PDA

View Full Version : Robert Horry says Spurs would beat 80's Lakers and Celtics



Y2J
06-14-2007, 10:13 PM
LINK (http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AgEw_pivmQkH9zO8_rhUila8vLYF?slug=aw-horry061307&prov=yhoo&type=lgns)



"No disrespect to the guys back in the 80's and the 70's, but the guys now are so much better than those guys," Horry said. "I don't care what they say. If you look at old films, guys only went right. They turned and kept it in their right hand. Look at the things LeBron (James) can do, Tim (Duncan) can do, Tony (Parker) can do, Manu (Ginobili) can do. Little (Daniel) Gibson over there. There's no way you can compare those guys. We watched what they did and expanded on that."

Anthem
06-14-2007, 10:31 PM
Oh, now he's done it.

idioteque
06-14-2007, 10:44 PM
Players today are definately much more athletic, but players back in the 70's and 80's were much, much more fundamentally sound. How many "great" prospects do we hear about coming out now with a questionable jump shot? I mean, it's the frigging NBA, and we've got guys coming in who can't put the ball through the basket that well, which if I'm not mistaken is the main objective of basketball.

Like Horry said, I don't know if the guys from the 70's and 80's could contain some of the guys in the way that they can drive to the basket today. The best thing the older guys could do is force the new school to take outside shots, because so many players today just aren't that good of shooters. Either way, the game was much more graceful and easy on the eyes back then.

Moses
06-14-2007, 10:54 PM
Haha, the only two guys of that group who should even be in the same breath as the 70s and 80s greats are Tim Duncan and Lebron. Ginobli and Parker are great players in their own rights, but saying that they are better then every 70's and 80's player is just flat out ridiculous.

Stick to the clutch 3's Horry, not basketball analysis.

Shack80
06-14-2007, 10:55 PM
BSh! Players today may well be moe athletic, but those 2 teams were stacked! The Spurs are very good, but the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls of years past would very much take it to them.

BlueNGold
06-14-2007, 11:14 PM
Not sure what this proves.

It was a different time and players have adapted. Big deal. The fact today's players expanded on the past should be expected. It does not, however, mean the players of today have more natural talent. Magic or Bird > Dirk, MJ > Duncan, etc. The truth is, the Bulls and Lakers are probably the most dominant teams in the past 30 years. The Spurs are a great team, but during their "dynasty" they have not been dominant. In fact, they have never won back to back championships. The reason they have not been dominant is they do not have off the charts talent. Great chemistry, coaching, teamwork and defense got it done in Detroit...not raw talent. Same with San Antonio. IMO, the absolute greatest teams have it all.

For example, for a few years in the 90's, no one really had a chance against Chicago. It was a lot of teamwork, but it was also a very high talent level in MJ and Pippen. I don't see that level on the Spurs. Manu, Bowen and Parker are nice players, but they are pale when compared to Pippen and Jordan. Cartwright and Rodman would do a fine job of frustrating Duncan particularly when Pippen would double down on him. Also, for a couple in the early 00's, no one really thought the Lakers could lose with Shaq, Kobe and Co. Shaq in his prime was just about too much for anyone to take...and combined with Kobe and a great supporting cast, they were virtually unstoppable. The only reason they did not win a few more rings was due to chemistry issues.

BlueNGold
06-14-2007, 11:21 PM
Players today are definately much more athletic, but players back in the 70's and 80's were much, much more fundamentally sound. How many "great" prospects do we hear about coming out now with a questionable jump shot? I mean, it's the frigging NBA, and we've got guys coming in who can't put the ball through the basket that well, which if I'm not mistaken is the main objective of basketball.

Like Horry said, I don't know if the guys from the 70's and 80's could contain some of the guys in the way that they can drive to the basket today. The best thing the older guys could do is force the new school to take outside shots, because so many players today just aren't that good of shooters. Either way, the game was much more graceful and easy on the eyes back then.

I agree. Players coming out of high school have been part of the problem with fundamentals. Out of control contracts have made it difficult to put together teams with good chemistry. The league has some problems. That's why teams like Detroit and San Antonio have had as much success as they have. It seems to be more difficult these days to surround the best players in the league with a strong supporting cast. Might be related to money....

Anthem
06-14-2007, 11:36 PM
Ok, Gibson might be a stretch, but I think it's pretty reasonable to think that LeBron would have dominated in the 80s.

cgg
06-15-2007, 12:01 AM
Mr. James doesn't dominate today...

BoomBaby31
06-15-2007, 12:39 AM
Players today are definately much more athletic, but players back in the 70's and 80's were much, much more fundamentally sound. How many "great" prospects do we hear about coming out now with a questionable jump shot? I mean, it's the frigging NBA, and we've got guys coming in who can't put the ball through the basket that well, which if I'm not mistaken is the main objective of basketball.

Like Horry said, I don't know if the guys from the 70's and 80's could contain some of the guys in the way that they can drive to the basket today. The best thing the older guys could do is force the new school to take outside shots, because so many players today just aren't that good of shooters. Either way, the game was much more graceful and easy on the eyes back then.

LoL, I love that myth/theory players are more athletic then back in the 70's and 80's. You just have better quality cameras and TVs then back then. More bulky yes, more athletic no. I think the series would be close with the old teams but, i'd have to take the Celts and the Lakers over the now spurs.

beast23
06-15-2007, 01:14 AM
I think Horry is nuts.

I'd love to see Duncan go up against Parrish, McHale and Bird. I think Duncan is a great player, but I don't think he would dominate in the middle against the old Celtics. And the first time Parker drove the lane, he'd probably end up having something in common with the "Headless Horseman".

As for the Lakers, Worthy would be a hard cover. And despite Duncan's defensive abilities, I don't know of anyone capable of stopping Kareem's sky hook. And that doesn't even consider Magic's size advantage over anyone attempting to guard him.

I think both the Lakers and the Celtics would have a lot of mismatches over the present Spurs.

Young
06-15-2007, 01:37 AM
Lol.

The teams today would be NO match.

Dennis Johnson/Danny Ainge/Larry Bird/Kevin McHale/Robert Parrish and the Spurs with Parker, Ginobli, Bowen, Duncan, and OBERTIO would beat them? LMAO.

The Lakers with Magic Johnson, Byron Scott, James Worthy, and Kareem couldn't beat those Spurs? Yeah right. I'd love to see the Spurs try and guard Magic, i'd love it!

The Spurs are a great team. A dynasty. But I am not for sure that the NBA has or ever will see an era with TWO teams as great as the Celtics or Lakers. Imagne one of those teams playing now? Wow.

Tim Duncan may be the greatest power forward of all time but there is just no way and anyone who thinks so needs to get real.

Arcadian
06-15-2007, 02:09 AM
In this era of no hand checking and softer middle Parker fares better. I'm not sure he'd survive a season in the 80's. On the other hand play by today's rules and I think the Spur's would have advantages as well.

burnzone
06-15-2007, 02:38 AM
Good point Arcadian, the hand check rule from todays game, is a huge difference, and why we see so many ultra quick guards penetrate the lane so easy.

There is absolutely no way in hell, that today's Spurs team, even beats the Spurs team from back in the day with Robinson, Elliott, Elie, Kerr, and Avery Johnson, in a 7 game series.

And to think about the matchup with the 80's Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, or Sixers is laughable.

Defense alone, against the likes of Michael Cooper, Joe Dumars, Scottie Pippen, Michael Jordan, Sidney Moncrief, or even farther back, and say Dave DeBusschere.

I just don't think the teams, or players from today would come even close to dominating those teams, and players from back in the day, they were just too fundamentally sound.

D-BONE
06-15-2007, 07:07 AM
Good dialogue about player ability/talent difference between present and past. However, I find the thread title misleading. Unless he specifically said elsewhere, Horry's quote here says nothing about the Spurs beating any of the great 80s TEAMS. I can't go so far as to say it's obviously implied either.

In terms of individual player talent/abilities/athleticism, today's guys may be slightly better athletically, but I think that's about it. Although I'd say Duncan is on par or better than many of the past great PF/Cs. He's just not flashy, but, speaking of fundamentals, he's one of the most sound players for his size IMO-This generation or otherwise. Particulary offensively.

edc
06-15-2007, 07:54 AM
Hand check rule today was not a foul in the 80s.

duncan points will be low.

ginobili and parker will be clothesline by mchale and it will be called only a personal foul.

bowen guarding Larry Bird :laugh:

Horry is dreaming.

TripleThreat
06-15-2007, 08:15 AM
In this era of no hand checking and softer middle Parker fares better. I'm not sure he'd survive a season in the 80's. On the other hand play by today's rules and I think the Spur's would have advantages as well.

you hit the nail on the head here...Play by today's rules, and the Spurs might win it...

Play by the rules of the 70's and 80's, and it would be a blowout, because today's players would be arguing with the refs EVERY single trip down the floor while the "old guys" ran down for easy layups.

I used to play in leagues at IndySports on the east side, and there was this group of older guys that always seemed to be in our league. They called themselves Legion Of Doom, and they played sound, fundamental basketball. Crisp passing, and team defense...It was always a pain in the arse to play them, but fun watching them beat teams with young, athletic kids who thought they were ballerz...

DaSMASH
06-15-2007, 09:49 AM
LINK (http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AgEw_pivmQkH9zO8_rhUila8vLYF?slug=aw-horry061307&prov=yhoo&type=lgns)




Big Shot Bob is an IDIOT ! :hmm:

King Tuts Tomb
06-15-2007, 10:28 AM
These Spurs could play with any championship team from the last twenty five years. I don't know if they could win em all, but they'd be competitive. They just went 16-4 and rolled 3 of the top 6 teams in the league.

I know why most people undervalue the 07 Spurs (its too soon so they haven't built up the aura that will come in 20 years, and I can also tell there's some lingering dislike from the Suns series) but they really are a great team, definitely the best Spurs team of the last decade and probably the second best team of the post-Jordan era.

And the talk about lack of fundamentals is driving me nuts. This Spurs team is the most fundamentally sound we've seen in years. Duncan's footwork and post up IQ is better than ANYONE in the 80s. Parker is a poor man's Isiah. Bowen's defense is straight 80s.

Doc and Magic couldn't shoot, Larry got burned on D, Clyde dribbled with his head down. Players have always had faults in their game, even the greats. This Spurs team is one of the all time greats, we should be happy we get to see them play, not trashing them because you don't like what the rest of the NBA has become.

Naptown_Seth
06-15-2007, 10:39 AM
Oh, now he's done it.
Gotta give him credit, this isn't some fluff answer he's giving. He explains his reasoning and even still credits the older players by saying that the new guys built on what they were doing.

That's the natural progression of things.

I think the defense of those teams would be this - if they came forward they would also have the benefit of living through those developments and improvements. And if you take the Spurs back you take away their ability to build off those teams.

Plus there is a big factor which is RULES and ENFORCEMENT. Some of what they do now wouldn't go over then, or vice versa. It wasn't the same game and if forced to play it a different way I think they'd struggle to keep up.

What Horry is doing I think is simply imagining how those teams would struggle with the modern style and rule limits without the opportunity to play it till it was fine-tuned. He's keeping them frozen with their game, and realistically it wouldn't go like that.

ChicagoJ
06-15-2007, 11:52 AM
Maybe the Lakers and Celtics, but not the '83 Sixers.

The '83 Sixers would've steamrolled this Spurs team, too.

King Tuts Tomb
06-15-2007, 12:40 PM
Maybe the Lakers and Celtics, but not the '83 Sixers.

The '83 Sixers would've steamrolled this Spurs team, too.

From what I've read on these forums, me and you disagree on just about everything, but I agree with you completely on this. How damn good was that team? Moses, J, Mo Cheeks, Bobby Jones, Andrew Toney. Andrew Toney was the fourth best player on that team!!! And he's awesome.

Cobol Sam
06-15-2007, 12:43 PM
These type of era vs. era debates aren't ever appealing to me because the newer team doesn't have the advantage of nostalgia or having become mythologized.

Maybe the Spurs could take those teams, maybe they couldn't.

Since86
06-15-2007, 02:11 PM
Mr. James doesn't dominate today...

Maybe you should go back and watch game 5 of the Detroit series.

Or better yet, look back over the whole Cleveland lineup and pick out anyone else that would be capable of leading that team if LeBron went down for an extended time.

That team is HORRIBLE without him, and they managed to make it all the way to the finals. Their best backcourt player, besides LBJ, is a rookie. A rookie drafted in the 2nd round none the less.

I mean as a 22 year old in his third season he has career averages of 26.7 pts, 6.7 rebounds, 6.4 assists.

JayRedd
06-15-2007, 03:51 PM
LoL, I love that myth/theory players are more athletic then back in the 70's and 80's. You just have better quality cameras and TVs then back then. More bulky yes, more athletic no. I think the series would be close with the old teams but, i'd have to take the Celts and the Lakers over the now spurs.

A big part of this is also cultural.

Bird and Magic and them didn't lift weights like guys do now. They didn't take dietary supplements and use nutritionists like they do now. They didn't have arthroscopic surgeries to fix long-lasting injuries in a matter or weeks like they do now. How many guys in the 80s do you think just played their whole careers through shoulder injuries like those that were easily corrected for JO or Kobe?

Had guys like James Worthy or Michael Cooper or Mo Cheeks grew up in the 80s/90s they would have had all these things as a part of their basketball culture and would have been significantly more athletic. It's not all genetics. It's not like the human species has evolved in 30 years. It's weight training, plyometrics, stretching and all these other regiments that these guys in the League now started doing when they were 10-years-old playing AAU ball.

If the players of old grew up when these guys that are in the League now did, they'd be significantly more athletic. And if Tony Parker and TD and Chauncey and such had been born in 1962, they would have grown up not knowing was a strength coach was and smoking cigarettes, and they wouldn't have the same physiques, fast-twitch muscle fibres and explosiveness that they do now.

A lot of it's cultural and a better sociological understanding of health, training, strength and conditioning.

edc
06-15-2007, 03:58 PM
A big part of this is also cultural.

Bird and Magic and them didn't lift weights like guys do now. They didn't take dietary supplements and use nutritionists like they do now. They didn't have arthroscopic surgeries to fix long-lasting injuries in a matter or weeks like they do now. How many guys in the 80s do you think just played their whole careers through shoulder injuries like those that were easily corrected for JO or Kobe?

Had guys like James Worthy or Michael Cooper or Mo Cheeks grew up in the 80s/90s they would have had all these things as a part of their basketball culture and would have been significantly more athletic. It's not all genetics. It's not like the human species has evolved in 30 years. It's weight training, plyometrics, stretching and all these other regiments that these guys in the League now started doing when they were 10-years-old playing AAU ball.

If the players of old grew up when these guys that are in the League now did, they'd be significantly more athletic. And if Tony Parker and TD and Chauncey and such had been born in 1962, they would have grown up not knowing was a strength coach was and smoking cigarettes, and they wouldn't have the same physiques, fast-twitch muscle fibres and explosiveness that they do now.

A lot of it's cultural and a better sociological understanding of health, training, strength and conditioning.

:bowdown: Nice post

carpediem024
06-15-2007, 05:45 PM
LeBron dominated because he managed to take CLE to the Finals.

Oh wait, I forgot CLE was in the Eastern Conference and that it's 2007.