Guy Rodgers shatters myth about 60s players not being able to play in todays NBA

[GrapeApe]

You do realize there's a chance that 50 years from now, the crossover on Pierce is going to be used as evidence for how weak this era is.

This, and there's countless clips that are for more embarassing, yet that single Cousy clip somehow represents an entire era.

[Soundwave]

The 60s was a weaker era, if it wasn't then Wilt should literally be able to average 50 ppg + 22 rpg in the modern NBA, but I think everyone knows he wouldn't come close to that.

If he could only put up numbers like that in the 60s, then that basically confirms that it was a weaker era.

If you transplant a Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, or Michael Jordan circa 1989 into the modern game though, their numbers IMO would more or less be the same or perhaps even better.

[CavaliersFTW]

Unless you're joking, none of that was really impressive to me...

Can people just agree that the greats of that time (west, oscar, wilt, russell, baylor etc) would probably be great today. However, the average nba player then just wasnt as good as the ones you see playing today.

Is that a fair statement?

The the hell kind of lazy logic drives someone to even default themselves to assume that? What evidence do you have that the great ones were great but the "average" ones weren't as good as "average" ones today

Think about it for a second... and keep in mind "average" players back then were still scoring 15-20 points a game and getting 5-10 rebounds while West and Baylor type players were putting up their usual 25-30 a piece. Think how stupid that sounds to call those "average" guys worse than today's "average" guys. Shouldn't the "Great" ones of that time (assuming they'd still be great today) have been head and shoulders above them? Cause they aren't... They aren't any greater relative to them than today's great ones are relative to today's "average" ones. Think before you speak.

[CavaliersFTW]

Wilt is great, doesn't mean his competition outside of Russell wasn't shit.

Point guards couldn't throw the ball in the post correctly back in the 60s for ****s sakes. 37 years old healthy Steve Nash would be the best point guard in the league.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8IXS49q1DE

what the fu[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]k were you babbling on about again?

[fpliii]

The 60s was a weaker era, if it wasn't then Wilt should literally be able to average 50 ppg + 22 rpg in the modern NBA, but I think everyone knows he wouldn't come close to that.

If he could only put up numbers like that in the 60s, then that basically confirms that it was a weaker era.

If you transplant a Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, or Michael Jordan circa 1989 into the modern game though, their numbers IMO would more or less be the same or perhaps even better.

Stop trying to exaggerate the differences between the late 60s and 80s and minimize the differences between the 80s and the present. Your agenda is transparent as hell dude.

[wally_world]

This was supposed to be a joke right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMeOnHoLAik

I'd rather watch this 17 minute Nate Wolters highlight vid

Holyshit there IS a 17min Nate Wolters highlight vid

[Psileas]

The 60s was a weaker era, if it wasn't then Wilt should literally be able to average 50 ppg + 22 rpg in the modern NBA, but I think everyone knows he wouldn't come close to that.

If he could only put up numbers like that in the 60s, then that basically confirms that it was a weaker era.

If you transplant a Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, or Michael Jordan circa 1989 into the modern game though, their numbers IMO would more or less be the same or perhaps even better.

Yeah, between the 60s and the 80s the NBA took such a quantum leap that now, 3 decades after the 80s, it has become worse...
Only Stockton being able to average so many assists in the 80's (and in so few minutes), Jordan being able to average 35 ppg on 53% as a guard and Rodman being able to grab 18 rpg as a 6'8 wiry forward similarly indicate that the 80's were a weak league...

[Roundball_Rock]

Yeah, between the 60s and the 80s the NBA took such a quantum leap that now, 3 decades after the 80s, it has become worse...

it is odd and amusing to see some argue the 60's and 70's were weak (the years where KAJ, Wilt and Russell played/were in their primes) while the 80's and 90's represent the pinnacle of basketball--only for the game to slide backwards for the next 15-20 years. The fact is today's game is more different than the 80's than comparing the 80's to the 60's. The ubiquity of the 3 pointer has changed how teams play today in a way nothing from the 60's to the 80's did. You also had the international revolution. One-fifth of the league has been international in the 21st century. You have a team like the Spurs' whose rotation is majority international (in 1994 and 1984 the Spurs had 0 foreign players). Yet these major changes are ignored by the "80's and 90's" crowd.

He mentioned Wilt scoring 50 ppg but no one else scored more than 35 ppg in that year. Meanwhile, when MJ was scoring 37 or Kobe 35 there were other 32-33 ppg scorers around during those periods. Wilt's 50 ppg says more about him than his era.

[ralph_i_el]

Holyshit there IS a 17min Nate Wolters highlight vid

I thought it was funny too.

Throw wolters in a time machine and he'd kick some serious ass.

[Warfan]

The the hell kind of lazy logic drives someone to even default themselves to assume that? What evidence do you have that the great ones were great but the "average" ones weren't as good as "average" ones today

Think about it for a second... and keep in mind "average" players back then were still scoring 15-20 points a game and getting 5-10 rebounds while West and Baylor type players were putting up their usual 25-30 a piece. Think how stupid that sounds to call those "average" guys worse than today's "average" guys. Shouldn't the "Great" ones of that time (assuming they'd still be great today) have been head and shoulders above them? Cause they aren't... They aren't any greater relative to them than today's great ones are relative to today's "average" ones. Think before you speak.

What i mean is just that the game has evolved and so has the talent and skill level. I don't know how you can watch a full game from say 1962 and come to the conclusion that those players overall are as good as the players we see today. That the offensive and defensive systems are as 'complex' as we see today. The game today is clearly played at a higher level. I'm not saying that the era was necessarily weak or anything, just that the game has improved over time. I don't know how u can deny that...

Oscar was averaging a trip dub for half his career while putting up 30 a night. Elgin was having seasons of 38-19 at 6-5 for god's sake. I don't even need to bring up wilts gaudy numbers. I dont know how you think those arent 'head and shoulders above' the average nba players stats back then.

This is just my opinion...

[kshutts1]

The the hell kind of lazy logic drives someone to even default themselves to assume that? What evidence do you have that the great ones were great but the "average" ones weren't as good as "average" ones today

Think about it for a second... and keep in mind "average" players back then were still scoring 15-20 points a game and getting 5-10 rebounds while West and Baylor type players were putting up their usual 25-30 a piece. Think how stupid that sounds to call those "average" guys worse than today's "average" guys. Shouldn't the "Great" ones of that time (assuming they'd still be great today) have been head and shoulders above them? Cause they aren't... They aren't any greater relative to them than today's great ones are relative to today's "average" ones. Think before you speak.

I think it's a fair point to make. The talent pool is much larger today. In theory, the average player today SHOULD be better than the average player back then. Not sure if that's really the case, but it's logical to make that assumption.

[BoutPractice]

We need a grainy black & white version of this.

[riseagainst]

We need a grainy black & white version of this.

[MavsSuperFan]

The 60s was a weaker era, if it wasn't then Wilt should literally be able to average 50 ppg + 22 rpg in the modern NBA, but I think everyone knows he wouldn't come close to that.

If he could only put up numbers like that in the 60s, then that basically confirms that it was a weaker era.

If you transplant a Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, or Michael Jordan circa 1989 into the modern game though, their numbers IMO would more or less be the same or perhaps even better.

**** you man wilt was the god of basketball
Why did i never get a chance to suck wilt off
1960s nba was the peak of the nba

[MavsSuperFan]

Guy Rodgers, a point guard drafted in 1958 and who was just elected to the Hall of Fame this year, was doing moves back then that some guards don't even pull of today.



Guy Rodgers Career Retrospective


Guy Rodgers Career Highlights

Nothing in those videos is extraordinary by modern NBA standards.