MUScoop

I'm not asking for the 10 best players.  But more if you could construct a team with today's game and rules among the all-time great MU players who would you choose?  I will defer to the experts.

Chones, Lucas, Ellis, Toone, Lackey, Meminger, Tatum, Butch Lee, Whitehead, Walton. I would  take these 10 guys even with a 3 point line.

Quote from: bilsu on March 07, 2021, 08:23:49 PM
Chones, Lucas, Ellis, Toone, Lackey, Meminger, Tatum, Butch Lee, Whitehead, Walton. I would  take these 10 guys even with a 3 point line.

No Wade?  Cmon...

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on March 07, 2021, 08:31:40 PM

No Wade?  Cmon...

Wasn't that good, didn't play in the Mecca, wouldn't be able to handle the atmosphere.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on March 07, 2021, 08:31:40 PM

No Wade?  Cmon...

Putting together this list with modern rules and gameplay and not including Wade and a career 42% 3P shooter who is the leading scorer in BEast history is some nonsensical "back in my day" blue and gold colored glasses.

Quote from: bilsu on March 07, 2021, 08:23:49 PM
Chones, Lucas, Ellis, Toone, Lackey, Meminger, Tatum, Butch Lee, Whitehead, Walton. I would  take these 10 guys even with a 3 point line.

Unpopular opinion, but those guys at their prime would not beat most MU teams from the past two decades. Just like science and technology have come a long ways since the 70s, so has athletics. The players are bigger, stronger, faster, the coaches understand the game better, athletic training/coaching/nutrition are at entirely different levels. Kids are in youth leagues from the time they are 3 learning the game. It's why comparing players from different eras doesn't work. Those 10 were more dominant at their time than any other MU players have been at theirs besides Wade and maybe Jae.

Missed George Thompson, maybe the most exciting player in MU history

Quote from: BCHoopster on March 07, 2021, 08:56:07 PM
Missed George Thompson, maybe the most exciting player in MU history

No offense to another MU great, but Thompson was a 6'2 player who did the majority of his work inside.  He would be wildly ineffective in today's game.  Sure he could jump, but there are 6'6-6'8 dudes who can get up with the same vertical.  The game has changed a ton in the last 50 years.

Novak?  Seems like a lock for today's game.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 07, 2021, 08:46:36 PM
Unpopular opinion, but those guys at their prime would not beat most MU teams from the past two decades. Just like science and technology have come a long ways since the 70s, so has athletics. The players are bigger, stronger, faster, the coaches understand the game better, athletic training/coaching/nutrition are at entirely different levels. Kids are in youth leagues from the time they are 3 learning the game. It's why comparing players from different eras doesn't work. Those 10 were more dominant at their time than any other MU players have been at theirs besides Wade and maybe Jae.

Yeah, judge players by their time/era.  Crossing multiple generations is just too hard to compare.  Give guys/gals their due when they played. 

Pure pg with scoring ability (shooting), Carton , cain (Coming back for 5th), lewis, garcia   mitchell, torrence, elliott, Aidoo, Jones,  transfer scoring combo guard

If I was building a team to actually win games instead of serve as an 'all-star team' (Muggsy's proposal), I would probably include a couple of guys who would not be considered among the top 10-15 players in MU history, but were excellent at a specific aspect of the game that might be needed in a particular situation.

Two that come to mind are a lockdown defender, and a designated press-breaker. Maybe guys like Michael Wilson and Tony Miller. I get that a number of the players in question can handle the ball and play defense, but I think it would help any team to have guys who can come off the bench and do this as their specialty.

Could we conceivably go with:

Meminger
Wade
Lee
Tatum
Chones
Lucas
Novak
Butler
Crowder
Matthews


I like our three guard line-ups.  Would Chones and Lucas be able to extend their range?  Or would it matter?

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 07, 2021, 11:06:33 PM
Could we conceivably go with:

Meminger
Wade
Lee
Tatum
Chones
Lucas no
Novak
Butler
Crowder
Matthews


I like our three guard line-ups.  Would Chones and Lucas be able to extend their range?  Or would it matter?

Hard for me to take BonEllis off the team, MU went to 2 final 4 teams with him, great team player

Quote from: bilsu on March 07, 2021, 08:23:49 PM
Chones, Lucas, Ellis, Toone, Lackey, Meminger, Tatum, Butch Lee, Whitehead, Walton. I would  take these 10 guys even with a 3 point line.

absurd beyond belifef.
one of the goofiest posts ive seen on here. crazy dumb

Quote from: BCHoopster on March 07, 2021, 11:35:47 PM
Hard for me to take BonEllis off the team, MU went to 2 final 4 teams with him, great team player

I'm just thinking about today's game...maybe we axe a perimeter player for Mr. Ellis.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 07, 2021, 08:46:36 PM
Unpopular opinion, but those guys at their prime would not beat most MU teams from the past two decades. Just like science and technology have come a long ways since the 70s, so has athletics. The players are bigger, stronger, faster, the coaches understand the game better, athletic training/coaching/nutrition are at entirely different levels.

To your point, I was looking at a photo of our 1975-1976 team the other day and was amazed by the ordinary look of their stature. Even our guards today are more muscular than our power forwards and centers were a generation ago.

Poor Bo Ellis, with his physique, would get broken in half today. He had a physique much like Osa does today. That's the big reason Bo only spent a few years in the NBA.

If those guys were playing today, Jerome Whitehead would look more like Theo. I don't even want to imagine what someone like Maurice Lucas or Bob Lackey would look like. Those guys were enforcers then....

Bottom line: It was a different world but if the guys from our 1970s era teams were around today, they would do what they would have to so that they were as good now as they were then! Marquette would STILL be Number 1.

Quote from: Nukem2 on March 07, 2021, 09:16:49 PM
Yeah, judge players by their time/era.  Crossing multiple generations is just too hard to compare.  Give guys/gals their due when they played. 

The whole point of the topic is what roster you would build for 2021.

So, 3 point shooters, versatile wings, and mobile bigs.

Quote from: bilsu on March 07, 2021, 08:23:49 PM
Chones, Lucas, Ellis, Toone, Lackey, Meminger, Tatum, Butch Lee, Whitehead, Walton. I would  take these 10 guys even with a 3 point line.

Not a bad list. Hard to set at 10. Would have to include guys like Kojis and Geo. Thompson, and Wade. Larry McNeil  Tony Mueller, Mandy Johnson, Diener also deserve mention.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on March 08, 2021, 07:49:41 AM

The whole point of the topic is what roster you would build for 2021.

Yes. It was funny the way it devolved almost immediately to something else.

Still ...

Those who think an all-Marquette-history team would actually be worse than any of Wojo's teams - or even any of Buzz's or Crean's teams ... hmmm.

Dang - I did it, too!

OK, the perfect roster for 2021 involving those who actually are eligible to still be playing college ball rather than Dean Meminger's corpse ...

DJ, Garcia, Lewis, Elliott, Mitchell, Aidoo, two "D and 3" wings with good height (6-5 to 6-8) who can really shoot, a competent backup combo guard, and another big. If Akanno and Oso have great offseasons of improvement, maybe they can fill those last two slots. Otherwise, Wojo will really have to work the transfer market hard.

All, of course, assumes Wojo's return. If he is dumped, it's a moot point because all but a couple of the first 6 players I mentioned will likely end up at other schools.

assuming we're using these guys as collegians and not what they became in the pros...

under today's rules I find a spot for Travis.  Remember this guy was a 43% 3pt shooter his last couple seasons.  ditto, Novak.

a few stats from their top MU season

Meminger 21.2 ppg, 3.6 ast, 4.0 reb
Diener 19.7 pts, 7.0 ast, 45% 3pt, 88% ft
Butch  19.6 pts, 3.8 reb, 4.9 ast, 88% ft
McNeal  19.8 pts, 4.9 reb, 3.9 ast, 2.2 stl, 40% 3pt
Wade  21.5 pts, 6.3 reb, 4.4 ast, 2.5 stl
Tatum  18.3 pts, 7.0 reb, 1.9 ast
Novak  17.5 pts, 5.9 reb, 47% 3pt, 97% ft
Ellis  15.6 pts, 10.5 reb, 2.2 ast
Chones  20.6 pts, 11.9 reb, 1.6 ast, 57% fg
Lucas  15.8 pts, 10.9 reb, 2.5 ast

Based on his senior season, I end up with McNeal over DJO for the final perimeter spot.  Also considered Tony Smith, but it's hard to judge how good he really was at Marquette with his supporting cast.
Butler and Matthews have turned in solid NBA careers.  But I went with the collegiate Wade/Tatum combo on the wing.

Bo was an extraordinary defender, and such a leader. With the three bigs already on the roster, I'm not sure we'd need inside depth with Crowder. Novak would get those minutes at the 4.  Although Lazar made my short list to with his ability to stretch the floor, as well as bang inside.

Quote from: oldwarrior81 on March 08, 2021, 10:57:04 AM
assuming we're using these guys as collegians and not what they became in the pros...

under today's rules I find a spot for Travis.  Remember this guy was a 43% 3pt shooter his last couple seasons.  ditto, Novak.

a few stats from their top MU season

Meminger 21.2 ppg, 3.6 ast, 4.0 reb
Diener 19.7 pts, 7.0 ast, 45% 3pt, 88% ft
Butch  19.6 pts, 3.8 reb, 4.9 ast, 88% ft
McNeal  19.8 pts, 4.9 reb, 3.9 ast, 2.2 stl, 40% 3pt
Wade  21.5 pts, 6.3 reb, 4.4 ast, 2.5 stl
Tatum  18.3 pts, 7.0 reb, 1.9 ast
Novak  17.5 pts, 5.9 reb, 47% 3pt, 97% ft
Ellis  15.6 pts, 10.5 reb, 2.2 ast
Chones  20.6 pts, 11.9 reb, 1.6 ast, 57% fg
Lucas  15.8 pts, 10.9 reb, 2.5 ast

Based on his senior season, I end up with McNeal over DJO for the final perimeter spot.  Also considered Tony Smith, but it's hard to judge how good he really was at Marquette with his group of teammates.
Butler and Matthews have turned in solid NBA careers.  But I went with the collegiate Wade/Tatum combo on the wing.

Bo was an extraordinary defender, and such a leader. With the three bigs already on the roster, I'm not sure we'd need inside depth with Crowder. Novak would get those minutes at the 4.  Although Lazar made my short list to with his ability to stretch the floor, as well as bang inside.

Why no Markus consideration?

If you take Markus you need Mac down low to make sure that whoever spends the game driving by Markus doesn't get an easy lay up.

If I went 12 deep, I would actually consider adding Markus, but only as a specialist.  They're aren't many that can get 10+ points in a hurry.

Even Sam Hauser should be considered as a shooter that could at least take up space on defense.

Quote from: oldwarrior81 on March 08, 2021, 11:09:48 AM
If I went 12 deep, I would actually consider adding Markus, but only as a specialist.  They're aren't many that can get 10+ points in a hurry.

Even Sam Hauser should be considered as a shooter that could at least take up space on defense.

Despite his role in the mutiny, I'm a big fan of Sam's game. But there is 0% chance I'd take him on any roster of all-time Marquette players. I mean, just looking at the list of guys who didn't quite make your cut, Sam vs Jae or Jimmy or Lazar? I mean, it's not even close. I'd take any of those 3 over him - tougher, significantly better defenders, much more well-rounded offensive games. C'mon.

Quote from: MU82 on March 08, 2021, 11:14:31 AM
Despite his role in the mutiny, I'm a big fan of Sam's game. But there is 0% chance I'd take him on any roster of all-time Marquette players. I mean, just looking at the list of guys who didn't quite make your cut, Sam vs Jae or Jimmy or Lazar? I mean, it's not even close. I'd take any of those 3 over him - tougher, significantly better defenders, much more well-rounded offensive games. C'mon.

If you're going to consider Sam you may as well just add Novak IMO. Doesn't have the post as much but gives you more height for roughly the same shooting.

Quote from: bilsu on March 07, 2021, 08:23:49 PM
Chones, Lucas, Ellis, Toone, Lackey, Meminger, Tatum, Butch Lee, Whitehead, Walton. I would  take these 10 guys even with a 3 point line.

no Brute Force George Thompson?

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on March 08, 2021, 10:59:02 AM

Why no Markus consideration?

Cause everyone is just underselling him due to Wojo hate and lack of success with him on the team.  One of the best shooters and scorers in NCAA history who excelled in today's game is being deemed a "specialist".  Meanwhile, people are suggesting George Thompson or Don Kojis who were inside players while being shorter than most good SGs in the modern game.  It's just over weighting history and ignoring the question.  Kojis given his style and size wouldn't even be high major player in 2021.

Howard, with a very good PG like Butch Lee, or even Diener, with some of the excellent forwards mentioned behind him, would be absolutely deadly.  He shot 42% from 3 while being the sole focal point of the offense, having all the attention, and no PG to get him the ball.  Imagine him if he had space and other offensive weapons around him.

Quote from: JWags85 on March 08, 2021, 12:10:44 PM
Cause everyone is just underselling him due to Wojo hate and lack of success with him on the team.  One of the best shooters and scorers in NCAA history who excelled in today's game is being deemed a "specialist".  Meanwhile, people are suggesting George Thompson or Don Kojis who were inside players while being shorter than most good SGs in the modern game.  It's just over weighting history and ignoring the question.  Kojis given his style and size wouldn't even be high major player in 2021.

Howard, with a very good PG like Butch Lee, or even Diener, with some of the excellent forwards mentioned behind him, would be absolutely deadly.  He shot 42% from 3 while being the sole focal point of the offense, having all the attention, and no PG to get him the ball.  Imagine him if he had space and other offensive weapons around him.

Agreed on all counts.

Quote from: Marq3332 on March 08, 2021, 11:17:27 AM
no Brute Force George Thompson?

What exactly would you do with a 6'2" forward in today's game? 

With 10 spots on this roster it'd be foolish not to include Markus. Ditto Novak. I'm not trotting Novak out for 38 minutes, but as a weapon off the bench he'd be a nightmare to deal with. If you can't find a role for Markus in a 2021 college game, you're not trying.

And playing along:

1. Meminger, (Diener/Lee)
2. Howard, McNeal
3. Wade, Butler
4. Crowder, Novak
5. Chones, Lucas

I cheated because I couldn't decide between Travis and Butch. It's a message board. Sue me.

Starter, sub. But, to be honest, I could see going big and slotting Wade into the 2 (Meminger-Wade-Butler-Crowder-Chones) or if you're concerned about Markus' defensive liabilities (and tbh, with the rest of the defensive studs on the floor I'm not terribly concerned) swap McNeal in to start and use Markus as firepower off the bench. Lastly, I'd really enjoy a Meminger-McNeal-Crowder-Lucas-Chones team in a street brawl. Those dudes would scrap.

This is probably the best Scoop in years. We've had some good ones wearing blue and gold in our time.

Quote from: Galway Eagle on March 08, 2021, 11:15:54 AM
If you're going to consider Sam you may as well just add Novak IMO. Doesn't have the post as much but gives you more height for roughly the same shooting.

I don't want Sam and Novak. I'd consider taking one or the other. Novak is one of the best few shooters I've ever seen.

As for Markus, as others are discussing, folks seem to forget he shot 55% from 3 as a freshman role player. I'm not 100% certain he'd make my 10 because I haven't given the whole thing much thought, but I'd definitely consider him.

Quote from: JWags85 on March 08, 2021, 12:10:44 PM
Cause everyone is just underselling him due to Wojo hate and lack of success with him on the team.  One of the best shooters and scorers in NCAA history who excelled in today's game is being deemed a "specialist".  Meanwhile, people are suggesting George Thompson or Don Kojis who were inside players while being shorter than most good SGs in the modern game.  It's just over weighting history and ignoring the question.  Kojis given his style and size wouldn't even be high major player in 2021.

Howard, with a very good PG like Butch Lee, or even Diener, with some of the excellent forwards mentioned behind him, would be absolutely deadly.  He shot 42% from 3 while being the sole focal point of the offense, having all the attention, and no PG to get him the ball.  Imagine him if he had space and other offensive weapons around him.

Well said, Wags!

It's truly disappointing that so many MU fans hold it against Markus that Wojo couldn't get him a better PG.

Markus was an elite scorer, a BE POY, and an excellent representative of the university...yet he gets so little love from many in the MU fanbase.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 07, 2021, 08:46:36 PM
Unpopular opinion, but those guys at their prime would not beat most MU teams from the past two decades. Just like science and technology have come a long ways since the 70s, so has athletics. The players are bigger, stronger, faster, the coaches understand the game better, athletic training/coaching/nutrition are at entirely different levels. Kids are in youth leagues from the time they are 3 learning the game. It's why comparing players from different eras doesn't work. Those 10 were more dominant at their time than any other MU players have been at theirs besides Wade and maybe Jae.

Yep. This is why comparing eras is futile. Give past eras all of those tools mentioned, otherwise it's an apples to oranges comparison.  The best anyone can say or do is to analyze one era at a time, to determine who is the.best and/or among the best of his or her era. And that's fine, that enough, that's plenty.

I remember a Pete Sampras quote, when asked what he would do if he had to face Federer or Djokovjc, or Nadal at their height. He matter of factly said, (assuming he had all of the things mentioned above), "I think I would have adjusted."

There will always be however, some people determined to have a best this or that of all time. It isn't possible. All players cannot and do not play in all eras.

Here's one: If 2021 and today's rules, does Gary Rosenberger start and does Bill Neary back-up Jay at center? Al goes 4 out and 1 in?

Quote from: MU82 on March 08, 2021, 01:19:13 PM
I don't want Sam and Novak. I'd consider taking one or the other. Novak is one of the best few shooters I've ever seen.

As for Markus, as others are discussing, folks seem to forget he shot 55% from 3 as a freshman role player. I'm not 100% certain he'd make my 10 because I haven't given the whole thing much thought, but I'd definitely consider him.

Sorry I wasn't clear I meant Novak over Sam.

Wade
Howard
Butler
Crowder
Hayward
Matthews
Diener
Novak
Ellenson
McIlvaine

Quote from: shoothoops on March 08, 2021, 01:38:19 PM
Yep. This is why comparing eras is futile. Give past eras all of those tools mentioned, otherwise it's an apples to oranges comparison.  The best anyone can say or do is to analyze one era at a time, to determine who is the.best and/or among the best of his or her era. And that's fine, that enough, that's plenty.

I get your point but I don't think it's completely apples and oranges.  You can look at certain players and say to yourself they would have no problem and able to adapt to this era.  Guys like Hakeem and Larry Bird come to mind. 

I remember a Pete Sampras quote, when asked what he would do if he had to face Federer or Djokovjc, or Nadal at their height. He matter of factly said, (assuming he had all of the things mentioned above), "I think I would have adjusted."

There will always be however, some people determined to have a best this or that of all time. It isn't possible. All players cannot and do not play in all eras. 


It's  very difficult to know how pure post bigs would adapt but it's also worth noting that guys like Shaq and Chamberlain were so dominant that they would force teams to adapt to their game.  Additionally, guys that were undersized for today's game, like George Thompson, would have no choice but to adapt. 

As far as Pete Sampras?  I'm not sure he, Edberg, Becker, McEnroe would have as easy time adapting as a baseliner.  I believe Pete lost to a 19 yr old Fed at Wimbledon when he was the defending champion.  Because net play is generally only used on grass I believe it would be a much harder adjustment for serve and volleyers.  They didn't have the all-court game of Fed or close to the consistency of Nadal or Djoker.  On the flipside I do believe Borg would have likely adapted much easier.  Sampras did have the best serve in history but the Big 3 are just too good imo.

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 08, 2021, 03:40:58 PM

As TAMU Eagle mentioned, it isn't possible to compare eras because many circumstances are much different in various eras.

I used the Sampras quote because the idea of changing, adapting, adjusting from a very young age onward would happen in more recent eras.

Different training, nutrition, coaching, strategy, technology, different tournament emphasis, etc...which ones, how many, when, money has changed dramatically too. So many things are different in different eras. I just enjoy each era for themselves. That's plenty good enough. You will never be able to say more than that in any sport, with any individual or team, and, that's okay.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on March 08, 2021, 10:59:02 AM

Why no Markus consideration?

Got beat out by Gary Rosenberger.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on March 08, 2021, 12:30:10 PM

What exactly would you do with a 6'2" forward in today's game?

do you have any clue...I'll answer for you...you don't...why Al McGuire called George Thompson Brute Force?

Quote from: shoothoops on March 08, 2021, 03:54:08 PM
As TAMU Eagle mentioned, it isn't possible to compare eras because many circumstances are much different in various eras.

I used the Sampras quote because the idea of changing, adapting, adjusting from a very young age onward would happen in more recent eras.

Different training, nutrition, coaching, strategy, technology, different tournament emphasis, etc...which ones, how many, when, money has changed dramatically too. So many things are different in different eras. I just enjoy each era for themselves. That's plenty good enough. You will never be able to say more than that in any sport, with any individual or team, and, that's okay.

I can't argue with that.  In 2007 I was lucky enough to go to the Rogers Cup in Montreal.  The field was phenomenal with Fed, Rafa, Djoker, Murray, and most of the top 20.  Guys out of the game now like Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin were also blistering the ball.  TV does not do tennis justice, you can't even believe the spin action and pop these guys had.  Amazingly, Hewitt grinded to the quarters.  I have to say, while it's extremely expensive,  it's definitely worth going to a tournament of this caliber in your lifetime.  I was fortunate to have a connection but it's way up there as the best event I have ever attended if you can afford it..  Djoker took out Roddick, Rafa, and Fed in succession.  The final went three sets with Djoker winning 7-6 in the third.   I still hope to get to Wimbledon or Roland Garros.  The other two G-slam events I'm less interested in seeing live.

Quote from: Marq3332 on March 08, 2021, 04:41:38 PM
do you have any clue...I'll answer for you...you don't...why Al McGuire called George Thompson Brute Force?

LMAO.  6'2 200 lb Brute Force inside against 6'9 255 Theo John, he'd get embarrassed.  Much less someone like Nate Watson.

You can appreciate someone's skill and accomplishments and fully admit they'd be out of place in today's game.  Bob Cousy is an NBA pioneer and legend, but watch videos of his dribbling "feats" in game and compare it to guys like Kyrie or Steph Curry or even watch the speed and explosiveness that Carton plays the PG position and you realize its barely the same game.

Charles Barkley even admits he'd struggle with the athleticism and freak size of the game today, and he had 3-4 inches and 50 lbs on Thompson

Quote from: JWags85 on March 08, 2021, 05:41:30 PM
You can appreciate someone's skill and accomplishments and fully admit they'd be out of place in today's game.

Totally agree.

But I don't think the following players would be out of place in today's game:

Meminger, Tatum, Chones, Lackey, Lucas, Wade, Diener, Butler, Crowder, Novak, Matthews, DJO, Lee, Lazar.

I think every one of them would excel today, and several of them would be just as dominant today as they were when they played. Probably a few others, too.

Comparing eras in any sport is tricky. But Mays, Gehrig, Aaron and Gibson would still be incredible ballplayers; Russell, West, Frazier and Julius would still be incredible basketball players; Jim Brown, Joe Greene, Warfield and Fouts would still be incredible football players, etc.

Some athletes were so great, they would have excelled in any era.

I mean, do folks really think that if Jordan played today, he wouldn't have dedicated himself to being a great 3-point shooter?

Quote from: MU82 on March 08, 2021, 07:06:02 PM
Totally agree.

But I don't think the following players would be out of place in today's game:

Meminger, Tatum, Chones, Lackey, Lucas, Wade, Diener, Butler, Crowder, Novak, Matthews, DJO, Lee, Lazar.

I think every one of them would excel today, and several of them would be just as dominant today as they were when they played. Probably a few others, too.

Comparing eras in any sport is tricky. But Mays, Gehrig, Aaron and Gibson would still be incredible ballplayers; Russell, West, Frazier and Julius would still be incredible basketball players; Jim Brown, Joe Greene, Warfield and Fouts would still be incredible football players, etc.

Some athletes were so great, they would have excelled in any era.

I mean, do folks really think that if Jordan played today, he wouldn't have dedicated himself to being a great 3-point shooter?

For sure. Not every dominant player in yesteryear couldn't do the same now. Look at Wilt. Was he playing against a lot of 6'8 stiffs at the center position back then? Sure. But he was a freak athlete who was 7 feet tall, yet agile, graceful and quick. He would have been every bit as capable as versatile big men now. Same with quick and crafty PGs.  But if you were a shorter forward in an era or wouldn't be considered exceptionally athletic by today's standards, it just won't work. 

Quote from: BCHoopster on March 07, 2021, 08:56:07 PM
Missed George Thompson, maybe the most exciting player in MU history

I did not miss him. I loved George and even watched him when he was on the freshmen team.  I did not put him on, because there was no reason to have a 6'2" power forward, which is what he was in college. I also left off Larry McNeal. I did not forget about Wade. I was just remembering the glory days of my youth. I was at MU 1971 to 1975. My brother was 1974 to 1978 so he got the National championship.

I left off players that were here when Al came. Bob Wolf would of been good with the three point line.

Just my opinion, but a team of McGuire players (13 years) would beat a team made up from all the players that came after McGuire (44 years) 6 out 10 times.

All 10 of my players played in NBA or ABA. The biggest pro bust was Bernard Toone.

Quote from: JWags85 on March 08, 2021, 07:43:04 PM
For sure. Not every dominant player in yesteryear couldn%u2019t do the same now. Look at Wilt. Was he playing against a lot of 6%u20198 stiffs at the center position back then? Sure. But he was a freak athlete who was 7 feet tall, yet agile, graceful and quick. He would have been every bit as capable as versatile big men now. Same with quick and crafty PGs.  But if you were a shorter forward in an era or wouldn%u2019t be considered exceptionally athletic by today%u2019s standards, it just won%u2019t work.

It's also hard to gauge how perimeter players would respond to far more physicality in past eras.  I think it'a plausible to argue that the great players of the past would have an easier adjustment.  You can't touch guys on the perimeter.  I'm pretty sure guards like Oscar, Archibald, Magic, Jordan, Isiah, Stock, etc would have extended their range and figured it out.  Including the mickey-mouse stuff James Harden does to get FT's.  I'm also certain the great bigs of the past would be just fine.  Kareem, Hakeem, and Shaq would shred people quite easily.

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 08, 2021, 08:02:23 PM
It's also hard to gauge how perimeter players would respond to far more physicality in past eras.  I think it'a plausible to argue that the great players of the past would have an easier adjustment.  You can't touch guys on the perimeter.  I'm pretty sure guards like Oscar, Archibald, Magic, Jordan, Isiah, Stock, etc would have extended their range and figured it out.  Including the mickey-mouse stuff James Harden does to get FT's.  I'm also certain the great bigs of the past would be just fine.  Kareem, Hakeem, and Shaq would shred people quite easily.

Maybe. I think we overhype the 80s and 90s NBA and the physicality and how that would impact today's players.  The NBA is still pretty physical today and there were no teams that had the ability to spread the floor back then like they do now.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on March 08, 2021, 08:22:10 PM

Maybe. I think we overhype the 80s and 90s NBA and the physicality and how that would impact today's players.  The NBA is still pretty physical today and there were no teams that had the ability to spread the floor back then like they do now.

It's not particularly physical on the perimeter with no hand checking.  You can't blanket guys quite the same way imo.  Would a guy like Rodman be able to play at all in this era? 

Watching videos of Oscar, I rarely saw him use his left hand.  His game was physically dominating the 6'1 defender.   I have no doubt he would expand his game if he were around today.   But at 6'5, 210, would he be able to physically dominate a defender today?  Same size as Sacar.

Quote from: bilsu on March 08, 2021, 08:00:43 PM
Just my opinion, but a team of McGuire players (13 years) would beat a team made up from all the players that came after McGuire (44 years) 6 out 10 times.

All 10 of my players played in NBA or ABA. The biggest pro bust was Bernard Toone.

I'm sorry but your opinion is crazy. Our national championship team would have been lucky to be a tournament team in today's NCAA. They were dominant in their time, more dominant than any other MU players besides Wade and maybe Jae and deserve all the praise and honors, but the game is different now. Jim Chones was the most dominant center to ever play at Marquette and he would have been considered a stick amongst current big men with no ability to stretch the floor and he's one of the two guys  (Lucas) of your 10 who I think could have a role today.

They did all play in the NBA/ABA but again it was a different era and other than Chones and Lucas, most of them had limited success at the pro levels. Most were career backups and only a few of them had the occasional season as starters. Wade is a top 15 NBA player all time and Jimmy is an All Star in today's game.

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 08, 2021, 08:02:23 PM
It's also hard to gauge how perimeter players would respond to far more physicality in past eras.  I think it'a plausible to argue that the great players of the past would have an easier adjustment.  You can't touch guys on the perimeter.  I'm pretty sure guards like Oscar, Archibald, Magic, Jordan, Isiah, Stock, etc would have extended their range and figured it out.  Including the mickey-mouse stuff James Harden does to get FT's.  I'm also certain the great bigs of the past would be just fine.  Kareem, Hakeem, and Shaq would shred people quite easily.

Shaq couldn't keep up today. He's have to stretch the floor and not a chance he was agile enough to guard the ball handling centers of today. Certain players would adapt certain benefitted from being perfect for the era. I think Duncan is proof that some would certainly be able to adapt but Shaq is not one of them.

In boxing Jack Johnson or joe Louis wouldn't be dominant heavyweights today. Hell most of the old champs wouldn't even be heavyweights. Maybe some could've adapted and gotten bouncier and less grappling but a great deal of them also wouldn't have been able to

Quote from: Galway Eagle on March 08, 2021, 08:46:25 PM
Shaq couldn't keep up today. He's have to stretch the floor and not a chance he was agile enough to guard the ball handling centers of today. Certain players would adapt certain benefitted from being perfect for the era. I think Duncan is proof that some would certainly be able to adapt but Shaq is not one of them.

In boxing Jack Johnson or joe Louis wouldn't be dominant heavyweights today. Hell most of the old champs wouldn't even be heavyweights. Maybe some could've adapted and gotten bouncier and less grappling but a great deal of them also wouldn't have been able to

It's an interesting conversation....how would they guard Shaq?

Foul him.  Make him defend pick and rolls and on the perimeter to wear him out  Trade 3 for 2.  Front him for 5 seconds with weakside help.

Quote from: Galway Eagle on March 08, 2021, 08:46:25 PM
Shaq couldn't keep up today. He's have to stretch the floor and not a chance he was agile enough to guard the ball handling centers of today. Certain players would adapt certain benefitted from being perfect for the era. I think Duncan is proof that some would certainly be able to adapt but Shaq is not one of them.

You're thinking late 90s Laker Shaq though. Shaq was not even 300 lbs, super explosive, and very athletic all through his LSU and Orlando days. Given the current game, he would have a team making sure he stayed lean and athletic. Thinking of how dominant and impactful younger Dwight Howard was. Shaq was the same model, expect better offensively.  Would he have been stepping out and shooting from deep? Probably not but that Shaq could easily move well enough to defend as well as a Jokic, Vukevic, or Brook Lopez does

Quote from: tower912 on March 08, 2021, 09:34:58 PM
Foul him.  Make him defend pick and rolls and on the perimeter to wear him out  Trade 3 for 2.  Front him for 5 seconds with weakside help.

So change your line-up and put your team in the penalty within 5 mins of the quarter? 

Shaq coming out of LSU was a phenomenal athlete and he was in shape. He would have adapted... he could have been a great defender. Would he have developed an outside shot of free throws... that's another matter.

Suppose this was your 8 man rotation with today's rules vs the greats of the past:

Curry
Lillard
Harden
Jokic
Leonard
Doncic
Booker
Tatum

Could this team hold their own?:

Magic
Jordan
Kobe
Bird
Hakeem
Shaq
Isaiah
West


The modern team has 8 guys that can drill the triple and some with unlimited range. 

But could they defend at all?

Are those your top 8 active player Mugsy? Cause I have some notes.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 08, 2021, 11:03:02 PM
Are those your top 8 active player Mugsy? Cause I have some notes.

No.  I was just throwing people out there off the top of my head that can drain the 3-Ball.  Obviously Lebron, Durant, Davis, Giannis, Embiid would be in the top 8.

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 08, 2021, 09:45:23 PM
So change your line-up and put your team in the penalty within 5 mins of the quarter? 

You wouldn't have to foul him.  Shaq (and other posts) benefitted greatly from the illegal defense rules that basically prevented zones.  Would they have been able to adapt their games to figure out where the double teams are coming from and pass out of them?  Undoubtedly.  But the post game would be deemphasized.  LaMarcus Aldridge would have been a beast in the 80s and 90s NBA.  And he's still really good.  But the game is just very different now.

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 08, 2021, 09:45:23 PM
So change your line-up and put your team in the penalty within 5 mins of the quarter?

The Pistons were able to neutralize Shaq at the end of his prime with the 6'7 Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace and Mehmet Okur.    And Shaq had Kobe, Payton and Malone, so it isn't like there was a lot of double teaming.     Shaq was awesome.    And then he was slow and awesome.    But he wasn't unstoppable for entire games.     

First, aside from the lack of personal insults, this thread is classic Scoop. Started as one topic before quickly and totally going off in another direction.

Otherwise ...

I think some folks are drastically short-selling some of yesteryear's college (and pro) stars and their ability to adjust to today's game.

Rudy Gobert is a multiple All-Star and a game-changer for the team with the NBA's best record, but he has never attempted a single 3 in 8 seasons. Are some folks actually saying that he can be a difference-maker in today's NBA but Shaq and Russell wouldn't be? Really? Giannis can be MVP even though he can't shoot, but Wilt and Kareem wouldn't have been superstars -- especially if they were surrounded by 3 or 4 great shooters who opened things up for them inside? Okey dokey then.

Chones and Lucas would have done just fine in today's college basketball. Better than fine -- they'd be standouts. Yes, Garza can step out and hit an occasional 3, but it's his ability to score inside and rebound that has made him POY. I'd love to have seen a battle between Luka and Luke; I think our guy would have won the battle.

Tatum would be deadly from 3, and he had everything else today's elite college players need, too. Butch would have extended his range and been a fine 3-point shooter. Wade might have been even more dominant because the lane would have been more open in a game that emphasized 3s more. Diener would be even better in today's game.

Dean Meminger wouldn't have been as effective in today's college basketball as, say, Jalen Brunson was for Nova? Please.

Quote from: MU82 on March 09, 2021, 09:29:23 AM
First, aside from the lack of personal insults, this thread is classic Scoop. Started as one topic before quickly and totally going off in another direction.

Otherwise ...

I think some folks are drastically short-selling some of yesteryear's college (and pro) stars and their ability to adjust to today's game.

Rudy Gobert is a multiple All-Star and a game-changer for the team with the NBA's best record, but he has never attempted a single 3 in 8 seasons. Are some folks actually saying that he can be a difference-maker in today's NBA but Shaq and Russell wouldn't be? Really? Giannis can be MVP even though he can't shoot, but Wilt and Kareem wouldn't have been superstars -- especially if they were surrounded by 3 or 4 great shooters who opened things up for them inside? Okey dokey then.

Chones and Lucas would have done just fine in today's college basketball. Better than fine -- they'd be standouts. Yes, Garza can step out and hit an occasional 3, but it's his ability to score inside and rebound that has made him POY. I'd love to have seen a battle between Luka and Luke; I think our guy would have won the battle.

Tatum would be deadly from 3, and he had everything else today's elite college players need, too. Butch would have extended his range and been a fine 3-point shooter. Wade might have been even more dominant because the lane would have been more open in a game that emphasized 3s more. Diener would be even better in today's game.

Dean Meminger wouldn't have been as effective in today's college basketball as, say, Jalen Brunson was for Nova? Please.

Giannis can do things most superstars at any era can't due to body type. I'm just saying maybe comparing him to the proto type for a back to basket Center isn't the best.

Others have a point about Shaq being explosive at LSU, but let's keep in mind this isn't like he got fat in an era where athletic nutrition was no water, smoke a pack, do a line and see what you're made of. He got fat playing in the late 90s early 2000s. So I'm not sure adding 10years to his era would have changed much.

Again there's players that can adapt and some who are great due to when they played. I'll stay away from most of the MU guys because I only have YouTube to see them but I think the argument of George Thompson being a 6'2" forward is a solid one as well with being unable to adapt.

Quote from: tower912 on March 09, 2021, 08:52:10 AM
The Pistons were able to neutralize Shaq at the end of his prime with the 6'7 Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace and Mehmet Okur.    And Shaq had Kobe, Payton and Malone, so it isn't like there was a lot of double teaming.     Shaq was awesome.    And then he was slow and awesome.    But he wasn't unstoppable for entire games.   

The Pistons "neutralized" him at the end of his prime to the tune of 27 and 11 in the 5 game series.  That's how dominant he was.  On the downswing of his career, he was still considered "neutralized" when he was averaging 27 and 11.  He made an All Star game at age 36 for Phoenix.

Shaq would have dominated in any era.  Especially Orlando Magic Shaq.  But Lakers Shaq would have absolutely no problem in today's NBA.

Quote from: MU82 on March 09, 2021, 09:29:23 AM
First, aside from the lack of personal insults, this thread is classic Scoop. Started as one topic before quickly and totally going off in another direction.

Otherwise ...

I think some folks are drastically short-selling some of yesteryear's college (and pro) stars and their ability to adjust to today's game.

Rudy Gobert is a multiple All-Star and a game-changer for the team with the NBA's best record, but he has never attempted a single 3 in 8 seasons. Are some folks actually saying that he can be a difference-maker in today's NBA but Shaq and Russell wouldn't be? Really? Giannis can be MVP even though he can't shoot, but Wilt and Kareem wouldn't have been superstars -- especially if they were surrounded by 3 or 4 great shooters who opened things up for them inside? Okey dokey then.

Chicosesque strawman argument.  Nobody said this.

I said they would have to adapt their game to how it is played now because they wouldn't be as effective if they approached it like they did in the 70s and 80s.

82, I can't speak for others, but I'm not saying that players wouldn't be able to adapt. I'm saying that if you took a time machine, picked them up in the 1970s and dropped them off in 2021 and asked them to scrimmage players today, they wouldn't do well. The game is different, the athletes are much bigger, much faster, and much stronger, and today's players have been playing the game much longer. Chones was able to dominate because he was a mountain being guarded by foothills most of the time in addition to being incredibly skilled. In today's Big East, he would be considered skinny and would need to put on muscle to avoid being manhandled by bigger players like John, Wahab, Whaley, Obiagu, etc.

It's not an insult to them. They were among the absolute best of their time given the conditions in which they were raised and learned the game. The players today have way more advantages when it comes to athletic training, coaching, and youth leagues. It's not a fair comparison.

There are certainly a few generational talents who would be stars in any era. But they are few and far between.

Quote from: Galway Eagle on March 09, 2021, 09:34:07 AM
Others have a point about Shaq being explosive at LSU, but let's keep in mind this isn't like he got fat in an era where athletic nutrition was no water, smoke a pack, do a line and see what you're made of. He got fat playing in the late 90s early 2000s. So I'm not sure adding 10years to his era would have changed much.

No, but being big and relatively slow of foot didn't hurt him in LA.  If a superstar, super competitive, super successful Shaq was suddenly getting smoked and not having success cause he's too fat, adjustments would have been made.  He lost a good amount of weight going to Miami and played lighter in Boston than he did in the late LA years. Shaq loved not having to watch his diet at times and realized his size could be his advantage, but this wasn't a middling player who ate himself out of the league.

have any of you tried the WhatIfSports site?
SimMatchup > NCAA Basketball

You can run simulations matching up any NCAA teams over the past 20 seasons.  NBA back to 1952.  Rearrange depth charts etc..
There also are a few older teams from seasons of note.  But, imho, those older NCAA teams really under perform.

You also can build Dream teams which allows you to compile a team made up of any season of any player from those eras.
Not to difficult to create old school vs. new school matchups.

Quote from: bilsu on March 08, 2021, 08:00:43 PM
I did not miss him. I loved George and even watched him when he was on the freshmen team.  I did not put him on, because there was no reason to have a 6'2" power forward, which is what he was in college. I also left off Larry McNeal. I did not forget about Wade. I was just remembering the glory days of my youth. I was at MU 1971 to 1975. My brother was 1974 to 1978 so he got the National championship.

I left off players that were here when Al came. Bob Wolf would of been good with the three point line.

Just my opinion, but a team of McGuire players (13 years) would beat a team made up from all the players that came after McGuire (44 years) 6 out 10 times.

All 10 of my players played in NBA or ABA. The biggest pro bust was Bernard Toone.

I would've picked George over Toone.

Quote from: BLM on March 09, 2021, 09:41:19 AM
The Pistons "neutralized" him at the end of his prime to the tune of 27 and 11 in the 5 game series.  That's how dominant he was.  On the downswing of his career, he was still considered "neutralized" when he was averaging 27 and 11.  He made an All Star game at age 36 for Phoenix.

Shaq would have dominated in any era.  Especially Orlando Magic Shaq.  But Lakers Shaq would have absolutely no problem in today's NBA.

So, not a difference maker against Detroit.  He got his, but didn't carry his team.   Which is another way to defend a big.

Quote from: tower912 on March 09, 2021, 12:25:31 PM
So, not a difference maker against Detroit.  He got his, but didn't carry his team.   Which is another way to defend a big.

In the sense that his team did not win the title no he didn't carry his team.  But he went for 27 and 11 and Kobe went for 23 and 4.  Shaq's roll was not to get other people involved.  The problem for the Lakers was nobody else showed up.  The next highest scorer was Derek Fisher at 6.4 ppg.  To be quite honest, the Lakers just weren't nearly as good as they had been.  Their third leading scorer for the season was 35 year old Gary Payton and their 4th was 40 year old Karl Malone.

Quote from: dgies9156 on March 08, 2021, 04:31:51 PM
Got beat out by Gary Rosenberger.

Gary had a higher career FG% than Markus, btw, with a stellar senior year. Different era and rules, but he was a great shooter.

#hangthejersey

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 08, 2021, 08:45:02 PM
I'm sorry but your opinion is crazy. Our national championship team would have been lucky to be a tournament team in today's NCAA. They were dominant in their time, more dominant than any other MU players besides Wade and maybe Jae and deserve all the praise and honors, but the game is different now. Jim Chones was the most dominant center to ever play at Marquette and he would have been considered a stick amongst current big men with no ability to stretch the floor and he's one of the two guys  (Lucas) of your 10 who I think could have a role today.

They did all play in the NBA/ABA but again it was a different era and other than Chones and Lucas, most of them had limited success at the pro levels. Most were career backups and only a few of them had the occasional season as starters. Wade is a top 15 NBA player all time and Jimmy is an All Star in today's game.

The one player in that era that would have been a real star now, more than Boylen or maybe even Butch, was Gary Rosenberger.  He had insane range, I know since
I played against him at Hyde Park.  He had about 36 points that day on a windy day, Allie was yelling at me to pick him up sooner.  We here playing zone, and he just
kept moving back and hitting deeper threes, amazing.

Quote from: dgies9156 on March 08, 2021, 04:31:51 PM
Got beat out by Gary Rosenberger.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 09, 2021, 12:40:38 PM
Gary had a higher career FG% than Markus, btw, with a stellar senior year. Different era and rules, but he was a great shooter.

#hangthejersey

Again guys, this is no disrespect to Rosenberger, but we're gonna rank a guy who never played more than 20 min a game and averaged 7 points per game over his 2 best seasons over the BEast all time leading scorer, (should be 2x) BE POY, and 1st team AA.  Its not like Rosenberger had any significant size advantage.  As for percentages, they are within 2% on career averages, but Markus took 15 more shots a game and drew all the attention, he didn't have Butch Lee, Toone, and Whitehead to draw defenders.

We're a few posts away from someone arguing for Ulice Payne over Jimmy Butler or Crowder

#70sBlueAndGoldGlasses

At this point we should just pick the 10 best players after the 70s and compare them against the Al guys.

Sure one of those post Al guys is an All time great basketball player and one of Als guys is even remotely in the same stratosphere but that won't stop people arguing that even Wade couldn't hold the jock of Al's guys

Quote from: JWags85 on March 09, 2021, 01:56:48 PM
Again guys, this is no disrespect to Rosenberger, but we're gonna rank a guy who never played more than 20 min a game and averaged 7 points per game over his 2 best seasons over the BEast all time leading scorer, (should be 2x) BE POY, and 1st team AA.  Its not like Rosenberger had any significant size advantage.  As for percentages, they are within 2% on career averages, but Markus took 15 more shots a game and drew all the attention, he didn't have Butch Lee, Toone, and Whitehead to draw defenders.

We're a few posts away from someone arguing for Ulice Payne over Jimmy Butler or Crowder

#70sBlueAndGoldGlasses

No one is seriously claiming Rosenberger is better than Markus. Our point is: Gary was made more for the modern era and would have been a star in the three point shot clock era of 4 out and 1 in. Instead, he was a situational zone breaker in the four corners era. So, when comparing players and eras, style of play needs to be considered. And Gary is one who pops out as an undervalued anomaly.

Quote from: JWags85 on March 08, 2021, 05:41:30 PM
LMAO.  6'2 200 lb Brute Force inside against 6'9 255 Theo John, he'd get embarrassed.  Much less someone like Nate Watson.

LMAO indeed.

George played forward in college because he played so much bigger than his actual size. In the pros (5 years ABA, 1 year NBA) he played mostly SG and some PG. one year he averaged 27 points, 5 rebounds and 3.7 assists. He regularly made fools out of players much better than Theo John.

Galway

I think you miss some posts on talking about all tie great Warriors. There is no doubt in my mind that Wade is the greatest player to ever play at MU. That is a 100% slam dunk,IMO. As for the next 8-10 best players of all time, all come from the Al era and that is a slam dunk, IMO. Getting back to Wade, it took me about five minutes into watching in him person to realize that he was a very special player and about 2-3 games to believe he had potential to be the best ever.

As for the constant comparisons to the Al era, simple solution. Hire a coach that recruits at a much higher level. No one would be happier to see an intelligent debate comparing new greats vs. old greats. Mentioning Theo's name in a conversation with GT is not an intelligent debate.

Quote from: Goose on March 09, 2021, 02:30:38 PM
As for the next 8-10 best players of all time, all come from the Al era and that is a slam dunk, IMO.

Yeah, no.  That's ridiculous.

Quote from: Goose on March 09, 2021, 02:30:38 PM
Galway

I think you miss some posts on talking about all tie great Warriors. There is no doubt in my mind that Wade is the greatest player to ever play at MU. That is a 100% slam dunk,IMO. As for the next 8-10 best players of all time, all come from the Al era and that is a slam dunk, IMO. Getting back to Wade, it took me about five minutes into watching in him person to realize that he was a very special player and about 2-3 games to believe he had potential to be the best ever.

As for the constant comparisons to the Al era, simple solution. Hire a coach that recruits at a much higher level. No one would be happier to see an intelligent debate comparing new greats vs. old greats. Mentioning Theo's name in a conversation with GT is not an intelligent debate.

I vaguely recall having this conversation with you (I think?) on here a few years back when my warm headed self was more hot headed. I'd 100% agree about Lucas, Thompson, Chones, a decent few others. I think after that there's logical reasons to give Crowder, McNeal or Howard at least a look seeing as were talking All Americans with a ton of honors to their names. The one that gets me is Wade. obviously you give him his due, but there are a decent few posters on here that still seem to gloss over him.

Here is Pudner's list from a while ago.  Markus not yet added and maybe a few others.

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2012/08/calling-pudner-bama.html?m=1

Pudner's calculations place them firmly in the time in which they played.  The premise is how they would fare today.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on March 09, 2021, 02:59:01 PM
Pudner's calculations place them firmly in the time in which they played.  The premise is how they would fare today.

Not quite fair. He uses the Value Add statistics to measure a player's rank across eras in an objective manner. The second part you say is true--how do quantitatively account for the rules changes and style of play is over the years.

So for me, Pudner is the starting point and then we can debate the rest. I think we can really only debate who of the Top 20 we could winnow down to today's Top 10.

No idea what the criteria is but Damon Key seems crazy low to me. 

Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 09, 2021, 02:18:20 PM
LMAO indeed.

George played forward in college because he played so much bigger than his actual size. In the pros (5 years ABA, 1 year NBA) he played mostly SG and some PG. one year he averaged 27 points, 5 rebounds and 3.7 assists. He regularly made fools out of players much better than Theo John.

Lenny, its has nothing to do with Theo's ability/skills, and more sheer size and athleticism.  Average C in the early 70s was 6'8.5 and about 225 lbs.  Average PF was 6'6 210.  Thats just a much smaller game when in among the trees. 

Even when moving to SG in the ABA, his 3P percentage was very low, and his FG percentage was near 50% which would have me believe he still did most of his work inside.  He would still be woefully undersized as it related to his game.  Find me a player under 6'3 who doesn't have an outside shot with a game primarily inside 15 feet who has been exceptional in the modern game recently?

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 09, 2021, 02:50:26 PM
Here is Pudner's list from a while ago.  Markus not yet added and maybe a few others.

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2012/08/calling-pudner-bama.html?m=1

That methodology looks like it uses a measure of their best season though.  So not really apples to apples when applying across styles and eras.

Galway

I think we did have this debate several years ago. I would ask you to trust me/others on the talent level of the Al era. The gap between Wade and the Al guys is quite a bit and the gap between 2-6 and Crowder/Butler/etc is even bigger. I have been hoping for 43 years that we would get guys to replace the top ten and so far only one guy has shown up.

Quote from: JWags85 on March 09, 2021, 03:07:50 PM
Lenny, its has nothing to do with Theo's ability/skills, and more sheer size and athleticism.  Average C in the early 70s was 6'8.5 and about 225 lbs.  Average PF was 6'6 210.  Thats just a much smaller game when in among the trees. 

Even when moving to SG in the ABA, his 3P percentage was very low, and his FG percentage was near 50% which would have me believe he still did most of his work inside.  He would still be woefully undersized as it related to his game.  Find me a player under 6'3 who doesn't have an outside shot with a game primarily inside 15 feet who has been exceptional in the modern game recently?

That methodology looks like it uses a measure of their best season though.  So not really apples to apples when applying across styles and eras.

Nate Robinson?

Ya'll are forgetting a whole bunch of things. The great Al players of the day were great because they had outstanding talent. True, the game was played differently but dadgummit, if those guys played now, they'd still be great talents. They would have been conditioned differently, taught differently but in the end, having watched most of them, they'd still be superstars.

Chones, McNeill, Lucas, Ellis, Meminger, Walton, Lee, Thomson, Tatum, Lackey, Toone all would be Burger Boys and superstars now.

So would Rivers. In any era, we'd be hard pressed to find a greater Warrior than Dwyane Wade.

As for Rosenberger, in today's world, yes, he would be starting. If the game in 1974-1978 had been anything like it is today, he'd be great but I doubt he would be remembered the way many remember Markus. The reason: they had a whole lot more weapons on the 1974-1978 Warriors than they did with Markus. The offense would be more balanced.... unless Wojo was coaching it.

Just looked that Dave Quabius on the Cracked Sidewalks list and he was responsible for 2/4 of Bill Chandler's actually good seasons.

I'd take him

This is all fun, and not a single one of us can "prove" anything. All a bunch of opinions.

I'm gonna stick to the ones I stated earlier -- the greats that I talked about would have not only done fine today, they'd be stars today.

And BTW, I'm not an Al-era Warrior. My freshman year was Hank's second season as coach. My stars were Sam Worthen my first two years and Glenn Rivers my second two. So I'm not an automatic "Al's era was the best, dammit!" guy -- not that those guys are wrong!

That there are some Scoopers who apparently think Shaq wouldn't be a star today just makes me giggle. Again, take Rudy Gobert and then multiply his impact times two. That would be Shaq today. (And I'm no huge Shaq fan.)

OK ... but how about the perfect 10-man MU roster for 2021? I sure hope Wojo brings in a couple of athletic 3-and-D wings after he gets his contract extension!

Quote from: MU82 on March 09, 2021, 03:59:45 PM
Again, take Rudy Gobert and then multiply his impact times two.

So all of the NBA and reporters get sick?

82
I was big time Sam Worthen fan. Loved watching him play and one of my all time favorites.

Quote from: Goose on March 09, 2021, 04:05:16 PM
82
I was big time Sam Worthen fan. Loved watching him play and one of my all time favorites.

Sam was a blast. My friends and I used to do the "we are not worthy" bow to him when he was introduced. He was basically a late-70s version of today's Ben Simmons -- took his time, made the right plays, surprisingly athletic, great passer, decent defender. But Sam was way cooler!

Quote from: MU82 on March 09, 2021, 03:59:45 PM
That there are some Scoopers who apparently think Shaq wouldn't be a star today just makes me giggle. Again, take Rudy Gobert and then multiply his impact times two. That would be Shaq today. (And I'm no huge Shaq fan.)

Shaq would have to change his game though.  Teams aren't dumping down into the post consistently any longer.  And comparing him to Rudy Gobert is the absolute wrong comparison.  The best post players now are Joel Embiid and KAT, and both of them can launch it from the outside anyway - which is the more efficient play.

Read this:

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2019/12/2/20991249/post-up-dead-nba-brooklyn-nets-joel-embiid

"And even for the top players, a post-up can still prove inferior to a good new-fashioned 3. Towns, for instance, averaged 1.02 points per post-up play over the last three seasons, one of the league's best marks. He's a phenomenal post-up performer. Yet as a 40 percent 3-point shooter over his career, his average 3-pointer yields a much higher point-per-play rate than his average post-up finish. Even Embiid, a significantly worse long-distance shooter than Towns, manages roughly the same ratio on post-ups and 3s. The 3-versus-2 math is just so lopsided."


So let's say for argument sake, that Shaq could get 1.2 points per post up.  Which is kind of what his .582 FG% would get him plus adding on the occasional "and one" free throw.

That's the equivalent of a 40% three point rate - 55 players currently shoot at that rate - 25 of them average 5.0 three point attempts per game.

It's just math that makes Shaq's game less important these days.

Quote from: Galway Eagle on March 09, 2021, 03:11:43 PM
Nate Robinson?

Actually better than you'd think shooting.  Shot 39% on 5 attempts a game as a senior, then most his NBA career was in the high 30s, outside of his last 2 years with the Knicks.  And his game was all about being a pogo stick, not outmuscling anyone.

Quote from: JWags85 on March 09, 2021, 05:25:48 PM
Actually better than you'd think shooting.  Shot 39% on 5 attempts a game as a senior, then most his NBA career was in the high 30s, outside of his last 2 years with the Knicks.  And his game was all about being a pogo stick, not outmuscling anyone.

Nate had crazy ups.  I tried to work on mine but could not come close to his vert.  :(

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on March 09, 2021, 04:26:55 PM

Shaq would have to change his game though.  Teams aren't dumping down into the post consistently any longer.  And comparing him to Rudy Gobert is the absolute wrong comparison.  The best post players now are Joel Embiid and KAT, and both of them can launch it from the outside anyway - which is the more efficient play.

Read this:

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2019/12/2/20991249/post-up-dead-nba-brooklyn-nets-joel-embiid

"And even for the top players, a post-up can still prove inferior to a good new-fashioned 3. Towns, for instance, averaged 1.02 points per post-up play over the last three seasons, one of the league's best marks. He's a phenomenal post-up performer. Yet as a 40 percent 3-point shooter over his career, his average 3-pointer yields a much higher point-per-play rate than his average post-up finish. Even Embiid, a significantly worse long-distance shooter than Towns, manages roughly the same ratio on post-ups and 3s. The 3-versus-2 math is just so lopsided."


So let's say for argument sake, that Shaq could get 1.2 points per post up.  Which is kind of what his .582 FG% would get him plus adding on the occasional "and one" free throw.

That's the equivalent of a 40% three point rate - 55 players currently shoot at that rate - 25 of them average 5.0 three point attempts per game.

It's just math that makes Shaq's game less important these days.

Mmm-hmm

Quote from: MU82 on March 09, 2021, 07:21:52 PM
Mmm-hmm

What does it tell you about the NBA when even super efficient post up players simply don't post up very often?

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 07, 2021, 08:46:36 PM
Unpopular opinion, but those guys at their prime would not beat most MU teams from the past two decades. Just like science and technology have come a long ways since the 70s, so has athletics. The players are bigger, stronger, faster, the coaches understand the game better, athletic training/coaching/nutrition are at entirely different levels. Kids are in youth leagues from the time they are 3 learning the game. It's why comparing players from different eras doesn't work. Those 10 were more dominant at their time than any other MU players have been at theirs besides Wade and maybe Jae.

I am assuming they would be able to take advantage of the today's facilities and training. Talent is talent and they would only benefit from today's facilities.

Quote from: MU82 on March 09, 2021, 09:29:23 AM


Dean Meminger wouldn't have been as effective in today's college basketball as, say, Jalen Brunson was for Nova? Please.

Our current team would have a lot less turnovers, if Meminger was our point guard.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on March 09, 2021, 12:09:27 PM
I would've picked George over Toone.

Toone could shoot from the outside. George in college was mostly a driver. I did not need an inside scorer when I already had Chones, Lucas and Ellis.

I wonder how many of the posters that are arguing Al's players would not be as good in today's game were even around to see them play.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 09, 2021, 02:18:20 PM
LMAO indeed.

George played forward in college because he played so much bigger than his actual size. In the pros (5 years ABA, 1 year NBA) he played mostly SG and some PG. one year he averaged 27 points, 5 rebounds and 3.7 assists. He regularly made fools out of players much better than Theo John.

I remember Blanton Simmons and IIRC was only 6'4" or 6'5" was our starting center. Al's guys were undersized but they could go after it on the boards.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on March 09, 2021, 07:28:07 PM
What does it tell you about the NBA when even super efficient post up players simply don't post up very often?

So if 21-year-old Shaq were coming out of college today for the draft, every NBA general manager would pass on him twice, right?

I mean, he'd be so inefficient! Who would even want him?

Quote from: JWags85 on March 08, 2021, 12:10:44 PM
Cause everyone is just underselling him due to Wojo hate and lack of success with him on the team.  One of the best shooters and scorers in NCAA history who excelled in today's game is being deemed a "specialist".  Meanwhile, people are suggesting George Thompson or Don Kojis who were inside players while being shorter than most good SGs in the modern game.  It's just over weighting history and ignoring the question.  Kojis given his style and size wouldn't even be high major player in 2021.

Howard, with a very good PG like Butch Lee, or even Diener, with some of the excellent forwards mentioned behind him, would be absolutely deadly.  He shot 42% from 3 while being the sole focal point of the offense, having all the attention, and no PG to get him the ball.  Imagine him if he had space and other offensive weapons around him.

Kojis was a fantastic player . I saw him play live several times in the NBA where he was an All Star. He would be a force in any era . 

George Thompson was the second best player in New York  City after Lee Alcindor . He would be a dominant player in any era as well.

Quote from: Herman Cain on March 09, 2021, 09:43:05 PM
Kojis was a fantastic player . I saw him play live several times in the NBA where he was an All Star. He would be a force in any era . 

George Thompson was the second best player in New York  City after Lee Alcindor . He would be a dominant player in any era as well.

How good was Mannigault in NYC Herman?  That story that he took quarters off the top of the backboard and had a 50 inch vert?  Is that fact or fiction?  I believe there was another playground legend that got called for 3 secs in the lane while he was in the air. 

Quote from: Herman Cain on March 09, 2021, 09:43:05 PM
Kojis was a fantastic player . I saw him play live several times in the NBA where he was an All Star. He would be a force in any era . 

George Thompson was the second best player in New York  City after Lee Alcindor . He would be a dominant player in any era as well.

Was that Lou's cousin?

And again, nobody is saying they weren't great players deserving of all their accolades, but name me a "dominant" 6'2 G/F who scored the majority of their points inside or within 15 feet within the last 10-15 years.  Cause that's what Kojis and Thompson were.

The argument naturally becomes "oh well if they played now they would have an outside shot/better fitness/stronger due to training and nutrition, etc... but that's not what this is about. It's the style and type of player that they were in their prime.

Quote from: bilsu on March 09, 2021, 07:53:05 PM
I wonder how many of the posters that are arguing Al's players would not be as good in today's game were even around to see them play.

Exactly.

Quote from: MU82 on March 09, 2021, 09:19:40 PM
So if 21-year-old Shaq were coming out of college today for the draft, every NBA general manager would pass on him twice, right?

I mean, he'd be so inefficient! Who would even want him?

We're you this intellectually dishonest as a reporter?  You keep making up arguments no one is suggesting. Of course he would be drafted. He would be drafted very high. I am saying he would not have the same impact offensively as he did unless he changed his game.

Quote from: Herman Cain on March 09, 2021, 09:43:05 PM
Kojis was a fantastic player . I saw him play live several times in the NBA where he was an All Star. He would be a force in any era . 

George Thompson was the second best player in New York  City after Lee Alcindor . He would be a dominant player in any era as well.

Thompson wouldn't be dominant unless he expanded his game.

I don't think people understand how much the game has changed in 50 years.

Anyone not putting Markus Howard in their 10 man roster should not be taken seriously.

Quote from: bilsu on March 09, 2021, 07:53:05 PM
I wonder how many of the posters that are arguing Al's players would not be as good in today's game were even around to see them play.

I did.

The whole premise is about putting that team, as is, into today's game.  They would struggle.  Now if they grew up in today's game and would develop as current players have, they would undoubtedly be very good. 

But that's not the premise of the topic.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on March 10, 2021, 06:41:53 AM
We're you this intellectually dishonest as a reporter?  You keep making up arguments no one is suggesting. Of course he would be drafted. He would be drafted very high. I am saying he would not have the same impact offensively as he did unless he changed his game.

I was being facetious, Sultan, and I have always thought you were a pretty intelligent reader.

Of course, in this year's draft, 21-year-old Shaq wouldn't just be taken "very high." He would go No. 1. And the owner, GM, coach and fans of the team that drafted him would be thrilled beyond words to get an incredibly skilled big man -- even if he doesn't take 3s.

And you know it, so you please be intellectually honest about it.

What a bunch of silly arguments we -- and I mean all of us here, including me -- are having about stuff that can never be proven.

I think Cade Cunningham would be drafted ahead of Shaq if the latter were coming out of LSU today.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on March 10, 2021, 09:36:22 AM
I think Cade Cunningham would be drafted ahead of Shaq if the latter were coming out of LSU today.

I will respectfully disagree.

Anybody else you think would go before a 21-year-old Shaq?

Quote from: MU82 on March 10, 2021, 09:39:44 AM
I will respectfully disagree.

Anybody else you think would go before a 21-year-old Shaq?

Haven't done the research but a can't miss guy who can score from all levels would be more valuable than a guy who is dominant down low but can't score from deep.

Quote from: MU82 on March 10, 2021, 09:39:44 AM
I will respectfully disagree.

Anybody else you think would go before a 21-year-old Shaq?

A center who can't take threes hasn't been drafted #1 overall since when? KAT (2015), Anthony Davis (2012), and Blake Griffin (2009) were terrible 3P shooters in college but they showed promise and were able to add that to their games after a few years in the NBA. I think the last one with no ability to hit the 3 that was drafted #1 overall was Greg Oden in 2007.

I was gonna say, Dwight Howard and Andrew Bogut were both consensus no doubt #1 picks in their drafts. Would they be now? Even top 3?

Quote from: MU82 on March 10, 2021, 09:39:44 AM
I will respectfully disagree.

Anybody else you think would go before a 21-year-old Shaq?

I don't think a 21-year old Shaq would go top-5. Cunningham, Suggs, Mobley, Green, and Kuminga are all the more athletic, mobile players the modern NBA favors & all have the ability to stretch the floor. They are also all at least 2 years younger than 21-year-old Shaq.

Shaq was great, but players like that are a relic of their time. I still think he'd play and be a quality contributor, but with the league how it is, he would never dominate like he did.

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 10, 2021, 12:17:53 PM
I don't think a 21-year old Shaq would go top-5. Cunningham, Suggs, Mobley, Green, and Kuminga are all the more athletic, mobile players the modern NBA favors & all have the ability to stretch the floor. They are also all at least 2 years younger than 21-year-old Shaq.

Shaq was great, but players like that are a relic of their time. I still think he'd play and be a quality contributor, but with the league how it is, he would never dominate like he did.

I don't know.  Shaq coming out of LSU was not some big lumbering dude.  He was plenty athletic and ran the floor well.  He was Zion before Zion (who, by the way, went 1 overall and has shown no willingness - or need - to shoot from further than 8 feet out).

I also don't think Shaq would've spent 3 years in college if he was a freshman in the 2020s.  It was not nearly as common to be one and done as it is now.  And bulking up and dominating with his back to the basket was how the game was played then, so it was the best thing for him.  In today's game, with all of the training and focus on what you're eating, etc., he would've had no incentive to bulk up like that.  Sure, he still could've.  But like Zion, that would be his choice.  I don't think he would've had trouble staying thinner and running the court like he did in his Magic days if he was playing today.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 08, 2021, 08:45:02 PM
I'm sorry but your opinion is crazy. Our national championship team would have been lucky to be a tournament team in today's NCAA. They were dominant in their time, more dominant than any other MU players besides Wade and maybe Jae and deserve all the praise and honors, but the game is different now. Jim Chones was the most dominant center to ever play at Marquette and he would have been considered a stick amongst current big men with no ability to stretch the floor and he's one of the two guys  (Lucas) of your 10 who I think could have a role today.

They did all play in the NBA/ABA but again it was a different era and other than Chones and Lucas, most of them had limited success at the pro levels. Most were career backups and only a few of them had the occasional season as starters. Wade is a top 15 NBA player all time and Jimmy is an All Star in today's game.

True, but those guys would be heavier and stronger if they played today and would have different skill sets.  If you can play, you can play.

Quote from: CTWarrior on March 10, 2021, 01:05:19 PM
True, but those guys would be heavier and stronger if they played today and would have different skill sets.  If you can play, you can play.

For sure. I think people in this thread are having two different conversations. The conversation I'm having is taking a time machine, picking up players from past eras and plopping them into the NCAA/NBA today, not a what if greats from past eras had grown up in the current era.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 10, 2021, 01:13:32 PM
For sure. I think people in this thread are having two different conversations. The conversation I'm having is taking a time machine, picking up players from past eras and plopping them into the NCAA/NBA today, not a what if greats from past eras had grown up in the current era.

Yeah, your probably right. 

Nobody thinks the guys from the 40s could hang with the guys from the 70s, so it stands to reason to think that the guys from the 70s could not hang with todays players.

Quote from: CTWarrior on March 10, 2021, 01:31:35 PM
Yeah, your probably right. 

Nobody thinks the guys from the 40s could hang with the guys from the 70s, so it stands to reason to think that the guys from the 70s could not hang with todays players.

This. Heck you can do the 50s. Why is nobody talking about Kojis and Rand? Heck Bill Russell referred to Rand as far and away the best college center he played.

Shaq was a career 58% shooter. His second year in the league he shot 60% from the field and averaged 30. He was one of the most efficient high usage players in the history of the game.

I agree that players from the past could not be picked out of the past and fitted as is in today's game, but I believe that shaq was an exception.

Any 10 guys not being coached by Wojo?

Y'all are crackin' me up about Shaq.

Yep, all these GMs would say, "We don't want a 7-1 stud of an athlete who could get 10-15 dunks a game for us and make our defense all but impenetrable."

And good point by wades about Shaq not spending 3 years at LSU today. He'd have come out after his freshman year, like everybody else does now.

But anyway, who would even want him?

Quote from: MU82 on March 10, 2021, 07:22:08 PM
Y'all are crackin' me up about Shaq.

Yep, all these GMs would say, "We don't want a 7-1 stud of an athlete who could get 10-15 dunks a game for us and make our defense all but impenetrable."

No one said this.

Shaq. He'd go undrafted in 2021 cuz' he couldn't hit the 3 like that multiple champion Porzingis!

Quote from: BLM on March 10, 2021, 12:54:52 PM
I don't know.  Shaq coming out of LSU was not some big lumbering dude.  He was plenty athletic and ran the floor well.  He was Zion before Zion (who, by the way, went 1 overall and has shown no willingness - or need - to shoot from further than 8 feet out).

I also don't think Shaq would've spent 3 years in college if he was a freshman in the 2020s.  It was not nearly as common to be one and done as it is now.  And bulking up and dominating with his back to the basket was how the game was played then, so it was the best thing for him.  In today's game, with all of the training and focus on what you're eating, etc., he would've had no incentive to bulk up like that.  Sure, he still could've.  But like Zion, that would be his choice.  I don't think he would've had trouble staying thinner and running the court like he did in his Magic days if he was playing today.

As far as Zion goes, he shot 33.8% from three at Duke on 71 attempts. He demonstrated that the ability to shoot could be coached into his game. So far, he's a 36.4% three point shooter in the NBA with more career attempts in 2 shortened seasons than Shaq had in his life.

I don't care how much time Shaq would spend in college now, the question asked was about "21-year-old Shaq." I didn't make up the qualifications, I just addressed the question. And as TAMU said, this is about taking the player and inserting them into today's game, not retroactively changing their diet.

I'm not saying Shaq couldn't play at all in today's game, but a 7'1", 300+ pound center that is relatively immobile is simply not the franchise-changing piece that Cade Cunningham, Jalen Suggs, Eric Mobley, Jalen Green, or Jonathan Kuminga would be. In some years, Shaq would be a top pick even in today's NBA. But the initial question was about Cade vs Shaq, and the subsequent question was "anyone else?" Well, the 2021 draft is loaded at the top with 5 players that are exactly what GMs in 2021 are looking for. Maybe last year Shaq would've went #1. But this year? No. No chance. Hell no. Anthony Edwards, who was #1 last year, wouldn't be top-5 this year. This is an excellent, top-heavy draft with numerous potential superstar players that are ideally suited to excel in today's NBA. No one is taking a 1990s relic-style player over any of those guys.

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 11, 2021, 09:02:17 PM
As far as Zion goes, he shot 33.8% from three at Duke on 71 attempts. He demonstrated that the ability to shoot could be coached into his game. So far, he's a 36.4% three point shooter in the NBA with more career attempts in 2 shortened seasons than Shaq had in his life.

I don't care how much time Shaq would spend in college now, the question asked was about "21-year-old Shaq." I didn't make up the qualifications, I just addressed the question. And as TAMU said, this is about taking the player and inserting them into today's game, not retroactively changing their diet.

I'm not saying Shaq couldn't play at all in today's game, but a 7'1", 300+ pound center that is relatively immobile is simply not the franchise-changing piece that Cade Cunningham, Jalen Suggs, Eric Mobley, Jalen Green, or Jonathan Kuminga would be. In some years, Shaq would be a top pick even in today's NBA. But the initial question was about Cade vs Shaq, and the subsequent question was "anyone else?" Well, the 2021 draft is loaded at the top with 5 players that are exactly what GMs in 2021 are looking for. Maybe last year Shaq would've went #1. But this year? No. No chance. Hell no. Anthony Edwards, who was #1 last year, wouldn't be top-5 this year. This is an excellent, top-heavy draft with numerous potential superstar players that are ideally suited to excel in today's NBA. No one is taking a 1990s relic-style player over any of those guys.

"Immobile" is a bit strong brewcity.  I think you're also forgetting that no one could do what Shaq did in the post both in college and the NBA.  Do you really think a fully healthy Nova or Creighton could possibly stop Shaq from scoring at will?  Shaq was much more skilled than people give him credit for.  He dunked a lot because he was quick and ridiculously strong.  But his overall fundamentals besides outside shooting were very solid and he would dominate imo in a similar way to Zion or Giannis.  The man was a natural 305 with explosiveness and power.  Of course he got too heavy eventually but I think he would without question go ahead of every person you mention in this draft.

Some people obviously did not watch Shaq before the middle of his time with the Lakers. If you dropped his 21 year old self into college hoops today he absolutely dominates it and would be at the very worst the second pick in this draft.

Shaq was not immobile. He was not some lumbering lummox. He wasn't George Mikan. I'm not sure which Shaq folks we're watching back in the early '90s, but I was watching an athletic freak who ran like a guard and was a shotblocking, rebounding, dunking machine.

I say that early-90s Shaq would have gone No. 1 in the 2021 draft ... and I have just as much "proof" as those who seriously believe he wouldn't have — or wouldn't even have been a top-5 pick!

This stuff is cracking' me up.

Excuse me but can you even imagine college bigs guarding a young Shaq??  It would be laughable.  And if your answer is they would foul him how many coaches would want their team in the penalty after 7 possessions?  Would you draft Usain Bolt over a cheetah in a race brewcity?  Please. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 11, 2021, 09:22:06 PM
"Immobile" is a bit strong brewcity.  I think you're also forgetting that no one could do what Shaq did in the post both in college and the NBA.  Do you really think a fully healthy Nova or Creighton could possibly stop Shaq from scoring at will?  Shaq was much more skilled than people give him credit for.  He dunked a lot because he was quick and ridiculously strong.  But his overall fundamentals besides outside shooting were very solid and he would dominate imo in a similar way to Zion or Giannis.  The man was a natural 305 with explosiveness and power.  Of course he got too heavy eventually but I think he would without question go ahead of every person you mention in this draft.

Immobile isn't strong when comparing him to Cade Cunningham, Jalen Suggs, Eric Mobley, Jalen Green, and Jonathan Kuminga. And who cares what he could do to 'Nova or Creighton? We're talking about the modern NBA. A league where centers like Jokic, Sabonis, Davis, and Vucevic can and do shoot threes. In the past 5 drafts, just 3 centers have been taken top-5: Dragan Bender, DeAndre Ayton, and James Wiseman. All of them have more career three point attempts than Shaq. That's just a part of the game now. Sure, there are rarities like Rudy Gobert, but he was drafted 27th and that was before the GSW revolution that changed the game so dynamically where every team was looking for shooters at every position.

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 11, 2021, 09:39:03 PM
Immobile isn't strong when comparing him to Cade Cunningham, Jalen Suggs, Eric Mobley, Jalen Green, and Jonathan Kuminga. And who cares what he could do to 'Nova or Creighton? We're talking about the modern NBA. A league where centers like Jokic, Sabonis, Davis, and Vucevic can and do shoot threes. In the past 5 drafts, just 3 centers have been taken top-5: Dragan Bender, DeAndre Ayton, and James Wiseman. All of them have more career three point attempts than Shaq. That's just a part of the game now. Sure, there are rarities like Rudy Gobert, but he was drafted 27th and that was before the GSW revolution that changed the game so dynamically where every team was looking for shooters at every position.

I will agree to disagree.  And as an aside the real Muggsy Bogues made all the players you mention look slow.  He had the greatest zoomability in history and his head was always up surveying the floor.

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 11, 2021, 09:39:03 PMSure, there are rarities like Rudy Gobert, but he was drafted 27th and that was before the GSW revolution that changed the game so dynamically where every team was looking for shooters at every position.

FWIW, Shaq was better and more dominant as a Rookie and 2nd year player than Gobert is now, much less when he was drafted.  Gobert has stone hands.  Shaq isn't as lanky, but he was wildly more explosive and athletic.  I think Young Shaq could have done everything Ayton does that got him drafted that high.

Quote from: JWags85 on March 11, 2021, 10:01:13 PM
FWIW, Shaq was better and more dominant as a Rookie and 2nd year player than Gobert is now, much less when he was drafted.  Gobert has stone hands.  Shaq isn't as lanky, but he was wildly more explosive and athletic.  I think Young Shaq could have done everything Ayton does that got him drafted that high.

Ayton wouldn't be drafted that high in this draft class either.

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 11, 2021, 10:02:01 PM
Ayton wouldn't be drafted that high in this draft class either.

Would you draft Zion or Giannis over Suggs or CC?

https://youtu.be/MTQD3C8Muco

There is nothing immobile about Shaq at all. Shaq wouldn't have had to change his diet at all. Zion couldn't shoot. Went 1 overall. Zion's 33 total 3 pointers don't mean a ton. Nobody was drafting him because he proved he could shoot. His form was hideous. They were drafting him because he was an absolute monster. Just like Shaq. Who is also 6 inches taller than Zion.  Ben Simmons couldn't shoot. Went 1 overall.

People's memories of Shaq are off. Drop 21 year old Shaq into today's college game and he's the most dominant college player since the 70s. And he's going 1 overall.

Quote from: WithoutBias on March 11, 2021, 10:07:12 PM
https://youtu.be/MTQD3C8Muco

There is nothing immobile about Shaq at all. Shaq wouldn't have had to change his diet at all. Zion couldn't shoot. Went 1 overall. Zion's 33 total 3 pointers don't mean a ton. Nobody was drafting him because he proved he could shoot. His form was hideous. They were drafting him because he was an absolute monster. Just like Shaq. Who is also 6 inches taller than Zion.  Ben Simmons couldn't shoot. Went 1 overall.

People's memories of Shaq are off. Drop 21 year old Shaq into today's college game and he's the most dominant college player since the 70s. And he's going 1 overall.

Obviously.

Every time Zion hoists a 3, Van Gundy probably mutters a profanity under his breath.

Shaq was a 7-1 athletic freak who ran the court and dominated the lane on both ends of the court. He would have excelled in today's game because he would have helped his 3-point shooting teammates by demanding defensive attention and he would have benefited greatly from the court being spaced.

But yeah, 3 or 5 or 10 or 20 GMs would have passed on a once-in-a-generation talent because he didn't shoot 3s. Hilarious.

Quote from: MU82 on March 11, 2021, 10:16:53 PM
Obviously.

Every time Zion hoists a 3, Van Gundy probably mutters a profanity under his breath.

Shaq was a 7-1 athletic freak who ran the court and dominated the lane on both ends of the court. He would have excelled in today's game because he would have helped his 3-point shooting teammates by demanding defensive attention and he would have benefited greatly from the court being spaced.

But yeah, 3 or 5 or 10 or 20 GMs would have passed on a once-in-a-generation talent because he didn't shoot 3s. Hilarious.

We completely agree here MU82.  I'm stunned that anyone could think otherwise.   I mean would Garza go ahead of Shaq cause he shoots 3's?  Or Garcia?

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 11, 2021, 10:06:14 PM
Would you draft Zion or Giannis over Suggs or CC?

For the easy one, Giannis, no, and neither would any GM in the the league. We're talking as Shaq came into the league as a 21-year old player. Giannis wasn't a lottery pick in his own draft, and that was a pretty weak draft at the top. He turned out well, but no one expected him to be what he is. There were a lot of Bucks fans that weren't happy with that pick

Zion would be in the mix, but I wouldn't have taken him #1 in his own draft. I thought at the time Ja Morant was the right pick, but that's mainly because I don't think Williamson's knees will hold up for 15 years. In addition, Zion showed the ability to shoot threes, so I'd say he's more likely to be able to adapt to the game as it is than someone like Shaq. When we're talking specifically about Cunningham, I think a 6'8", 220-lb PG that does everything he does is perfect for the current NBA, especially when you see how well he's shot the ball this year. His vision, length, and that he doesn't need to always dominate the ball are the kind of qualities you want in a lead player.

Zion for me might've gone 2, might've gone 3, but I think Cade is just as much of a unicorn player as Zion but with a better game-suited skillset. While Zion's a great talent, Cade is not just a great talent but has the overall skillset at the most important position and the ability to guard well above his position. Overall, as prospects, I think the top-5 in this particular draft are really well suited for the game as it is today. I think this draft will be remembered similarly to how the best draft classes are remembered. Think 2003, 1996, maybe even 1984, when we look back in 20 years.

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 12, 2021, 06:31:02 AM
For the easy one, Giannis, no, and neither would any GM in the the league. We're talking as Shaq came into the league as a 21-year old player. Giannis wasn't a lottery pick in his own draft, and that was a pretty weak draft at the top. He turned out well, but no one expected him to be what he is. There were a lot of Bucks fans that weren't happy with that pick

Zion would be in the mix, but I wouldn't have taken him #1 in his own draft. I thought at the time Ja Morant was the right pick, but that's mainly because I don't think Williamson's knees will hold up for 15 years. In addition, Zion showed the ability to shoot threes, so I'd say he's more likely to be able to adapt to the game as it is than someone like Shaq. When we're talking specifically about Cunningham, I think a 6'8", 220-lb PG that does everything he does is perfect for the current NBA, especially when you see how well he's shot the ball this year. His vision, length, and that he doesn't need to always dominate the ball are the kind of qualities you want in a lead player.

Zion for me might've gone 2, might've gone 3, but I think Cade is just as much of a unicorn player as Zion but with a better game-suited skillset. While Zion's a great talent, Cade is not just a great talent but has the overall skillset at the most important position and the ability to guard well above his position. Overall, as prospects, I think the top-5 in this particular draft are really well suited for the game as it is today. I think this draft will be remembered similarly to how the best draft classes are remembered. Think 2003, 1996, maybe even 1984, when we look back in 20 years.

If you knew Giannis would become what he is wouid you take him over Suggs and CC?  Because Giannis still can't shoot and I wouldn't say his  game is suited for this era. 

I understand your overall point but I don't think you're taking into account how a guy as dominant as Shaq would change the geometry of an offense.  He would open up wide open space.  Davis and Embiid, when they own the paint, create all sorts of opportunities.   And they're very good post players, but not utterly unstoppable like Shaq was in his prime.  Remember Shaq obliterated much bigger guys than we see in this era..

If he was fed down low he would easily be able to score one one one.  If teams didn't double, or perhaps triple, we're talking bucket, after bucket, after bucket, after bucket, or hack a Shaq.   You are underestimating his physical prowess.  They could not stop the guy at all. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 12, 2021, 08:10:53 AM
If you knew Giannis would become what he is wouid you take him over Suggs and CC?  Because Giannis still can't shoot and I wouldn't say his  game is suited for this era. 

I understand your overall point but I don't think you're taking into account how a guy as dominant as Shaq would change the geometry of an offense.  He would open up wide open space.  Davis and Embiid, when they own the paint, create all sorts of opportunities.   And they're very good post players, but not utterly unstoppable like Shaq was in his prime.  Remember Shaq obliterated much bigger guys than we see in this era..

If he was fed down low he would easily be able to score one one one.  If teams didn't double, or perhaps triple, we're talking bucket, after bucket, after bucket, after bucket, or hack a Shaq.   You are underestimating his physical prowess.  They could not stop the guy at all.

Shaq was likely the most physically dominant player in the history of basketball, at least in the modern era.  Agree with your last paragraph 100%.  If guys like Davis, Wiseman and Ayton were recent #1 picks, Shaq would clearly be as well even though his skillset was far more limited.

Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on March 12, 2021, 08:44:15 AM
Shaq was likely the most physically dominant player in the history of basketball, at least in the modern era.  Agree with your last paragraph 100%.  If guys like Davis, Wiseman and Ayton were recent #1 picks, Shaq would clearly be as well even though his skillset was far more limited.

You're right about Shaq's "skillset" being more limited, but the skills he had were once-in-a-generation, and he knew how to use them -- even as a 21-year-old.

The more we all discuss this, the more I am convinced that Shaq would have been the No. 1 pick, and it would have barely been a debate in most draft rooms.

The notion that FIVE or more GMs would have passed on him ... sorry, I respect y'all a lot, but on this point that's just comical.

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 12, 2021, 08:10:53 AM
If you knew Giannis would become what he is wouid you take him over Suggs and CC?  Because Giannis still can't shoot and I wouldn't say his  game is suited for this era. 

I understand your overall point but I don't think you're taking into account how a guy as dominant as Shaq would change the geometry of an offense.  He would open up wide open space.  Davis and Embiid, when they own the paint, create all sorts of opportunities.   And they're very good post players, but not utterly unstoppable like Shaq was in his prime.  Remember Shaq obliterated much bigger guys than we see in this era..

If he was fed down low he would easily be able to score one one one.  If teams didn't double, or perhaps triple, we're talking bucket, after bucket, after bucket, after bucket, or hack a Shaq.   You are underestimating his physical prowess.  They could not stop the guy at all. 

brew isn't saying he sucks.  brew is saying he would take Cunningham first - as would I.  Of course he would be a high draft pick if he came out today.  I don't believe anyone is suggesting otherwise.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on March 12, 2021, 08:59:30 AM

brew isn't saying he sucks.  brew is saying he would take Cunningham first - as would I.  Of course he would be a high draft pick if he came out today.  I don't believe anyone is suggesting otherwise.

CC looks like an excellent prospect, and he has great size like Doncic.  I'm going to assume if you would take CC over Shaq you would also take a  Doncic and Tatum over Shaq.  Would you take (as a 20-22 yr old) Kris Middleton  too?  Or Lillard?  Donavan Mitchell?   Porzingas? 

Let's just discuss Kris Middleton as an example who's an all-star and has a game ideal for this era at the 2G position.  He's not the playmaker that CC may be or Doncic but I want to ask you and brewcity point blank:  if you knew what Middleton would become as a 21 yr old would you take him over Shaq? 

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 12, 2021, 11:23:40 AM
CC looks like an excellent prospect, and he has great size like Doncic.  I'm going to assume if you would take CC over Shaq you would also take a  Doncic and Tatum over Shaq.  Would you take (as a 20-22 yr old) Kris Middleton  too?  Or Lillard?  Donavan Mitchell?   Porzingas? 

Let's just discuss Kris Middleton as an example who's an all-star and has a game ideal for this era at the 2G position.  He's not the playmaker that CC may be or Doncic but I want to ask you and brewcity point blank:  if you knew what Middleton would become as a 21 yr old would you take him over Shaq? 

No. 

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on March 12, 2021, 12:32:05 PM

No.

But I would imagine you would take Mitchell, Lillard, and Doncic or all of the current top 15 players in the league.  Jimmy Buckets?

To answer the OP:

Carton, Garcia, Lewis, Mitchell, Aidoo, Elliott, two athletic and tallish D-and-3 wing transfers, Oso, Akanno and/or role-player transfer and/or Jones and/or Perez.

It's not the "perfect" 10-man roster for 2021, because we can't get NBA players or top guys from Gonzaga, Baylor, Kansas, etc. But it is an example of the most perfect 10-man roster Wojo actually might be able to assemble.

Quote from: MU82 on March 12, 2021, 05:27:50 PM
To answer the OP:

Carton, Garcia, Lewis, Mitchell, Aidoo, Elliott, two athletic and tallish D-and-3 wing transfers, Oso, Akanno and/or role-player transfer and/or Jones and/or Perez.

It's not the "perfect" 10-man roster for 2021, because we can't get NBA players or top guys from Gonzaga, Baylor, Kansas, etc. But it is an example of the most perfect 10-man roster Wojo actually might be able to assemble.

The level of overall athleticism between us and say.....the top seven teams of the B12 is absolutely staggering MU82.  And at every position minus DJ at the 1. 

There are about 100 things on my wish list for MU....that's how low we have sunk. 

How ridiculous was Iversom in college?  Unguardable?

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 10, 2021, 10:00:47 AM
A center who can't take threes hasn't been drafted #1 overall since when? KAT (2015), Anthony Davis (2012), and Blake Griffin (2009) were terrible 3P shooters in college but they showed promise and were able to add that to their games after a few years in the NBA. I think the last one with no ability to hit the 3 that was drafted #1 overall was Greg Oden in 2007.

Anthony Davis shoots a lot of threes now.

Did Embid shoot threes in college?

Talent is talent. They can learn to shoot threes.

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 12, 2021, 06:57:25 PM
How ridiculous was Iversom in college?  Unguardable?

Yes. And when I saw him live as a rookie I thought he was the quickest player I ever saw.

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 12, 2021, 08:10:53 AM
If you knew Giannis would become what he is wouid you take him over Suggs and CC?  Because Giannis still can't shoot and I wouldn't say his  game is suited for this era. 

I understand your overall point but I don't think you're taking into account how a guy as dominant as Shaq would change the geometry of an offense.  He would open up wide open space.  Davis and Embiid, when they own the paint, create all sorts of opportunities.   And they're very good post players, but not utterly unstoppable like Shaq was in his prime.  Remember Shaq obliterated much bigger guys than we see in this era..

If he was fed down low he would easily be able to score one one one.  If teams didn't double, or perhaps triple, we're talking bucket, after bucket, after bucket, after bucket, or hack a Shaq.   You are underestimating his physical prowess.  They could not stop the guy at all.

Holy effing Christ, you need to open up a moving company for all the goalposts you're dragging from coast to coast in this thread.

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 12, 2021, 06:41:07 PM
The level of overall athleticism between us and say.....the top seven teams of the B12 is absolutely staggering MU82.  And at every position minus DJ at the 1. 

There are about 100 things on my wish list for MU....that's how low we have sunk.

OK. Woe is us.

Quote from: bilsu on March 12, 2021, 07:18:22 PM
Anthony Davis shoots a lot of threes now.

Did Embid shoot threes in college?

Talent is talent. They can learn to shoot threes.

Not every player can learn to shoot threes effectively. And Embiid wasn't taken #1 overall and the two players taken above him could shoot the three better than he could....supporting my point that GMs haven't been drafting centers who can't shoot threes #1 overall in the draft.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 12, 2021, 11:02:53 PM
Not every player can learn to shoot threes effectively. And Embiid wasn't taken #1 overall and the two players taken above him could shoot the three better than he could....supporting my point that GMs haven't been drafting centers who can't shoot threes #1 overall in the draft.

Nor have there been centers in the draft that can dominate on the block for quite some time. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 12, 2021, 11:05:54 PM
Nor have there been centers in the draft that can dominate on the block for quite some time.

Oh there have been. It's just the game has changed. You can dominate the block all you want, you'll lose to all the teams hitting threes over you. Guys like Udoza Azubuike would have been lottery picks 15 years ago. Now, they are benchwarmers.

A thread about the perfect 10-man roster for MU turns into a debate about Shaq vs Cade Cunningham or Giannis.

Yep, we're on Scoop.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 12, 2021, 11:18:02 PM
Oh there have been. It's just the game has changed. You can dominate the block all you want, you'll lose to all the teams hitting threes over you. Guys like Udoza Azubuike would have been lottery picks 15 years ago. Now, they are benchwarmers.

You're comparing Azubuike to Shaq?  Interesting.

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 12, 2021, 06:57:25 PM
How ridiculous was Iversom in college?  Unguardable?

He was absurd. Watching games from 25 years ago compared to today's game and he's still unbelievably fast and explosive.  He was also 2x BE DPOY as a freshman and a sophomore. That's crazy.  Ray Allen and Kerry Kittles were absolute stud upperclassmen, otherwise AI probably adds a BE POY in there too.

Quote from: JWags85 on March 12, 2021, 11:39:59 PM
He was absurd. Watching games from 25 years ago compared to today%u2019s game and he%u2019s still unbelievably fast and explosive.  He was also 2x BE DPOY as a freshman and a sophomore. That%u2019s crazy.  Ray Allen and Kerry Kittles were absolute stud upperclassmen, otherwise AI probably adds a BE POY in there too.

I vaguely remember that game against Ray Allen but I really wasn't aware when I was 11 how amazing he was at Gtown.  The two things I find most astounding about Iverson was his durability and the fact that he just looks like a normal guy.  If he walked into a gym, you were a decent baller, and you didn't know who he was, you'd probably think....sure....he can play next game.  Of course after about 30 secs that thought would change.  What an incredible athlete. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 12, 2021, 11:33:49 PM
You're comparing Azubuike to Shaq?  Interesting.

??? You said

Quote from: MuggsyB on March 12, 2021, 11:05:54 PM
Nor have there been centers in the draft that can dominate on the block for quite some time. 

You didn't say dominate on the block as well as Shaq.

Quote from: GooooMarquette on March 12, 2021, 11:24:12 PM
A thread about the perfect 10-man roster for MU turns into a debate about Shaq vs Cade Cunningham or Giannis.

Yep, we're on Scoop.

Clearly, the only internet site worth visiting.  Everything else is shhhhhhhhhhhhh*t

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 12, 2021, 11:18:02 PM
Oh there have been. It's just the game has changed. You can dominate the block all you want, you'll lose to all the teams hitting threes over you. Guys like Udoza Azubuike would have been lottery picks 15 years ago. Now, they are benchwarmers.

There were question marks about the health of Embiid, who had to be shut down before the B12 tourney. He also had only been playing basketball for 3 or 4 years. Yet despite all that - and despite the fact that he wasn't considered a 3-point threat - he STILL went No. 3.

Shaq was a once-in-a-generation talent, ready to be a star immediately, twice the player that rookie Embiid was. He would have gone No. 1, no question.

Zion is a better comparison. Nobody in the NBA said, "Let's take him as a potential 3-point threat." He was mediocre from the college arc and is barely shooting 30%. Van Gundy probably covers his eyes every time Zion rises up behind the arc. Fortunately, Zion takes only one 3 every two games.

He's an at-the-hoop bull. He was drafted No. 1. And Shaq was a MUCH more dominant player as a kid. He'd have gone ahead of Zion and everybody else.

Y'all are fun!

But Zion can shoot the three. And he will continue to get better and shoot it more as he grows.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 13, 2021, 01:54:16 PM
But Zion can shoot the three. And he will continue to get better and shoot it more as he grows.

So "can" Theo.

There's probably nobody on Scoop I respect more than you, TAMU, but I obviously think you're wrong about this. There would have been 0.00% chance that Zion or Embiid would have been drafted over a 20-year-old Shaq.

Cockburn is impressive but doesn't shoot threes.  He's doing a great job on Garza.  I'd take him in an MU uni.  Do we have a Carribean or Jamaican scout?

Quote from: MU82 on March 08, 2021, 07:06:02 PM
Totally agree.

But I don't think the following players would be out of place in today's game:

Meminger, Tatum, Chones, Lackey, Lucas, Wade, Diener, Butler, Crowder, Novak, Matthews, DJO, Lee, Lazar.

I think every one of them would excel today, and several of them would be just as dominant today as they were when they played. Probably a few others, too.

Comparing eras in any sport is tricky. But Mays, Gehrig, Aaron and Gibson would still be incredible ballplayers; Russell, West, Frazier and Julius would still be incredible basketball players; Jim Brown, Joe Greene, Warfield and Fouts would still be incredible football players, etc.

Some athletes were so great, they would have excelled in any era.

I mean, do folks really think that if Jordan played today, he wouldn't have dedicated himself to being a great 3-point shooter?

I do not thank a lot of Al's players would be out of place in today's game. This year we had John at center, who I think failed to average 10 points a game with the 3 point line to open the middle up. Trying to say he is even near the level of Lucas or Chones is ridiculous. They were much better scorers with the lane packed in, because there was no three point line. Image them on the floor when we had Howard to spread the defense.

Meminger and Butch Lee were great drivers. Imagine what they could of done if the floor was more spread out. I think you can see the difference between James's freshmen year and sophomore years. As a freshmen he had Novak on his team, which opened up the middle for James to drive. Without Novak the next year, James became less effective.

The three point shot is an important part of today's game, but that does not mean every player on the team needs to be able to shoot threes.

Quote from: bilsu on March 14, 2021, 03:33:00 PM

The three point shot is an important part of today's game, but that does not mean every player on the team needs to be able to shoot threes.

Agreed. If we had five great three-point shooters but none of them could drive and dish, teams would just press us out on the perimeter. Teams need at least a couple guys who dribble and penetrate, even if they are only so-so from outside the arc.

Quote from: bilsu on March 14, 2021, 03:33:00 PM
I do not thank a lot of Al's players would be out of place in today's game. This year we had John at center, who I think failed to average 10 points a game with the 3 point line to open the middle up. Trying to say he is even near the level of Lucas or Chones is ridiculous. They were much better scorers with the lane packed in, because there was no three point line. Image them on the floor when we had Howard to spread the defense.

Meminger and Butch Lee were great drivers. Imagine what they could of done if the floor was more spread out. I think you can see the difference between James's freshmen year and sophomore years. As a freshmen he had Novak on his team, which opened up the middle for James to drive. Without Novak the next year, James became less effective.

The three point shot is an important part of today's game, but that does not mean every player on the team needs to be able to shoot threes.

Superbly stated.

Quote from: GooooMarquette on March 14, 2021, 04:21:41 PM

Agreed. If we had five great three-point shooters but none of them could drive and dish, teams would just press us out on the perimeter. Teams need at least a couple guys who dribble and penetrate, even if they are only so-so from outside the arc.

Absolutely.

It's also nice to have a dominant big when you can surround him with 3-point shooters.

Not to rehash old arguments, but this popped up today RE: Young Shaq.  He was an absolute Thanos when he was young

https://twitter.com/hoophistory44/status/1375135778079051777?s=21

Quote from: JWags85 on March 25, 2021, 08:54:23 PM
Not to rehash old arguments, but this popped up today RE: Young Shaq.  He was an absolute Thanos when he was young

https://twitter.com/hoophistory44/status/1375135778079051777?s=21

Yeah, but Shaq was no Anthony Edwards or Markelle Fultz or Ben Simmons.