Bob Cousy vs Dwyane Wade

[Pointguard]

Cousy and Maravich are near the top of my list for most overrated players ever. They're some of the most influential players that have ever played, but in terms of impact on the court - ie contribution to winning games - I'd take Nash over both of them combined. Nash is easily one of the most underrated players ever.

This.

I got heat here for saying that Maravich wouldn't transport well into today's game, primarily because he wasn't that good in his day's game, which should be the first criteria for transport.

Yeah, Nash is one of the most under-rated for me as well.

And I can make a case that KC Jones and Russell ran the Celtic offense much more efficiently than Cousy did. But I wouldn't say Cousy is on my most overrated list.

[LAZERUSS]

This.

I got heat here for saying that Maravich wouldn't transport well into today's game, primarily because he wasn't that good in his day's game, which should be the first criteria for transport.

Yeah, Nash is one of the most under-rated for me as well.

And I can make a case that KC Jones and Russell ran the Celtic offense much more efficiently than Cousy did. But I wouldn't say Cousy is on my most overrated list.

Actually, Maravich's game would easily transport into today's game. The video footage proves that. In a guard-dominated era, and with a 3pt line, he would have thrived. He was clearly better than 90% of the guards that play today, and in fact, was probably physically superior to 95% of them.

If Ricky Rubio can play in today's NBA, then Pistol Pete would dominate it.

[L.Kizzle]

Cousy and Maravich are near the top of my list for most overrated players ever. They're some of the most influential players that have ever played, but in terms of impact on the court - ie contribution to winning games - I'd take Nash over both of them combined. Nash is easily one of the most underrated players ever.

Cousy had a winning record every season before Russell came along and went to the Conference Finals four times in six seasons.
Lost to the Knicks twice who went on to lose in the next series in the Finals in 51 and 53 to Davies and Mikan led teams. 54 and 55 lost to Schayes led team in Conference Finals who lost in 54 but won in 55.


Pete never made it past the first round. Not sure how Cousy didn't have an impact pre-Russell.
Eight of nine seasons for Maravich, his teams were below .500. No comparison.

[LAZERUSS]

Cousy had a winning record every season before Russell came along and went to the Conference Finals four times in six seasons.
Lost to the Knicks twice who went on to lose in the next series in the Finals in 51 and 53 to Davies and Mikan led teams. 54 and 55 lost to Schayes led team in Conference Finals who lost in 54 but won in 55.


Pete never made it past the first round. Not sure how Cousy didn't have an impact pre-Russell.
Eight of nine seasons for Maravich, his teams were below .500. No comparison.

Pistol never played on any quality teams. His career suffered pretty much the same way as Adrian Dantley's.

[L.Kizzle]

Pistol never played on any quality teams. His career suffered pretty much the same way as Adrian Dantley's.

Lou Hudson made more All-Star games than Pete, and Walt Bellamy while past his prime was still a serviceable big man.

[LAZERUSS]

Lou Hudson made more All-Star games than Pete, and Walt Bellamy while past his prime was still a serviceable big man.

Both were past their primes...and the reality was, in those years the NBA was stacked with power-house teams. Fans tend to forget that it is not just about teammates, but opposition, as well.

[L.Kizzle]

Both were past their primes...and the reality was, in those years the NBA was stacked with power-house teams. Fans tend to forget that it is not just about teammates, but opposition, as well.

Hudson was in his prime. Walt was past his.

Now his Jazz teams suck, I'll give you that. But those Hawks teams should have been a little better than they were.

[LAZERUSS]

Hudson was in his prime. Walt was past his.

Now his Jazz teams suck, I'll give you that. But those Hawks teams should have been a little better than they were.

Maybe, maybe not. But they certainly weren't close to the most talented teams in the league from '71 thru '74 (Pete's Hawk seasons.)

[DatAsh]

Cousy had a winning record every season before Russell came along and went to the Conference Finals four times in six seasons.
Lost to the Knicks twice who went on to lose in the next series in the Finals in 51 and 53 to Davies and Mikan led teams. 54 and 55 lost to Schayes led team in Conference Finals who lost in 54 but won in 55.


Pete never made it past the first round. Not sure how Cousy didn't have an impact pre-Russell.
Eight of nine seasons for Maravich, his teams were below .500. No comparison.

Cousy didn't have a winning record prior to Russell, the Celtics did. Celtics were good pre Russell, but it had more to do with Macauley than it did Cousy. Of course Cousy gets all the credit then and now because he was the flashier player. It's similar to West/Wilt, Iverson/Mutombo, though for different reasons. West/Iverson/Cousy get far too much credit for their team success, and Wilt/Mutombo/Macauley get far too little. Also, I never said he had no impact, just that he doesn't have the impact of a top 15-30 player, which is where I usually see him ranked. Look at the offenses Nash led vs the offenses Cousy led(particularly post Ed), night and day difference. Did Nash really have that much more help?

[L.Kizzle]

Cousy didn't have a winning record prior to Russell, the Celtics did. Celtics were good pre Russell, but it had more to do with Macauley than it did Cousy. Of course Cousy gets all the credit then and now because he was the flashier player. It's similar to West/Wilt, Iverson/Mutombo, though for different reasons. West/Iverson/Cousy get far too much credit for their team success, and Wilt/Mutombo/Macauley get far too little. Also, I never said he had no impact, just that he doesn't have the impact of a top 15-30 player, which is where I usually see him ranked. Look at the offenses Nash led vs the offenses Cousy led(particularly post Ed), night and day difference. Did Nash really have that much more help?

Macauley ... I'm not trying to underrate Ed Macauley but Cousy was the team. There's a reason he was traded for Russell and not Cousy. He had terrible rebounding numbers for a center/PF. PG Cousy was a few boards away from his every season. You had guy like Mikan, Mikkelsen, Schayes and Johnston getting 14 boards a game and ever lower tier bigs like Lovellette, Gallatin and Foust getting over ten-12 boards routinely. Hell, even Paul Arizin avg more boards than him.

Macauley BOST 51-56 POINTS/REBOUNDS/ASSIST in that order
51 - 20/9/4
52 - 19/8/4
53 - 20/9/4
54 - 19/8/4
55 - 18/9/4
56 - 18/5/3

vs

Cousy BOST 51-56
51 - 16/5/7
52 - 22/6/7
53 - 20/6/8 (assist league leader)
54 - 19/6/7 (assist league leader)
55 - 21/6/8 (assist league leader)
56 - 19/7/9 (assist league leader)

and Playoffs

Macauley BOST 51-56
51 - 22/9/4
52 - 23/11/4
53 - 17/10/4
54 - 5/4/4 (injured)
55 - 18/7/5
56 - 10/5/2

Cousy BOST 51-56
51 - 14/8/6
52 - 31/4/6
53 - 26/4/6 (playoff points leader)
54 - 21/5/6 (playoff points and assist leader)
55 - 22/6/9 (playoff points and assist leader)
56 - 26/8/9 (playoff assist leader)

[Pointguard]

Actually, Maravich's game would easily transport into today's game. The video footage proves that. In a guard-dominated era, and with a 3pt line, he would have thrived. He was clearly better than 90% of the guards that play today, and in fact, was probably physically superior to 95% of them.

If Ricky Rubio can play in today's NBA, then Pistol Pete would dominate it.

Pete would be a wing player in today's game, too slow for the 2 and physically exploited at the three. Hudson played more like a two then and Maravich a scoring point forward. But I don't think he could do that in today's game. Pete was the games only self absorbed point forward for good reason.

Pete would be a horrible transport. For whatever might be said about different era's, the lateral movement and close out on shooters is a lot better now than in the 70's. Pete's assist and TO numbers were near equal at least in the one prime year we have them (6.7 assist to 5 TOs). He was sloppy then and would be horrific now. He was self absorbed then and would be now. He got into foul trouble in the playoffs and the demands of the containing the game (stopping the run) would make him sloppier.

Rubio is a much better team player than Maravich ever was. Rubio was never sloppy with the ball. Rubio is a very good defender. Maravich would still be an explosive scorer but he wasn't an effective player then. Almost all of the good guards now influence their team heavily. Pete would still be a scorer but the other parts of the game would get him in trouble. He was a destructive offensive force He made simple plays harder than they were and there is no evidence that he could elevate a team. If a player isn't effective in his day, its insulting to say he would be in other era's. The first criteria has to be that he can affect the era he is in. Different if he was dominant scorer or could score at will. He could go off at times and had a crazy scoring year but on a very bad team.

You have to have a second level where you affect the league or opposing teams in a significant way.

[ArbitraryWater]

Agreed with everyone who said Nash underrated.

[LAZERUSS]

Pete would be a wing player in today's game, too slow for the 2 and physically exploited at the three. Hudson played more like a two then and Maravich a scoring point forward. But I don't think he could do that in today's game. Pete was the games only self absorbed point forward for good reason.

Pete would be a horrible transport. For whatever might be said about different era's, the lateral movement and close out on shooters is a lot better now than in the 70's. Pete's assist and TO numbers were near equal at least in the one prime year we have them (6.7 assist to 5 TOs). He was sloppy then and would be horrific now. He was self absorbed then and would be now. He got into foul trouble in the playoffs and the demands of the containing the game (stopping the run) would make him sloppier.

Rubio is a much better team player than Maravich ever was. Rubio was never sloppy with the ball. Rubio is a very good defender. Maravich would still be an explosive scorer but he wasn't an effective player then. Almost all of the good guards now influence their team heavily. Pete would still be a scorer but the other parts of the game would get him in trouble. He was a destructive offensive force He made simple plays harder than they were and there is no evidence that he could elevate a team. If a player isn't effective in his day, its insulting to say he would be in other era's. The first criteria has to be that he can affect the era he is in. Different if he was dominant scorer or could score at will. He could go off at times and had a crazy scoring year but on a very bad team.

You have to have a second level where you affect the league or opposing teams in a significant way.

I hate to argue with you, because I respect you and your opinion as much as anyone else here, but Pete was not slow. He had blinding speed, was a better ball-handler than Rubio, a FAR greater shooter and scorer than Rubio, not to mention he was taller and more athletic.

The footage is there...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qv0YS1wHoQ

Incidently, in that footage...NO palming or traveling, either. Can you imagine what he could have done with taking 3-4 steps while carrying the ball?

In his 76-77 season, he ran away with the scoring title in a league that had Kareem, McAdoo, and Dr. J.

And, in his last season, which was the first season of the 3pt line...he shot 10-15 from the arc. Again, I believe he would have THRIVED in this era.

[Pointguard]

I hate to argue with you, because I respect you and your opinion as much as anyone else here, but Pete was not slow. He had blinding speed, was a better ball-handler than Rubio, a FAR greater shooter and scorer than Rubio, not to mention he was taller and more athletic.

The footage is there...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qv0YS1wHoQ

Incidently, in that footage...NO palming or traveling, either. Can you imagine what he could have done with taking 3-4 steps while carrying the ball?

In his 76-77 season, he ran away with the scoring title in a league that had Kareem, McAdoo, and Dr. J.

And, in his last season, which was the first season of the 3pt line...he shot 10-15 from the arc. Again, I believe he would have THRIVED in this era.

Kind of interesting that there is sooo much pre '75 footage there and of different sources! All the flowing hair clips are pre '75 maybe '74. In the beginning of the clip he does seem quick and somewhat fast. Not much after that, tho.

Yes, I noticed that years back on these boards watching Wilt clips that Wilt was very attentive not to take the second step and mentioned it then. So those guys had great fundamentals, especially Oscar and West because they had to contend with so much. Bob McAdoo had a great handle back then as well to go with his solid cross over. Pete was never close to walking in any of those clips.

[oarabbus]

This.

I got heat here for saying that Maravich wouldn't transport well into today's game, primarily because he wasn't that good in his day's game, which should be the first criteria for transport.

Yeah, Nash is one of the most under-rated for me as well.

And I can make a case that KC Jones and Russell ran the Celtic offense much more efficiently than Cousy did. But I wouldn't say Cousy is on my most overrated list.

I know dude. Pete was putting up garbage stats like 31/5/5 what a ****ing scrub.