Is Josh Smith this generation's Charles Barkley?

[Joker]

I have to disagree respectfully. Kemp was a beast in the low post. Kemp may have been better than Karl Malone in the low post. Smoove is more like Larry Nance.

:thumbsdownsmileyanim:

Not even. Smith is already more talented than Nance. Kemp and his 20ppg with a playmaker like GP is something Smith could have did with GP plus much better defense. Smith clearly had the highest per as the 3rd option on the Hawks and on par with Kemp's, and is very talented. Malone>>>Kemp and it's not even close. Kemp is the most overrated player on blog sites that I have seen. That Seattle team was loaded and he was just an all star player. Payton was the man, a top 5 player at that time. Kemp was explosive and dynamic but was always lacking something mentally. He was more talented offensively than Smith but even Smith wasn't lacking that many screws or on drugs like Kemp. I still remember Kemp rubbing Patterson leg in Portland, Kobe stopper, lol.

Edited July 24, 2010 by nbasuperstar40

[Diesel]

:thumbsdownsmileyanim:

Not even. Smith is already more talented than Nance. Kemp and his 20ppg with a playmaker like GP is something Smith could have did with GP plus much better defense. Smith clearly had the highest per as the 3rd option on the Hawks and on par with Kemp's, and is very talented. Malone>>>Kemp and it's not even close. Kemp is the most overrated player on blog sites that I have seen. That Seattle team was loaded and he was just an all star player. Payton was the man, a top 5 player at that time. Kemp was explosive and dynamic but was always lacking something mentally. He was more talented offensively than Smith but even Smith wasn't lacking that many screws or on drugs like Kemp. I still remember Kemp rubbing Patterson leg in Portland, Kobe stopper, lol.

It's called puff, puff, pass... You got to learn to pass... You hogging up the good stuff.

[Joker]

It's called puff, puff, pass... You got to learn to pass... You hogging up the good stuff.

Larry Nance was a skinny uber athletic center with little skill in Phoenix well oiled machined offense. I guess Walter Davis is the 80's Dwayne Wade in the world of Diesel. Nance and Davis couldn't even make the playoffs when getting to the playoffs was easy in those times. Diesel, time to wake up into 2010.

Edited July 24, 2010 by nbasuperstar40

[Sothron]

:thumbsdownsmileyanim:

Not even. Smith is already more talented than Nance. Kemp and his 20ppg with a playmaker like GP is something Smith could have did with GP plus much better defense. Smith clearly had the highest per as the 3rd option on the Hawks and on par with Kemp's, and is very talented. Malone>>>Kemp and it's not even close. Kemp is the most overrated player on blog sites that I have seen. That Seattle team was loaded and he was just an all star player. Payton was the man, a top 5 player at that time. Kemp was explosive and dynamic but was always lacking something mentally. He was more talented offensively than Smith but even Smith wasn't lacking that many screws or on drugs like Kemp. I still remember Kemp rubbing Patterson leg in Portland, Kobe stopper, lol.

I don't even know how to begin with how wrong this is. Kemp was one of the best big men to play in the NBA period in the last 25 years and you act as if he's some scrum. I'd kill for Josh to have HALF of Kemp's offensive game.

[niremetal]

I always get in trouble with these, but how about Antonio McDyess (pre-injuries) instead?

~lw3

That's the best comparison I've seen on here. But there really is no comparison to Smoove. He is a unique talent with unique shortcomings. I've never seen a guy his size with his level of run-jump athleticism. But I've never seen someone with his leaping ability have such poor rebounding skills. I've never seen someone with such a remarkable sense of timing on help and transition defense. But I've also never seen someone with such a huge disparity between the quality of his help defense (Josh = best in NBA) versus his on ball defense (Josh = bad in the post, terrible on the perimeter). I've never seen someone with his level of passing ability that so completely lacks awareness of when he should give the ball up to a teammate on the break. I've also never seen someone with as bad a jumper as he has be so in love with his jumper.

McDyess comes closest - he had the same strengths and weaknesses, by and large, but they were all far less pronounced. Offensively, there was really no facet of the game except dunking at which pre-injuries McDyess was not superior to Smoove, but the margins are relatively small. McDyess was a significantly better rebounder. Josh is infinitely better as a help defender, and only slightly worse than McDyess was on the ball. Josh was better in transition on both ends. McDyess had fewer mental lapses. But he's the closest comparison I can think of - and that's not saying much.

Edited July 25, 2010 by niremetal

[Diesel]

Larry Nance was a skinny uber athletic center with little skill in Phoenix well oiled machined offense. I guess Walter Davis is the 80's Dwayne Wade in the world of Diesel. Nance and Davis couldn't even make the playoffs when getting to the playoffs was easy in those times. Diesel, time to wake up into 2010.

Larry Nance was a skinny athletic PF in the days when everybody was Skinny. Moreover, he had a game very similar to Josh's Athleticism with weaker fundamentals around the rim. If he played today, he'd be either Sf or PF (tweener). You see Sup, I'm old enough to have actually watched Nance play. I don't have to rely on what some reference says. Moreover, you're looking for credibility after saying Josh Smith = Barkley?

[Diesel]

That's the best comparison I've seen on here. But there really is no comparison to Smoove. He is a unique talent with unique shortcomings. I've never seen a guy his size with his level of run-jump athleticism. But I've never seen someone with his leaping ability have such poor rebounding skills. I've never seen someone with such a remarkable sense of timing on help and transition defense. But I've also never seen someone with such a huge disparity between the quality of his help defense (Josh = best in NBA) versus his on ball defense (Josh = bad in the post, terrible on the perimeter). I've never seen someone with his level of passing ability that so completely lacks awareness of when he should give the ball up to a teammate on the break. I've also never seen someone with as bad a jumper as he has be so in love with his jumper.

McDyess comes closest - he had the same strengths and weaknesses, by and large, but they were all far less pronounced. Offensively, there was really no facet of the game except dunking at which pre-injuries McDyess was not superior to Smoove, but the margins are relatively small. McDyess was a significantly better rebounder. Josh is infinitely better as a help defender, and only slightly worse than McDyess was on the ball. Josh was better in transition on both ends. McDyess had fewer mental lapses. But he's the closest comparison I can think of - and that's not saying much.

McDyess was always a good shooter. If Smoove had McDyess' midrange game and rebounding, he'd be a max player.

[Buzzard]

McDyess was always a good shooter. If Smoove had McDyess' midrange game and rebounding, he'd be a max player.

You aint kidding. One of my favorite players to watch before he was injured was McDyess. Can't help it, I was born in Alabama.

[Buzzard]

Posted this in another thread but it really needs to go here even more.

OK enough is enough. People keep saying Josh Smith is not tradeable unless we get a future potential HOF type player like Melo and CP3. The posters saying this are all citing Smooves huge upside because he is only 24 yrs old. Well here are three players drafted extremely young and here is what they were doing 6 years later in the NBA.

Kevin Garnett, 22ppg, 11rpg, 5 apg, 1.8 bpg

Kobe Bryant, 25.2 ppg, 5.5 spg, 5.5 rpg

Tracy McGrady 32.1 ppg, 5.5 apg, 6.5 rpg

Now everyone of these players had just as good, or better in Kobe and Garnetts case, numbers the season before. So for all you Homers out there who think Smoove still has a world of growth left, go find me the young prodigy player that came into the league at 18 or 19 and took longer than 5 to 6 years to develop to their full potential. By the time they turned 24, Garnett, Kobe, TMac were all world players, and barring injury, HOF bound no doubts about it.

What you see with Josh Smith at this stage of his career is exactly what you are going to get. There aint going to be some HOF butterfly transition into a Charles Barkley or any other HOF power forward. I am sorry people, but I have had it with this BS concerning how great our players are and soon will be, when we cannot even get past the 2nd damn round; and only one of our GREAT players can break 20 ppg for a season average. The homerism and denial on this board is astounding to say the least.

Hell, the ASG does not even have to fool 1/2 the fan base into thinking they are spending good money on future HOF type players, half of them do that just fine all by themselves. Is it any wonder the ASG does not feel any need to upgrade and spend money on this team? Half the fan base thinks Josh Smith is this generations Charles Barkley in waiting. Ya just keep on buying those season tickets and they will be more than happy to keep Smoove just for ya.

Lets get a grip here people. We do not have one player on our team that is worth CP3 or Melo straight up. Period end of story.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Buzzard

[foeteen14]

Posted this in another thread but it really needs to go here even more.

OK enough is enough. People keep saying Josh Smith is not tradeable unless we get a future potential HOF type player like Melo and CP3. The posters saying this are all citing Smooves huge upside because he is only 24 yrs old. Well here are three players drafted extremely young and here is what they were doing 6 years later in the NBA.

Kevin Garnett, 22ppg, 11rpg, 5 apg, 1.8 bpg

Kobe Bryant, 25.2 ppg, 5.5 spg, 5.5 rpg

Tracy McGrady 32.1 ppg, 5.5 apg, 6.5 rpg

Now everyone of these players had just as good, or better in Kobe and Garnetts case, numbers the season before. So for all you Homers out there who think Smoove still has a world of growth left, go find me the young prodigy player that came into the league at 18 or 19 and took longer than 5 to 6 years to develop to their full potential. By the time they turned 24, Garnett, Kobe, TMac were all world players, and barring injury, HOF bound no doubts about it.

What you see with Josh Smith at this stage of his career is exactly what you are going to get. There aint going to be some HOF butterfly transition into a Charles Barkley or any other HOF power forward. I am sorry people, but I have had it with this BS concerning how great our players are and soon will be, when we cannot even get past the 2nd damn round; and only one of our GREAT players can break 20 ppg for a season average. The homerism and denial on this board is astounding to say the least.

Hell, the ASG does not even have to fool 1/2 the fan base into thinking they are spending good money on future HOF type players, half of them do that just fine all by themselves. Is it any wonder the ASG does not feel any need to upgrade and spend money on this team? Half the fan base thinks Josh Smith is this generations Charles Barkley in waiting. Ya just keep on buying those season tickets and they will be more than happy to keep Smoove just for ya.

Lets get a grip here people. We do not have one player on our team that is worth CP3 or Melo straight up. Period end of story.

the ball is always in JJ's hands. it's hard for anyone to put up great numbers when so much of the offense focuses on one person. all of these guys you named were the first options on their team or at least 1a. as a 1st or 1a option and a complete commitment to because a great rebounder, smoove could average 21ppg 10rpg 6apg 2bpg 2spg for the next 7 years. these numbers are very comparable to garnett's numbers. i'll even go as far to say that if the hawks ever got a real point guard with smoove, he would be better than JJ.

[foeteen14]

on the topic of smith being compared to barkley i can see the similarities. they both are athletic, usually the most athletic player on the court. they both score a lot points off of just being more athletic than everybody. neither of them is a great shooter, though barkley was a better shooter than smith. one thing that i will say about smith is that he plays in an era that actually plays defense. many may disagree with me, but i believe that past greats were made that much greater because they were so much greater than their compitition, they shot a lot of wide open shots. the league is a lot more balanced now. this is why i say kobe is a better offensive (and maybe even overall) player than jordan. kobe almost matches jordan's numbers while being played by better defenders. just look at the scores of the games. in the past teams scored well over a hundred points(120's) routinely. their offenses weren't THAT good, but the defenses were THAT bad. every great player before the mid to late nineties benefited from the bad defense. with all of this being said, will smith ever match barkely's numbers? No. the game no longer allows it. just being more athletic than everybody else (especially as a big man) doesn't get you 28ppg 11rpg. if smith played when barkley played he would have been virtually unstoppable. who knows how barkley would fare in today's game, but i don't believe he would be near the player we know him to be. a lot of times we as fans over value players on our favorite team, there's a little homer in all of us. but we also tend to under value certain players on our favorite team because we see them everyday. we know every one of their flaws, and we tend to emphasize those flaws. smith will continue to grow as a player, he's going to calm down as he gets older, his low post game will get better with touches, and his rebounding will improve as he matures. he's just 24, he's still being young. in this gerneration 24 is the new 18. i also think that smith truely wants to be special, and as long as he keeps progressing he will be. smith may be = to barkley, only time will tell.

[Mdizzle5]

on the topic of smith being compared to barkley i can see the similarities. they both are athletic, usually the most athletic player on the court. they both score a lot points off of just being more athletic than everybody. neither of them is a great shooter, though barkley was a better shooter than smith. one thing that i will say about smith is that he plays in an era that actually plays defense. many may disagree with me, but i believe that past greats were made that much greater because they were so much greater than their compitition, they shot a lot of wide open shots. the league is a lot more balanced now. this is why i say kobe is a better offensive (and maybe even overall) player than jordan. kobe almost matches jordan's numbers while being played by better defenders. just look at the scores of the games. in the past teams scored well over a hundred points(120's) routinely. their offenses weren't THAT good, but the defenses were THAT bad. every great player before the mid to late nineties benefited from the bad defense. with all of this being said, will smith ever match barkely's numbers? No. the game no longer allows it. just being more athletic than everybody else (especially as a big man) doesn't get you 28ppg 11rpg. if smith played when barkley played he would have been virtually unstoppable. who knows how barkley would fare in today's game, but i don't believe he would be near the player we know him to be. a lot of times we as fans over value players on our favorite team, there's a little homer in all of us. but we also tend to under value certain players on our favorite team because we see them everyday. we know every one of their flaws, and we tend to emphasize those flaws. smith will continue to grow as a player, he's going to calm down as he gets older, his low post game will get better with touches, and his rebounding will improve as he matures. he's just 24, he's still being young. in this gerneration 24 is the new 18. i also think that smith truely wants to be special, and as long as he keeps progressing he will be. smith may be = to barkley, only time will tell.

I wouldn't say this era is better defensively.... i wouldn't even say its really all that close either. I think Josh would get abused in a lot of those 80s/90s defenses... especially against the PFs of that period.

[Sothron]

on the topic of smith being compared to barkley i can see the similarities. they both are athletic, usually the most athletic player on the court. they both score a lot points off of just being more athletic than everybody. neither of them is a great shooter, though barkley was a better shooter than smith. one thing that i will say about smith is that he plays in an era that actually plays defense. many may disagree with me, but i believe that past greats were made that much greater because they were so much greater than their compitition, they shot a lot of wide open shots. the league is a lot more balanced now. this is why i say kobe is a better offensive (and maybe even overall) player than jordan. kobe almost matches jordan's numbers while being played by better defenders. just look at the scores of the games. in the past teams scored well over a hundred points(120's) routinely. their offenses weren't THAT good, but the defenses were THAT bad. every great player before the mid to late nineties benefited from the bad defense. with all of this being said, will smith ever match barkely's numbers? No. the game no longer allows it. just being more athletic than everybody else (especially as a big man) doesn't get you 28ppg 11rpg. if smith played when barkley played he would have been virtually unstoppable. who knows how barkley would fare in today's game, but i don't believe he would be near the player we know him to be. a lot of times we as fans over value players on our favorite team, there's a little homer in all of us. but we also tend to under value certain players on our favorite team because we see them everyday. we know every one of their flaws, and we tend to emphasize those flaws. smith will continue to grow as a player, he's going to calm down as he gets older, his low post game will get better with touches, and his rebounding will improve as he matures. he's just 24, he's still being young. in this gerneration 24 is the new 18. i also think that smith truely wants to be special, and as long as he keeps progressing he will be. smith may be = to barkley, only time will tell.

Teams were better defensively in that era. The offenses were simply better because you had less teams which meant better talent per team as well as players were still well grounded in fundamentals.

[Joker]

Teams were better defensively in that era. The offenses were simply better because you had less teams which meant better talent per team as well as players were still well grounded in fundamentals.

Teams are much better defensively and the talent pool is much stronger. Guys like Craig Ehlo would never get good mins in today's game. This game is all about athleticism and skill with an international pool of players. Not comparable to the 80s.

[Buzzard]

Teams are much better defensively and the talent pool is much stronger. Guys like Craig Ehlo would never get good mins in today's game. This game is all about athleticism and skill with an international pool of players. Not comparable to the 80s.

Kevin Willis would prove you wrong on this blanket assumption. Willis averaged 16 and 10.5 in 1987. In 97 - 98 season he averaged 16.8 and 8.4. He averaged 9.3 and 6.8 in just 23 minutes of work at 38 years old in 2000. Willis was not even a top 5 power forward back in the eighties; but he more than held his own against the modern player/better athlete after turning 35 years old.

The athletic pool may be better. But from a fundamental standpoint it was a world of difference. You may have larger pool of better athletes; but the great athletes in the 80s were as talented as the great athletes of today. You just have more athletes. Football example, Bo Jackson in 1987 ran the fastest 40 yard dash time in the history of the NFL combine.

His record still stands today. My point is, now you have more players running sub 4.4 forties; but the ones who did in the 80s were just as gifted as any today. And even though the athletic pool is deeper; it can be argued to be just as thin in the NBA with more teams now in the league.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Buzzard

[dlpin]

People significantly overrate today's athleticism.

Bill Russel was probably more athletic 40 years ago than 90% of todays players (Bill Russel was ranked 7th worldwide in the high jump).

Is Nash Athletic? Dirk? Gasol? Varejao? Lee? Kidd?

[Buzzard]

People significantly overrate today's athleticism.

Bill Russel was probably more athletic 40 years ago than 90% of todays players (Bill Russel was ranked 7th worldwide in the high jump).

Is Nash Athletic? Dirk? Gasol? Varejao? Lee? Kidd?

All of them have a high BBIQ and they are fundamentally sound. Footwork and dribbling is really what is missing from todays better athletes. Why worry about footwork and dribbling when you are taught you can take 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 steps without being called for traveling?

[Joker]

Kevin Willis would prove you wrong on this blanket assumption. Willis averaged 16 and 10.5 in 1987. In 97 - 98 season he averaged 16.8 and 8.4. He averaged 9.3 and 6.8 in just 23 minutes of work at 38 years old in 2000. Willis was not even a top 5 power forward back in the eighties; but he more than held his own against the modern player/better athlete after turning 35 years old.

The athletic pool may be better. But from a fundamental standpoint it was a world of difference. You may have larger pool of better athletes; but the great athletes in the 80s were as talented as the great athletes of today. You just have more athletes. Football example, Bo Jackson in 1987 ran the fastest 40 yard dash time in the history of the NFL combine.

His record still stands today. My point is, now you have more players running sub 4.4 forties; but the ones who did in the 80s were just as gifted as any today. And even though the athletic pool is deeper; it can be argued to be just as thin in the NBA with more teams now in the league.

The mid-late 90's was the weakest era outside of the youth era in 90's-early 2000's era. This era is vastly superior to both of those even though the Bulls and Jazz could compete at a high level anytime in NBA history since they are great teams.

1. Generation Y has the largest popl (73 mil) compared to Gen X (40 mil) and we also have a talented international talent pool.

2. I agree with the Bo comment, an elite athlete is an elite athlete in any decade. Wilt Chamberlain is superior to all of today's centers outside of Dwight athletically. What the largest pool helps is the 3-12 players, not the studs like Kobe and LeBron who are a rarity.

3. The NBA has more teams today but the talent has caught up to the teams, in the 90's that wasn't the case. You had teams who best player was Greg Anthony. Today, the worst team in basketball had Brook Lopez and Devin Harris who are legit players unlike Greg who was just a role player.

Edited July 25, 2010 by nbasuperstar40

[Joker]

People significantly overrate today's athleticism.

Bill Russel was probably more athletic 40 years ago than 90% of todays players (Bill Russel was ranked 7th worldwide in the high jump).

Is Nash Athletic? Dirk? Gasol? Varejao? Lee? Kidd?

Nash is quick and fast, no one has his soccer like stamina.

Dirk is a 7 footer who has deceptive quickness

Gasol is the Spanish McHale

Andy is a defensive player that is athletic but not freakish.

David Lee won the HS dunk contest over James White. He is very athletic and a rarity among white athletes in the NBA. Not Tom Chambers freakish but freakish nonetheless.

Jason Kidd is fast as lightning at 6'4 and has elite court vision.

As for Russell, he's a rarity, like Michael Jordan, Kobe, LeBron, David Robinson, Hakeem, Dr. J. We still have not seen anyone like Dr. J since.

Edited July 25, 2010 by nbasuperstar40

[Joker]

Larry Nance was a skinny athletic PF in the days when everybody was Skinny. Moreover, he had a game very similar to Josh's Athleticism with weaker fundamentals around the rim. If he played today, he'd be either Sf or PF (tweener). You see Sup, I'm old enough to have actually watched Nance play. I don't have to rely on what some reference says. Moreover, you're looking for credibility after saying Josh Smith = Barkley?

Where did I say that? Do not put words in my mouth Diesel.