Is Josh Smith this generation's Charles Barkley?

[Diesel]

After reading through most of the BS that is written about the old days. I have come to offer the truth.

The difference between basketball back then and now is this:

1. Players had better BBIQ. Part of this is because they had been college and learned it from some coach who could teach them. The other part is that the coaches that they had in the pros were guys who were teachers. Woody is the example of a guy who couldn't teach the game. He could coach defense, but he's not a teacher. Doc is a teacher of the game because he came up under Al McGuire, Hank Raymonds, Rick Majerus, and Mike Fratello. These guys were teaching coaches. The league don't have a lot of those.

2. The Players are bigger. Shaq, Lebron, even Joe Johnson are huge for their position relative to back in the old days. Bill Russell would have been a PF in today's basketball game. Durant would have been a C. Certainly a freak like KG would have been a C. The guys are just much bigger than in the old days.

3. The game is less physical. Physical doesn't always mean a fight. Physical means that guys would get touched a lot more often and no whistle blew. Stern has this thing about "protecting the stars of the game" which in all actuality creates an unlevel playing field. A rookie picked 42nd in the 2nd round of the draft should be able to get the same calls as Lebron for the same foul. Instead, refs have to look and see who committed the foul. That was not the case in the old game. Players got touched. Handchecking was legal. In todays game, the players are seen as less tough because they cry and whine about being touched. Smoove would have never made it in the old days because he shuts down when somebody plays him physical... like Dwight Howard did. Like Kurt Thomas (who is dirty) did.

[Joker]

After reading through most of the BS that is written about the old days. I have come to offer the truth.

The difference between basketball back then and now is this:

1. Players had better BBIQ. Part of this is because they had been college and learned it from some coach who could teach them. The other part is that the coaches that they had in the pros were guys who were teachers. Woody is the example of a guy who couldn't teach the game. He could coach defense, but he's not a teacher. Doc is a teacher of the game because he came up under Al McGuire, Hank Raymonds, Rick Majerus, and Mike Fratello. These guys were teaching coaches. The league don't have a lot of those.

2. The Players are bigger. Shaq, Lebron, even Joe Johnson are huge for their position relative to back in the old days. Bill Russell would have been a PF in today's basketball game. Durant would have been a C. Certainly a freak like KG would have been a C. The guys are just much bigger than in the old days.

3. The game is less physical. Physical doesn't always mean a fight. Physical means that guys would get touched a lot more often and no whistle blew. Stern has this thing about "protecting the stars of the game" which in all actuality creates an unlevel playing field. A rookie picked 42nd in the 2nd round of the draft should be able to get the same calls as Lebron for the same foul. Instead, refs have to look and see who committed the foul. That was not the case in the old game. Players got touched. Handchecking was legal. In todays game, the players are seen as less tough because they cry and whine about being touched. Smoove would have never made it in the old days because he shuts down when somebody plays him physical... like Dwight Howard did. Like Kurt Thomas (who is dirty) did.

1. True, but that was more due to teams looking for athletic players who can defend if their not superstars instead of drafting Bob Whitman's who can shoot it but wouldn't get their shot off in today's NBA. Plus the one and done era with AAU basketball making players have a lot of basketball in their bodies but the importance of winning at a min.

2/3. You can blame that on Stern and his rules to make the NBA more fun to watch for the causal fan. You know Woody would have turned Marvin and Zaza into goons even given a chance. The only young player who is getting away with calls like LeBron is Durant and Joe doesn't rarely get calls. A reach of a comment. Smoove athletically would have been a monster in the 80's and it wasn't like there were a lot of great athletes in the 90's with Smith's skill level. The playoffs is very physical in today's game, ex. this and last years playoffs.

Durant would never be a center in any NBA era. Gervin is the best comparison to Durant. He's a 6'11 SG who is very abnormal in terms of measurements per ability.

Edited July 26, 2010 by nbasuperstar40

[coachx]

Lets compare Mark Lemke to Ryan Sandberg while we are at it.

[Sothron]

No one said the game is more physical today or the players today are taller, we said the players are bigger and a lot more athletic on average. Let's stay on subject and stop putting words in ppl mouth.

Yes, Jason Collins is obviously more athletic than Craig Ehlo or Tom Chambers or Larry Bird or even guys like Dominique Wilkins and Clyde Drexler.

:cant believe:

This is typical revisionist history. No way players of the old days could be better than today's players because they are OLD.

[Buzzard]

Yes, Jason Collins is obviously more athletic than Craig Ehlo or Tom Chambers or Larry Bird or even guys like Dominique Wilkins and Clyde Drexler.

:cant believe:

This is typical revisionist history. No way players of the old days could be better than today's players because they are OLD.

The points most of them are missing IMO:

33% More teams.

Being athletic does not equal a good to great basketball player.

If you want to go back 40 to 50 years, you have a valid argument; but we have not seen a enormous change in 40 yard dash times, broad jumps, vertical jumps, or bench press reps at the NFL combine. Which all NFL teams have participated in since 1985.

[dlpin]

shaq is no longer athletic, so he is no longer effective. i'll say it again, there's a difference between being able to jump high and being athletic. russel's 400 would probably be about 50th best in the nba now. and please don't tell me that guys in the nba today don't jump higher than russel did. yes there were freakish athletes back in the day, the only thing is, they were not being guarded by other freakish athletes. please watch some games from the 70's 80's and 90's, and then honestly tell me you don't see the difference. you have to compare the games side by side.

And how many of those 50 are 6'9 centers? How many centers today have a vertical over 40 inches? Wilt was also a track and field star, and ran the 100 meter dash in less than 11 seconds.

And it's not about jumping high. But between Kaman, Gasol, Big Z and Shaq, where is the athleticism? They don't run particularly fast, jump particularly high or are particularly quick.

It is amazing that we are having this discussion after the celtics almost won it all with Garnett on one leg barely able to dunk, Sheed as old as hell, Pierce having to rely on his step back almost exclusively.

[AHF]

Are we past the point of comparing Josh Smith to the "good" Andrei Kirilenko? That still seems like a natural comparison to me to the same point of them being effective at PF but ineffective at SF.

On the past/present, I think there has not be the evolutionary changes in human physique over the last 40 years that some people (primarily on RealGM) seem to believe has happened. The NBA has expanded the pool, eliminated hand checking and other physical play, enhanced training techniques, and made several other changes that have raised the overall athleticism of the pool of people being considered for spots in the NBA. Expansion of teams has diluted the effect of that some, however. Taking a guy like Wilt Chamberlein, he is far more athletic than any big in the NBA today at any point in their career. It isn't close. The studs would be studs in any era of the NBA.

[Joker]

Are we past the point of comparing Josh Smith to the "good" Andrei Kirilenko? That still seems like a natural comparison to me to the same point of them being effective at PF but ineffective at SF.

On the past/present, I think there has not be the evolutionary changes in human physique over the last 40 years that some people (primarily on RealGM) seem to believe has happened. The NBA has expanded the pool, eliminated hand checking and other physical play, enhanced training techniques, and made several other changes that have raised the overall athleticism of the pool of people being considered for spots in the NBA. Expansion of teams has diluted the effect of that some, however. Taking a guy like Wilt Chamberlein, he is far more athletic than any big in the NBA today at any point in their career. It isn't close. The studs would be studs in any era of the NBA.

This. the problem with threads like this, is no one reads the previous posts and just makes wild opinions. I stated what you wrote numerous times but Sothron thinks Ehlo will score 20ppg in today's game. A great like Bill Russell>>>>Ben Wallace and he outside of Howard is the closes player to Russell. He has surpassed AK47 and I was one of the first to do that comparison several seasons ago but Smith has eclipse that since.

[Sothron]

This. the problem with threads like this, is no one reads the previous posts and just makes wild opinions. I stated what you wrote numerous times but Sothron thinks Ehlo will score 20ppg in today's game. A great like Bill Russell>>>>Ben Wallace and he outside of Howard is the closes player to Russell. He has surpassed AK47 and I was one of the first to do that comparison several seasons ago but Smith has eclipse that since.

With today's game Ehlo would be a starting shooting guard and with his good athletic ability (yes, he was good, you don't play as long as he did and be considered a good defender without that) and high release point he'd put up points. The league has been diluted with expansion, a good player like Ehlo or Ricky Pierce or even a guy like Chris Gatling would be someone's second option on offense.

[DrReality]

Smoove is a better defensive player and can change a game with his D.

[foeteen14]

sorry for kind of highjacking the topic.

[Atlantaholic]

Sir Charles is one of those guys in a video game you'd give 99 rating for low post and rebounding. He was insanely good. Like one of the top five best players almost every year in his prime in the entire NBA. There is no way Josh is in that category. Josh is a border line All star talent and Charles was a border line best EVER at his position.

Its like saying Roddy White is a good reciever, is he this generation's Jerry Rice? No...just no.

Roddy (three straight pro bowls) is closer to being Jerry than Josh (0 All Star teams) is to being Bakrley. If we had Barkley in his prime on this team we would be piling up championships.

[foeteen14]

Roddy (three straight pro bowls) is closer to being Jerry than Josh (0 All Star teams) is to being Bakrley. If we had Barkley in his prime on this team we would be piling up championships.

yeah cuz barkley won soooo many championships while he was in the league :wink:

[Atlantaholic]

yeah cuz barkley won soooo many championships while he was in the league :wink:

Those teams he played for weren't exactly stacked. Who was Philadelphia's second best player during Chucks time? Hawkins??? When he got to Phoenix he was 28 years old and starting his decline.

The guy was putting up 25 + points 11+ rebounds 4+ assists in his prime. We would be the best team in the NBA if we swapped Josh Smith for a 25 year old Charles Barkley. At the very least, we would have no problem scoring more than 90 points a game during the playoffs.