collier's a lock
Buckley's a lock
Daicos a lock

Thomo played against the best ruckman ever

He more than held his own
Brilliant technical ruckman
Great director of play
Leader
Made others better

Amazing how
Full time athletes
Best medical facilities
Best footware
Controlled conditions
Click to expand...

Collier's a lock? They wouldn't know how to handball and they certainly wouldn't have the conditioning to compete with today's footballers who would run around them like they're traffic cones.

If the criteria is to win today, with today's structures. They wouldn't have a case.

The Collier's as with the Coventry's and any others from before certainly the 1960s only have a case if you're only measuring them based on their relative dominance of their time, completely disregarding whether their games would have any capacity to translate.
 
Knightmare said:
I'd also be interested if for those who saw them. Len Thompson and Peter Moore. Could either/or/both play as tall wings? *Think Richo/N.Riewoldt on a wing?

Also interested for those who saw Peter McKenna how he would fit into the modern game and whether he would if he played today stack up favourably v Cloke/Tarrant/S.Rocca/A.Rocca? And where positionally at 191cm and 87kg he could today assuming he's that same height/weight with the game he played fit best and whether he would still be best as a genuine key forward? Third tall close to goal? Flanker? I'd also be fascinated to know why he wasn't part of Collingwood's team of the century. Is it just a group of salty selectors that he joined Carlton for a year? Or is there something else I'm missing?
Click to expand...
I don't think the idea of these kinds of teams has been to win a game of modern-day football. That would be a boring as shite exercise and disrespectful to boot
 
Darkyprotector said:
Hyde Regan. Picken
Buckley Collier brown

Thompson Tuddenham rose
Greening pendels swan

Carman Todd daicos
Mckenna Coventry Lee

Collier Coventry Condon fothergill
Click to expand...
Knightmare said:
I'm a Bill Russell fan and as I'd say of Wilt, if he played today, while he's not scoring like Wilt is, he'd be the best big in the NBA and I'd make the case he'd be a better AD. Far superior passer, superior athlete, could run the floor like a wing dribbling, far better rim defender even with how he directed the 8+ blocks he would get per game towards teammates. He's not the same scorer and he's not going to stretch the floor like an AD, but playing off the ball he would still get his points. You're right in the notion that he's the ultimate team player and the most unselfish guy, and as a result that in today's NBA would make him the ultimate co-star in the way AD is, needing that LeBron, Harden, Doncic or some prominent ball handler around him and that would mean chips.

With that said, there is distinct separation between Wilt and Russell, and in today's NBA it would show up to an even greater extent.

To be specific. Wilt creates ridiculous gravity on the offensive end like no one in the history of the NBA. Fouls were rarely called when Wilt was fouled because otherwise there would be no game and everyone would be fouled out. Teams would get four or five guys on him and try everything. He can get to the rim at will but then had a ridiculous mid-range game with his fadeaway jumper similarly unstoppable. As a passer, he was also very able be it the full court pass or out of the post which like with Russell could set up 3 point shooters. As a rebounder he was superior, as a defender he was equal if not superior as an even higher volume block shot who would cause today's athletes even more trouble getting to the rim. He could intimidate guys in a way where they wouldn't and even today wouldn't try getting to the rim. And importantly against today's athletes Wilt would have much more of a licence to go full power and exert himself physically as when he played he was scared he'd kill guys, such was his power. With Wilt, all you need is 3 point shooters around him and ideally that outside gravity guy on the perimeter and he could win chips today. Give him Steph, Lillard or Trae and he's win chips. Wilt in a more modern context is a more dominant Shaq, but with the mid range fadeaway that could not be stopper, better passing, far better rebounding and rim defence and an even more legendary athletic profile - from speed, to endurance, to leap, to strength, to length.

Taking Wilt today is a no brainer, and had Wilt had those Celtics to play alongside, while Russell made those Celtics better, had Wilt had Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, KC Jones, Ramsay and Havlicek to play alongside, it would have been even more unfair and the NBA would have had to have made even more rules to try to make Wilt less dominant, as he's the one player in NBA history to make the NBA so extremely unbalanced that they had to change rules to make him less dominant. Wilt would be dunking from the free throw line if you let him, they even had to change that rule because of Wilt. It's such a shame because that would be insane to watch and would make free throws so much more entertaining - be it letting guys take free throws or try dunking from behind the free throw line. And that because people were so scared of Wilt even before he came into the NBA.
Click to expand...
Wilt had goodridge
Wilt had west
Wilt had Baylor

Wilt couldn't play through pain
Russell lived it
Russell was the flue
Russell was a leader

Stupid argument
Comparing eras

Denying greatness
Oh and Wilt was adamant that he and Russell would destroy the centres of the 80s as seen on tv
Think Kareem,think parish think big wes
 
Knightmare said:
Doesn't sound like you value guys who win their own ball, nor dominate the ruck hitouts. Grundy carried the midfield in 2018/2019 win his contested ball winning and clearances. It's a ridiculous sentiment to suggest anyone who can have the highest Supercoach points in the competition is anything but a star - it's a competition that directly indicates not only quantitative, but qualitative metrics to suggest impact on games.

The problem for Grundy has been he's never had a premier first possession winner. Inject a Clayton Oliver into the Pies midfield and Grundy's taps would look better. It's not necessarily going to make him a couple in the game tap ruckman, but he'd look much more proficient in that area of the game.



Collier's a lock? They wouldn't know how to handball and they certainly wouldn't have the conditioning to compete with today's footballers who would run around them like they're traffic cones.

If the criteria is to win today, with today's structures. They wouldn't have a case.

The Collier's as with the Coventry's and any others from before certainly the 1960s only have a case if you're only measuring them based on their relative dominance of their time, completely disregarding whether their games would have any capacity to translate.
Click to expand...
Okay
How many blokes can handball through windows of moving cars

Collier
Farmer
Cable
How many current players would be looking around

You seem to think this modern footy is the bee's knees
Guess what it's crap
It's manufactured

Grundy can't direct a tap
He Rove's his own ball
It's been worked out
Got him a contract
And a fat wallet

We got sucked in
Oh and what's ryders story ,maybe watch him


Remember we have that Agrade midfield
 
Darkyprotector said:
Wilt had goodridge
Wilt had west
Wilt had Baylor

Wilt couldn't play through pain
Russell lived it
Russell was the flue
Russell was a leader

Stupid argument
Comparing eras

Denying greatness
Oh and Wilt was adamant that he and Russell would destroy the centres of the 80s as seen on tv
Think Kareem,think parish think big wes
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're forgetting Wilt also won a chip in Philli. No one in any era wins alone. Wilt won his first chip with Greer, Walker and Cunningham. Just as Russell was never along when he won, and always had a 6-8 strong rotation of for the time really good basketball players v Wilt who never had that same top to bottom quality around him.

Wilt also won with the Lakers alongside West/Goodridge, as Baylor had retired.

Baylor had just the one healthy season, with Wilt getting hurt during his second year in LA. Then from there Baylor was done playing just 2 games, then 9 games the next season. They never had time to develop chemistry and struggled in their sole year together as Wilt takes up space on the inside and Baylor needs space on the inside to drive and score.

What's special about Russell is that you can play him alongside anyone in any system. With Wilt, as with Kareem and Shaq, you don't put drive to the basket guys around them, as they limit the effectiveness of those guys, instead, you surround them with shooters. It's like if you're creating a super-team for Wilt to play alongside. If Wilt played today and he's an all-star captain, he's not picking LeBron first. He'd take Steph and Klay as running mates. Baylor was that LeBron of that era.

The NBA game requires an inside force - be it someone around the basket or a driver, complemented by someone or a group of outside shooters. If you've got a Russell, because he's not that scorer and is neither, you need both that inside scorer/driver and shooter around him, meaning you're instead of being just one piece away, really practically two pieces away on that offensive end.

Wilt was an iron man. If it's an 82 game season, he'd play 82 games more than no. If it's an 80 game season, he'd play 80 games. Only the one year he played less than 70 games. And he's the only guy to have the conditioning to play 48+ minutes per game in a season. Being soft isn't applicable to him, he's that LeBron kind of athlete where his conditioning is on such a level that he didn't get hurt, and anything minor he could play through no issue. Talking Baylor, the one season Wilt played alongside Baylor, and he was healthy, he was willing and able to get back on the floor but his coach wouldn't bring him back in, and because of that stupidity Wilt didn't win what could have been his second of three chips and finally given Elgin one.

Wilt, Russell and Kareem are in my view the three greatest centres to ever play. Kareem is the superior offensive player v Russell, but wasn't as a defender or rebounder on that same level. Who you take almost depends on who you have on your team. I've got certainly on peak performance Wilt over Kareem. Kareem v Russell is more a what you value argument, if you need someone who can score down low, it's Kareem, but Russell more easily fits more teams and with more other players without taking away from anything.

Darkyprotector said:
Okay
How many blokes can handball through windows of moving cars

Collier
Farmer
Cable
How many current players would be looking around

You seem to think this modern footy is the bee's knees
Guess what it's crap
It's manufactured

Grundy can't direct a tap
He Rove's his own ball
It's been worked out
Got him a contract
And a fat wallet

We got sucked in
Oh and what's ryders story ,maybe watch him


Remember we have that Agrade midfield
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you get the idea Collingwood have an 'Agrade' midfield. Collingwood don't have any top-10 in the competition standard midfielders, and I'd argue no top-15 midfielders either.

Collingwood's defence is the backbone with Moore, Howe if he was healthy, Maynard and Crisp by relative positional value better than any of the club's midfielders. And maybe that, Quaynor is ascending. Collingwood's midfield is aging and lacking star power. There is a lack of a first possession winner who can read Brodie's taps and build that chemistry. There is also a relative lack of speed through there. It's an even midfield, but far from one of the best in the competition with Grundy as per my earlier post carrying, and even his play this year has been a shadow of his former performance.

Regarding the quality of modern football, I don't see football as all that much more advanced than it was 10 years ago. Defensive systems improved, pressure amped up further, not much else has evolved. There are footballers a plenty form the 70s and 80s who would still dominate today, and I'm sure some guys from the 60s who as they were could still translate just fine, even if they have to shift positions to make it work.

I'm not going to disrespect generations past and suggest for example that Leigh Matthews if he played today couldn't be the best in the competition, or that a Lockett/Dunstall/Carey/Ablett Snr couldn't each respectively impact games today. They all to some extent would find it more difficult to dominate today, particularly with those key forwards and how much taller and stronger key defenders are today and how much more difficult it is to find space i50 with all that space to lead into taken away from them, but they'd still absolutely be sensational today with key forwards today while taller, hardly all-time talented, with key forwards of 10 years ago in my view largely better than the stars of today by position.
 
Knightmare said:
Sounds like you're forgetting Wilt also won a chip in Philli. No one in any era wins alone. Wilt won his first chip with Greer, Walker and Cunningham. Just as Russell was never along when he won, and always had a 6-8 strong rotation of for the time really good basketball players v Wilt who never had that same top to bottom quality around him.

Wilt also won with the Lakers alongside West/Goodridge, as Baylor had retired.

Baylor had just the one healthy season, with Wilt getting hurt during his second year in LA. Then from there Baylor was done playing just 2 games, then 9 games the next season. They never had time to develop chemistry and struggled in their sole year together as Wilt takes up space on the inside and Baylor needs space on the inside to drive and score.

What's special about Russell is that you can play him alongside anyone in any system. With Wilt, as with Kareem and Shaq, you don't put drive to the basket guys around them, as they limit the effectiveness of those guys, instead, you surround them with shooters. It's like if you're creating a super-team for Wilt to play alongside. If Wilt played today and he's an all-star captain, he's not picking LeBron first. He'd take Steph and Klay as running mates. Baylor was that LeBron of that era.

The NBA game requires an inside force - be it someone around the basket or a driver, complemented by someone or a group of outside shooters. If you've got a Russell, because he's not that scorer and is neither, you need both that inside scorer/driver and shooter around him, meaning you're instead of being just one piece away, really practically two pieces away on that offensive end.

Wilt was an iron man. If it's an 82 game season, he'd play 82 games more than no. If it's an 80 game season, he'd play 80 games. Only the one year he played less than 70 games. And he's the only guy to have the conditioning to play 48+ minutes per game in a season. Being soft isn't applicable to him, he's that LeBron kind of athlete where his conditioning is on such a level that he didn't get hurt, and anything minor he could play through no issue. Talking Baylor, the one season Wilt played alongside Baylor, and he was healthy, he was willing and able to get back on the floor but his coach wouldn't bring him back in, and because of that stupidity Wilt didn't win what could have been his second of three chips and finally given Elgin one.

Wilt, Russell and Kareem are in my view the three greatest centres to ever play. Kareem is the superior offensive player v Russell, but wasn't as a defender or rebounder on that same level. Who you take almost depends on who you have on your team. I've got certainly on peak performance Wilt over Kareem. Kareem v Russell is more a what you value argument, if you need someone who can score down low, it's Kareem, but Russell more easily fits more teams and with more other players without taking away from anything.



I'm not sure where you get the idea Collingwood have an 'Agrade' midfield. Collingwood don't have any top-10 in the competition standard midfielders, and I'd argue no top-15 midfielders either.

Collingwood's defence is the backbone with Moore, Howe if he was healthy, Maynard and Crisp by relative positional value better than any of the club's midfielders. And maybe that, Quaynor is ascending. Collingwood's midfield is aging and lacking star power. There is a lack of a first possession winner who can read Brodie's taps and build that chemistry. There is also a relative lack of speed through there. It's an even midfield, but far from one of the best in the competition with Grundy as per my earlier post carrying, and even his play this year has been a shadow of his former performance.

Regarding the quality of modern football, I don't see football as all that much more advanced than it was 10 years ago. Defensive systems improved, pressure amped up further, not much else has evolved. There are footballers a plenty form the 70s and 80s who would still dominate today, and I'm sure some guys from the 60s who as they were could still translate just fine, even if they have to shift positions to make it work.

I'm not going to disrespect generations past and suggest for example that Leigh Matthews if he played today couldn't be the best in the competition, or that a Lockett/Dunstall/Carey/Ablett Snr couldn't each respectively impact games today. They all to some extent would find it more difficult to dominate today, particularly with those key forwards and how much taller and stronger key defenders are today and how much more difficult it is to find space i50 with all that space to lead into taken away from them, but they'd still absolutely be sensational today with key forwards today while taller, hardly all-time talented, with key forwards of 10 years ago in my view largely better than the stars of today by position.
Click to expand...
Here's a couple from the past who would make every one look stupid
Nash
Pratt
Skilton
Bedford
There all from South Melbourne
Mueller
Barrassi
Mann
Flower
Melbourne
Carman
Price
Cable
Mathews
G Ablett
Jarman
Carey
Archer
Pickett
Barker
Ditterich
Weightman
Riolli

Do I need to go on

I can name _200 more who would all be stars in this so called football

Basketball
Wilkins
Johnson
Johnson
King
Gervin
Mcchale
Dawkins
Erving
Lanier
Sampson
Walton prior to foot
Nash
Marchevich
Aquire
Worthy
Thomas


You now why champions are champions
Inner drive
Competive instincts
Russell made everything and everyone BETTER
That's the key
Refused to lose

High school
Olympics
College
11 NBA rings

Collier
6 vfl
2 tas costing us a 6 peat
I vfl reserves
Numerous loosing grand finals

Created the provident fund
As a condition of returning

See the similarity
Maybe on ESPN you should report that and the miscarriage of justice and history
Cazaly Baldock for two have zero claims before him on legend status

But no bias
He played for Collingwood

Oh and if these so called full timers had any brains
They would demand his entry


HE CHANGED THE GAME
 
Knightmare said:
Doesn't sound like you value guys who win their own ball, nor dominate the ruck hitouts. Grundy carried the midfield in 2018/2019 win his contested ball winning and clearances. It's a ridiculous sentiment to suggest anyone who can have the highest Supercoach points in the competition is anything but a star - it's a competition that directly indicates not only quantitative, but qualitative metrics to suggest impact on games.

The problem for Grundy has been he's never had a premier first possession winner. Inject a Clayton Oliver into the Pies midfield and Grundy's taps would look better. It's not necessarily going to make him a couple in the game tap ruckman, but he'd look much more proficient in that area of the game.



Collier's a lock? They wouldn't know how to handball and they certainly wouldn't have the conditioning to compete with today's footballers who would run around them like they're traffic cones.

If the criteria is to win today, with today's structures. They wouldn't have a case.

The Collier's as with the Coventry's and any others from before certainly the 1960s only have a case if you're only measuring them based on their relative dominance of their time, completely disregarding whether their games would have any capacity to translate.
Click to expand...
REALLY

Stick to drafting
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Darkyprotector said:
REALLY

Stick to drafting
Click to expand...
Is there any chance you could ever try having a normal conversation with someone, rather than acting as if anyone who doesn't agree with you is some sort of idiot, and treating them as if you think they are your enemy?! It's pathetic, and you've been doing it since you came on here. Grow up, and/or just go away!
 
Darkyprotector said:
Here's a couple from the past who would make every one look stupid
Nash
Pratt
Skilton
Bedford
There all from South Melbourne
Mueller
Barrassi
Mann
Flower
Melbourne
Carman
Price
Cable
Mathews
G Ablett
Jarman
Carey
Archer
Pickett
Barker
Ditterich
Weightman
Riolli

Do I need to go on

I can name _200 more who would all be stars in this so called football

Basketball
Wilkins
Johnson
Johnson
King
Gervin
Mcchale
Dawkins
Erving
Lanier
Sampson
Walton prior to foot
Nash
Marchevich
Aquire
Worthy
Thomas


You now why champions are champions
Inner drive
Competive instincts
Russell made everything and everyone BETTER
That's the key
Refused to lose

High school
Olympics
College
11 NBA rings

Collier
6 vfl
2 tas costing us a 6 peat
I vfl reserves
Numerous loosing grand finals

Created the provident fund
As a condition of returning

See the similarity
Maybe on ESPN you should report that and the miscarriage of justice and history
Cazaly Baldock for two have zero claims before him on legend status

But no bias
He played for Collingwood

Oh and if these so called full timers had any brains
They would demand his entry


HE CHANGED THE GAME
Click to expand...

I'm not going to profess to be an expert in pre 1990s AFL/VFL football. That's precisely why I came here asking questions of those who are and can educate me on some specific players of interest. I don't find there is nearly a satisfactory amount of full game tapes out there to be as knowledgeable on the history of the AFL as I am of the NBA, other than a few famous games and mostly of which are grand finals.

When you're talking pre-handball era players, I do find it unreasonable to suggest any of them could with their existing skills experience the same level of success they achieved. But certainly 60s onwards there progressively was a greater deal of compatibility where there is enough similar that it's not unreasonable that they could play today and not look silly, and progressively over the generations from there more who would still have their games hold up.
Someone like Leigh Matthews. He would have a reasonable case still today I would have thought to be the competition's best if he played now. He wouldn't be able to kick as many goals as he did then as the game and defensive structures wouldn't allow that. But prime Matthews could still possibly get you 650d+ 40g+ today.

It's a bit like suggesting players from before the 60s in the NBA would be able to star today. If they didn't at least play in the 60s, it's hard to see them being relevant. Wilt, Russell, Oscar, Baylor, West. I could go on, those guys were all-time great and would still be in my view stars today if they play. I view Wilt and Russell as the two greatest bigs ever and Oscar the greatest point guard ever - people don't appreciate with Oscar his scoring and fg% for the era where they had double hand checking v when MJ played and it was single hand checking. And back then everything was called a carry, so it was incredible that guys like Oscar and West could be as prolific as they were. Oscar was old man Jordan, not that high flying athlete, not that defender of young MJ, but from the mid range, he was entirely unstoppable as late career Michael was and a great distributor in his own right who shared the ball and was unselfish. 70s basketball was great and while it didn't have other than Kareem those 60s star level greats, there were a lot more high level players, playing, and of course from the 80s we had a complete explosion of talent from Bird, to Magic, to Hakeem, to Michael with some high level all-stars below them.

What's missed in NBA analysis consistently, and it seems like a brothers club who continually draw the wrong conclusions, is that championships are not the measure of individual greatness. Team success direct reflects team greatness and is solely a reflection of how good the team is that you played on. Just as premierships aren't in the AFL a measure of a player's greatness and instead reflect the performance of a group of 22 footballers, with one player having a near negligible individual impact on winning. Championships/premierships is a measure of team success. No one wins on their own. LeBron has won with D.Wade and Bosh. He's won with Kyrie and Love. He's won with AD. KD won with Steph, Klay and Draymond. Michael won with Pippen and one of Grant/Rodman at a time. Magic won with Kareem, Scott and Worthy. Kareem also won with Oscar. Bird won with Parish, McHale, Johnson. Russell had 7 hall of fame teammates in Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, KC Jones, S.Jones, Ramsay and Havlicek who he won with. When we're talking about a team sport, winning is a success on team performance. Absolutely the leadership of a Bill Russell, as the leadership of a Luke Hodge, a Trent Cotchin, just as the leadership of great coaching and chemistry and buy-in within a playing group matters. There are so many variables towards winning.

Even despite this view, that winning doesn't matter, Russell is on my Mt Rushmore. If constructing a team, he's just about the easiest player to fit in because he doesn't need the ball on offense and brings it on the defensive end, hits the boards and helps elevate the play of those around him. He's the ultimate fast break starter for a run and gun team with athletes, but then fits with any kinds of scorers. You'll never hear me say a bad word about Russell, I just wouldn't start a team with Russell over Wilt unless the supporting cast consists predominantly of drivers. Wilt clogs up the lane which meant with Baylor he wasn't an ideal fit, and he wouldn't be a perfect fit with a say Giannis today either who needs that shooting around him and road to the rim open. If I don't have a group of drivers and any kind of outside shooting, Wilt is a very easy choice, and Kareem under that same scenario for the same reason would be a better fit for that kind of roster.
 
Knightmare said:
I'm not going to profess to be an expert in pre 1990s AFL/VFL football. That's precisely why I came here asking questions of those who are and can educate me on some specific players of interest. I don't find there is nearly a satisfactory amount of full game tapes out there to be as knowledgeable on the history of the AFL as I am of the NBA, other than a few famous games and mostly of which are grand finals.

When you're talking pre-handball era players, I do find it unreasonable to suggest any of them could with their existing skills experience the same level of success they achieved. But certainly 60s onwards there progressively was a greater deal of compatibility where there is enough similar that it's not unreasonable that they could play today and not look silly, and progressively over the generations from there more who would still have their games hold up.
Someone like Leigh Matthews. He would have a reasonable case still today I would have thought to be the competition's best if he played now. He wouldn't be able to kick as many goals as he did then as the game and defensive structures wouldn't allow that. But prime Matthews could still possibly get you 650d+ 40g+ today.

It's a bit like suggesting players from before the 60s in the NBA would be able to star today. If they didn't at least play in the 60s, it's hard to see them being relevant. Wilt, Russell, Oscar, Baylor, West. I could go on, those guys were all-time great and would still be in my view stars today if they play. I view Wilt and Russell as the two greatest bigs ever and Oscar the greatest point guard ever - people don't appreciate with Oscar his scoring and fg% for the era where they had double hand checking v when MJ played and it was single hand checking. And back then everything was called a carry, so it was incredible that guys like Oscar and West could be as prolific as they were. Oscar was old man Jordan, not that high flying athlete, not that defender of young MJ, but from the mid range, he was entirely unstoppable as late career Michael was and a great distributor in his own right who shared the ball and was unselfish. 70s basketball was great and while it didn't have other than Kareem those 60s star level greats, there were a lot more high level players, playing, and of course from the 80s we had a complete explosion of talent from Bird, to Magic, to Hakeem, to Michael with some high level all-stars below them.

What's missed in NBA analysis consistently, and it seems like a brothers club who continually draw the wrong conclusions, is that championships are not the measure of individual greatness. Team success direct reflects team greatness and is solely a reflection of how good the team is that you played on. Just as premierships aren't in the AFL a measure of a player's greatness and instead reflect the performance of a group of 22 footballers, with one player having a near negligible individual impact on winning. Championships/premierships is a measure of team success. No one wins on their own. LeBron has won with D.Wade and Bosh. He's won with Kyrie and Love. He's won with AD. KD won with Steph, Klay and Draymond. Michael won with Pippen and one of Grant/Rodman at a time. Magic won with Kareem, Scott and Worthy. Kareem also won with Oscar. Bird won with Parish, McHale, Johnson. Russell had 7 hall of fame teammates in Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, KC Jones, S.Jones, Ramsay and Havlicek who he won with. When we're talking about a team sport, winning is a success on team performance. Absolutely the leadership of a Bill Russell, as the leadership of a Luke Hodge, a Trent Cotchin, just as the leadership of great coaching and chemistry and buy-in within a playing group matters. There are so many variables towards winning.

Even despite this view, that winning doesn't matter, Russell is on my Mt Rushmore. If constructing a team, he's just about the easiest player to fit in because he doesn't need the ball on offense and brings it on the defensive end, hits the boards and helps elevate the play of those around him. He's the ultimate fast break starter for a run and gun team with athletes, but then fits with any kinds of scorers. You'll never hear me say a bad word about Russell, I just wouldn't start a team with Russell over Wilt unless the supporting cast consists predominantly of drivers. Wilt clogs up the lane which meant with Baylor he wasn't an ideal fit, and he wouldn't be a perfect fit with a say Giannis today either who needs that shooting around him and road to the rim open. If I don't have a group of drivers and any kind of outside shooting, Wilt is a very easy choice, and Kareem under that same scenario for the same reason would be a better fit for that kind of roster.
Click to expand...
I see a similar situation at the pies

Cox with no speedy crumbers
No set plays no screens
No direction

Celtics recruitment
You have Sharman and cousy
Recruiting Russell and Tommy
Adding KC and Sam

Recruiting Larry
Adding parish recruitment of Denis and Kevin
Building a team that complements each other
Getting bill Walton
Prior to injury a super craftsman and simply brilliant at UCLA and under Ramsay

Winning

Smart bloke Red
Adding cowens ,trading for Silas
Trading westphal

Building value and cashing in

Pity we can't build a team like red
 
Darkyprotector said:
I see a similar situation at the pies

Cox with no speedy crumbers
No set plays no screens
No direction

Celtics recruitment
You have Sharman and cousy
Recruiting Russell and Tommy
Adding KC and Sam

Recruiting Larry
Adding parish recruitment of Denis and Kevin
Building a team that complements each other
Getting bill Walton
Prior to injury a super craftsman and simply brilliant at UCLA and under Ramsay

Winning

Smart bloke Red
Adding cowens ,trading for Silas
Trading westphal

Building value and cashing in

Pity we can't build a team like red
Click to expand...

This has in my posts about Collingwood been my point when I have been tagged/asked for my input.

When you want team success, you need great coach, great leadership and a group with a complimentary set of skills that can execute a gameplan that suits the personnel. Richmond have the closest combination to that, and aren't the most talented either, but they understand winning football, and they know it stems from the foundation of forward pressure to create opportunities to score on the turnover and to make life difficult for the opposing team to hold up over the course of a full game.

As you say, no crumbing forward. In defence another rebounder is needed. On the outside I'd like to see a tall wing. Through the midfield there is no high level first possession winner, and there is a lack of a super speedy mid with Treloar's speed not what it was. KPP needs at both ends. Too many ingredients missing, even if it was hypothesised that Buckley and Pendlebury are the right coach/captain combination. And that's before looking into how poor across the group we are at applying forward pressure. It's unreasonable to think this group can win as presently constructed. A lot of change is needed and a lot of these missing ingredients are needed to get Collingwood to where they want to be.

Bill Russell was a great leader. You need a great leader as part of a foundation. But you'd still surround him with an inside and an outside scorer so you have the talent. Just as with Wilt being that dominant inside scorer, you'd still give him that perimeter shooter and if that perimeter guy isn't that leader, then that's that third and final missing ingredient. If I could have an ultimate big-2, I'd love Wilt and MJ as that inside/outside combination with Michael able to kill teams from mid range, be that closer, be that leader and Wilt dominate and intimidate closer to the basket and in his own right hit his share of mid range jumpers. Team success isn't about having that number one guy in the sport. We saw it with LeBron losing to the Warriors when KD was there alongside Steph, Klay and Draymond. LeBron's the better basketball player and he had a great supporting cast in his own right with Kyrie and Love, but KD had the even better supporting cast which helped that team to even greater team success and a higher level of dominance again.

The NBA is a kind of three piece game. You need the inside scorer, you need the outside scorer and you need the leader who is that heart and soul guy. It could be Giannis or Zion getting to the basket, on the outside it could be Doncic or Trae going to work, and as that leader eg. Jimmy Butler.

The AFL is so much more complex because you've got all that extra moving parts. It's a 22 player game. And this is where Collingwood felt weak this year. Collingwood have 12-15 guys depending on how generous you want to be, who can be built with. That bottom end of the 22 needs substantial work and revision and needs a lot in the way of complementary pieces and upgrading. The AFL today seems to rely on not having those weak bottom of 22 passengers, but then having the forward pressure and the intercepting and rebounding behind the ball if I was to identify a bit like in the NBA that inside/outside scoring presence need, probably those dual components in the AFL that lead more directly towards winning based on analytics when scoring off turnovers is observed in correlation with who that pressure makes life hard on the other team to even hit targets, let alone allow for any reasonable i50 entries.
 
Knightmare said:
What's missed in NBA analysis consistently, and it seems like a brothers club who continually draw the wrong conclusions, is that championships are not the measure of individual greatness. Team success direct reflects team greatness and is solely a reflection of how good the team is that you played on. Just as premierships aren't in the AFL a measure of a player's greatness and instead reflect the performance of a group of 22 footballers, with one player having a near negligible individual impact on winning. Championships/premierships is a measure of team success. No one wins on their own. LeBron has won with D.Wade and Bosh. He's won with Kyrie and Love. He's won with AD. KD won with Steph, Klay and Draymond. Michael won with Pippen and one of Grant/Rodman at a time. Magic won with Kareem, Scott and Worthy. Kareem also won with Oscar. Bird won with Parish, McHale, Johnson. Russell had 7 hall of fame teammates in Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, KC Jones, S.Jones, Ramsay and Havlicek who he won with. When we're talking about a team sport, winning is a success on team performance. Absolutely the leadership of a Bill Russell, as the leadership of a Luke Hodge, a Trent Cotchin, just as the leadership of great coaching and chemistry and buy-in within a playing group matters. There are so many variables towards winning.
Click to expand...

Olajuwan won a championship in 93-94 against Ewing and Starks, Barkley, Johnson and Marjele and Drexler and Robinson.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Knightmare said:
That's the challenge with comparing eras. And there are so many ways to interpret it.

Rightly or wrongly, my methodology is to take the player, as is, from the era they played, as they could play.

From eras past, Nathan Buckley feels like that most future proofed player of any era where you could say 100 years on that his game would still (I can only imagine) maintain relevance. That's where when going into all-time discussions I feel that real separation comes into play, where when you have guys from eras past. How far into the future their games can translate and still be elite really speaks to their level of greatness. Just as in the NBA a Wilt Chamberlain from the 1960s could play in the NBA today and still be the dominant big man. You've got those Wilt's, Kareem's, Michael's, LeBron's, where it doesn't matter the era, and 100 years after their playing days their games should remain relevant. It's the same for me with AFL where if you're good enough, that test of time and how long their game would stack up under modern rules as they continue to update and evolve over time, really is that indicator of how great they really were.
Click to expand...
Surprised you'd put Kareem in the future proofed category. I think he'd be physically mauled by today's centres.
 
BIGNEDKELLY said:
Olajuwan won a championship in 93-94 against Ewing and Starks, Barkley, Johnson and Marjele and Drexler and Robinson.
Click to expand...

Robert Horry, Kenny Smith, Otis Thorpe and Vernon Maxwell is a solid starting group. Mario Ellie, Sam Cassell, Scott Brooks, Carl Herrera is good quality off the depth. The Knicks with Ewing, Oakley, Starks, Harper and Mason were competitive taking that group to 7 games. I could make the argument the Knicks had the better starting group despite Olajuwon's superiority, but the Rockets had the better depth off the bench.

The next year with Hakeem and Drexler with him, that's an even stronger group. That Magic team had a good group with Shaq, Penny, Horace, 3-D, Anderson and B.Shaw. That Magic group should have done a lot better with that roster, but in that series they showed their inexperience and so often in basketball under you've made it deep into the playoffs and experienced losing, you don't tend to get over that hump the first go around. The championship experience and veteran leadership of that Rockets group helped.

sr36 said:
Surprised you'd put Kareem in the future proofed category. I think he'd be physically mauled by today's centres.
Click to expand...

Today's centres are hopeless. A number of them can space the floor today and some can defend on the perimeter which in generations past never had to happen because the game was played inside-out rather than outside-in, but they're the relative advances of today's big men. There are a lot of athletic centres today, and as you're arguing relatively more, but other than finish on lob dunks or rolls to the basket for dunks, they don't do much with their athleticism and Kareem has the height and length to disrupt any modern big certainly around the basket.

Prime Kareem if he played today would be by far and away the best big man in the NBA. There wouldn't be a second player in the conversation. Don't think of late career Kareem when he was 40/41, think what he was doing with the Bucks and early years with the Lakers. The sheer gravity he would create, it's like Steph on the outside, but it's the reverse with the gravity he creates on the inside. You throw it into him inside and it's a hook shot and bucket. He's got the one unstoppable more in NBA history (other than a late career Wilt blocking and reaching to top of the backboard height to do so). Unless you're Wilt, all there is, is denying him the ball. Otherwise he's a bucket. Rim defence and rebounding early days was good though those elements dropped away with age, with his sky hook what kept him relevant beyond 40.

If Kareem had the outside shooting around him, he's be contending for championships every year. You could probably put him no the King's and he could win championships with that group. I'd say the exact same of prime Wilt. Give him outside shooting, as with Kareem and it's a wrap.
 
Knightmare said:
Robert Horry, Kenny Smith, Otis Thorpe and Vernon Maxwell is a solid starting group. Mario Ellie, Sam Cassell, Scott Brooks, Carl Herrera is good quality off the depth. The Knicks with Ewing, Oakley, Starks, Harper and Mason were competitive taking that group to 7 games. I could make the argument the Knicks had the better starting group despite Olajuwon's superiority, but the Rockets had the better depth off the bench.

The next year with Hakeem and Drexler with him, that's an even stronger group. That Magic team had a good group with Shaq, Penny, Horace, 3-D, Anderson and B.Shaw. That Magic group should have done a lot better with that roster, but in that series they showed their inexperience and so often in basketball under you've made it deep into the playoffs and experienced losing, you don't tend to get over that hump the first go around. The championship experience and veteran leadership of that Rockets group helped.



Today's centres are hopeless. A number of them can space the floor today and some can defend on the perimeter which in generations past never had to happen because the game was played inside-out rather than outside-in, but they're the relative advances of today's big men. There are a lot of athletic centres today, and as you're arguing relatively more, but other than finish on lob dunks or rolls to the basket for dunks, they don't do much with their athleticism and Kareem has the height and length to disrupt any modern big certainly around the basket.

Prime Kareem if he played today would be by far and away the best big man in the NBA. There wouldn't be a second player in the conversation. Don't think of late career Kareem when he was 40/41, think what he was doing with the Bucks and early years with the Lakers. The sheer gravity he would create, it's like Steph on the outside, but it's the reverse with the gravity he creates on the inside. You throw it into him inside and it's a hook shot and bucket. He's got the one unstoppable more in NBA history (other than a late career Wilt blocking and reaching to top of the backboard height to do so). Unless you're Wilt, all there is, is denying him the ball. Otherwise he's a bucket. Rim defence and rebounding early days was good though those elements dropped away with age, with his sky hook what kept him relevant beyond 40.

If Kareem had the outside shooting around him, he's be contending for championships every year. You could probably put him no the King's and he could win championships with that group. I'd say the exact same of prime Wilt. Give him outside shooting, as with Kareem and it's a wrap.
Click to expand...
He was wonderful in that era, but I think he'd be unable to hold his ground when posting up or boxing out against the current crop. Game over for a centre.
 
sr36 said:
He was wonderful in that era, but I think he'd be unable to hold his ground when posting up or boxing out against the current crop. Game over for a centre.
Click to expand...

No one today would take advantage against Kareem in the post because they don't have post games offensively with bigs today mostly perimeter shooters, while on defence, Kareem has had Wilt defend him, the strongest, most athletic big man in NBA history, even at the age/stage of career Wilt was when they played. Kareem while he struggled in his first matchup put up buckets on Wilt from then onwards once he adjusted. No guy in the NBA today can defend in the post like Wilt could. With Kareem it doesn't matter how the defender plays him, he could hit sky hooks over either shoulder and had numerous body position adjustments he could make depending on how he was defended so that no matter what, he can make buckets on any defender, with the sheer height of the release point over either shoulder, with either hand impossible to stop. From Kareem there was no reliance in the post to be as strong as the defender which is what made him so incredible.

The only concern I'd have of Kareem is how he would defend the perimeter and I'd also expect he'd struggle, as with Wilt, if he played alongside a team of drive to the rim types who can't shoot as they'll both clog up the lane and mean less opportunities for those guys to drive to the hole.

Putting up buckets, there is no one more automatic and timeless in the way he can do it than Kareem. His sky hook is more impossible to defend and higher % than Michael's fadeaway jumper from mid-range, and Michael is the best in NBA history from mid-range. Even better than Oscar Robertson who was in his own right unstoppable from mid-range.
 
Knightmare said:
No one today would take advantage against Kareem in the post because they don't have post games offensively with bigs today mostly perimeter shooters, while on defence, Kareem has had Wilt defend him, the strongest, most athletic big man in NBA history, even at the age/stage of career Wilt was when they played. Kareem while he struggled in his first matchup put up buckets on Wilt from then onwards once he adjusted. No guy in the NBA today can defend in the post like Wilt could. With Kareem it doesn't matter how the defender plays him, he could hit sky hooks over either shoulder and had numerous body position adjustments he could make depending on how he was defended so that no matter what, he can make buckets on any defender, with the sheer height of the release point over either shoulder, with either hand impossible to stop. From Kareem there was no reliance in the post to be as strong as the defender which is what made him so incredible.

The only concern I'd have of Kareem is how he would defend the perimeter and I'd also expect he'd struggle, as with Wilt, if he played alongside a team of drive to the rim types who can't shoot as they'll both clog up the lane and mean less opportunities for those guys to drive to the hole.

Putting up buckets, there is no one more automatic and timeless in the way he can do it than Kareem. His sky hook is more impossible to defend and higher % than Michael's fadeaway jumper from mid-range, and Michael is the best in NBA history from mid-range. Even better than Oscar Robertson who was in his own right unstoppable from mid-range.
Click to expand...
I think you're ignoring that they allow defenders to be more physical than they used to. It's a big reason why the game has moved away from the post. And whilst Kareem had all those tricks once he had the ball, he'd still need the strength to hold his ground in the post to both receive and execute.
 
Knightmare said:
Robert Horry, Kenny Smith, Otis Thorpe and Vernon Maxwell is a solid starting group. Mario Ellie, Sam Cassell, Scott Brooks, Carl Herrera is good quality off the depth. The Knicks with Ewing, Oakley, Starks, Harper and Mason were competitive taking that group to 7 games. I could make the argument the Knicks had the better starting group despite Olajuwon's superiority, but the Rockets had the better depth off the bench.
Click to expand...

Sorry Knightmare but you are talking rubbish now.

Starks Ewing and Oakley were all stars.

Robinson and Drexler were all stars.

Barkley and Johnson were all stars.

Hakeem was the only rockets all star. He had to beat half of dream team 1 and 2. He was the only Rockets all nba team or defensive team player.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Picking an all-time CFC lineup

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top