Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 23 of 23
  1. #16
    Not airballing my layups anymore Obama=ROY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    White House
    Posts
    114

    Default Re: How good would the following players have been in the 60s?

    All of them would be so much ahead of their time.

  2. #17
    rank sentamentalist
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    goodbyecruelworld
    Posts
    16,522

    Default Re: How good would the following players have been in the 60s?

    kirk and delly are virtually the exact same player. neither would have succeeded without access to training in fundamentals and advanced conditioning. kanter might have made it imo thanks to his touch and handle. athletically he would have fit in better. if korver shoots the way he does now he's obviously golden but i'm not sure he's capable without guys like miller and allen paving the road to the sort of player he is.

    barea is your best bet imo

  3. #18
    Bear Chested Da Brawn STATUTORY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Khobestan
    Posts
    10,482

    Default Re: How good would the following players have been in the 60s?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dbrog
    He's not

    He can't compete with Pettit, Russell, Wilt, Reed, Thurmond, Lucas, and Ballamy. Those dudes were sick. Even someone like Happy Hairston who was small, would badly outplay Kanter.
    you just listed 7 players across 3 positions and 2 decades...

    what about the dozens of white scrubs that played at those positions in some point of those 2 decades

    Kanter would shit on them

  4. #19
    Lol RRR3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    47,957

    Default Re: How good would the following players have been in the 60s?

    Quote Originally Posted by RidonKs
    kirk and delly are virtually the exact same player. neither would have succeeded without access to training in fundamentals and advanced conditioning. kanter might have made it imo thanks to his touch and handle. athletically he would have fit in better. if korver shoots the way he does now he's obviously golden but i'm not sure he's capable without guys like miller and allen paving the road to the sort of player he is.

    barea is your best bet imo
    Kirk in his best years was far better than Delly

    Didn't he used to put up ~16/6? Plus he made an all-defense 2nd iirc

  5. #20
    College superstar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    4,869

    Default Re: How good would the following players have been in the 60s?

    Quote Originally Posted by RRR3
    Kirk in his best years was far better than Delly

    Didn't he used to put up ~16/6? Plus he made an all-defense 2nd iirc
    Yeah, Kirk is what Delly would be if Delly played in some nuclear ooze.

  6. #21
    Dunking on everybody in the park
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    659

    Default Re: How good would the following players have been in the 60s?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dbrog
    Kanter would likely not make the league. Not skilled enough and doesn't provide enough defense. Korver as mentioned likely wouldn't make it either or could be a bench player like he was for a long time in this league. Barea and Heinrich would be considerably worse at ball handling (since they woulda grown up in those times) and probably not make rosters as well. Remember there were much less teams back then and you had quite a few elite PGs running around.
    Kanter's offense is elite, would've been in any era, since he doesn't rely on creating contact as some other bigs do. And his man to man defense is actually decent at least. His weakness is pick and roll defense and back in the 60s teams didn't rely on pick and roll like they do today, so he's not such a liability. Kanter is my safest pick to make the league of the players mentioned.

    Same goes for Korver, good size & length, great shooter, excellent at moving without the ball, good passer, great team defender. Easily makes the league on the shooting alone.

    The guards are the hardest to predict, especially players like Dellavedova and Barrea. Dellavedova lacks quickness and Barrea lacks size, so they have to play very physical and the rules in the 60s doesn't allow them to do it. So maybe they do or maybe they don't. I think a player like Hinrich makes it though.

  7. #22
    NBA Legend FKAri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    16,604

    Default Re: How good would the following players have been in the 60s?

    Kanter and Hinrich are the safest bets. Kanter's strengths would be amplified and his weaknesses would be hidden given the style of play.

    In general tho modern guards should have no problem playing in the 60s for the most part because guard play has come a long way.

  8. #23
    Decent college freshman Dbrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,881

    Default Re: How good would the following players have been in the 60s?

    Quote Originally Posted by STATUTORY
    you just listed 7 players across 3 positions and 2 decades...

    what about the dozens of white scrubs that played at those positions in some point of those 2 decades

    Kanter would shit on them
    The thread said drop these players into the 60s. The players I listed all played in the 60s. How the f@ck am I supposed to know what part OP meant?

    Also, you know damn well all the players I listed played C or PF (both positions Kanter could play). Again, most of those "scrub" white players would still shit on Kanter. Also realize Kanter would not be a large as he is today. No time to workout allday when you are taking buses and working a part-time job on the side in addition to playing in the NBA.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •