The 10 = 20 NBA Surprise Partner Draft SF2 : UK/Nos vs Ducey/Stakes

[UK Cowboy]

I just think we go with what wins versus what is reality. We've beaten the subject to death but this infatuation with receivers and secondary in the NFL doesn't translate at all in the real world. Yes a CB 1 is a top five position. But other than that you can win titles with excellent qb play and outstanding line play. I've gotten to the point where I neglect the OL because it almost never wins our drafts even though it should.

The biggest difference with the Browns this year versus last was Baker emerging and them having a top 5 OL. That's the reality of the league rather than matchups decided on paper.

I go with an apples to apples comparison. Let's take the best player in MLB today, Mike Trout and compare him to a .300+(switch) hitting. 500+ HR Mickey Mantle. Similar stats except for Rings. Mike Trout got to play select ball year round as a youth, indoor hitting academy's, professional hitting instruction from the time he could walk, modern diet and nutrition and quite possibly some super protein enriched injectable chicken. He has someone making his meals, professional trainers year round...does he face better pitching for his 500 foot HR's? Yep. But if Mantle had all those advantages...no question in my mind he is as good or better. Or if Trout had NONE of those advantages, I don't think he is close to Mantle back then.
Same thing with hoops and AAU basketball, and don't even get me started on football. I know Patrick Mahomes, he played summer baseball against my son every year. Patrick had a credit card from his select organization to pay for flights to major events. He played for free, hotels included. Played 7 on 7 all summer each year, went to college and pro ran QB camps every year, was personally trained at state of the art APEC in Tyler(I'm not taking anything away from him, awesome kid and hard worker). And the game he plays today, all the rules are geared to help the QB. If he were born 50 years ago would he still be an all time great? Maybe, I don't know. If Marino were 25 today and had all that plus these rules, would he put up even better numbers? You bet your sweet ass

 

[stakesarehigh]

I go with an apples to apples comparison. Let's take the best player in MLB today, Mike Trout and compare him to a .300+(switch) hitting. 500+ HR Mickey Mantle. Similar stats except for Rings. Mike Trout got to play select ball year round as a youth, indoor hitting academy's, professional hitting instruction from the time he could walk, modern diet and nutrition and quite possibly some super protein enriched injectable chicken. He has someone making his meals, professional trainers year round...does he face better pitching for his 500 foot HR's? Yep. But if Mantle had all those advantages...no question in my mind he is as good or better. Or if Trout had NONE of those advantages, I don't think he is close to Mantle back then.
Same thing with hoops and AAU basketball, and don't even get me started on football. I know Patrick Mahomes, he played summer baseball against my son every year. Patrick had a credit card from his select organization to pay for flights to major events. He played for free, hotels included. Played 7 on 7 all summer each year, went to college and pro ran QB camps every year, was personally trained at state of the art APEC in Tyler(I'm not taking anything away from him, awesome kid and hard worker). And the game he plays today, all the rules are geared to help the QB. If he were born 50 years ago would he still be an all time great? Maybe, I don't know. If Marino were 25 today and had all that plus these rules, would he put up even better numbers? You bet your sweet ass

Solid post and viewpoint

I know you mixed it up with the nba guys recently on the board and I tend to think they go too far in the other direction in terms of guys even from the 90s not being able to play today. I generally disagree with that other than some bigs who don't have the skillset (at least at that time) to translate to today.

But also as I pointed out because of rules there is virtually no iso for bigs in the post and none of the players today can move in the post like Hakeem or Jabarr could.

 

[stakesarehigh]

Well when you have players from the 60's-70's matching up against a team full of 00's and 10's guys...it's head to head. It's hard to compare a player just on greatness in their era without taking into account their skillset. If a guy can shoot 3's at a high level and another player never defended 3's in their career...it makes a HUGE difference.

But this is like any other sport and that's why we should treat this sport differently. We've had this discussion for years. It's not going to work and it will never work in the voting process.

Who is better Earl Monroe or Klay Thompson? If you go by era you probably take Earl...but I don't think anyone really thinks he is better than Klay Thompson, one of the best shooters of all-time and he is a lockdown defender.

Yea that's basically what I'm saying. If we are playing today's game you take Klay every time. I'm not even saying it has to be quite to the extent it's gone but even ten years ago you take Klay. It's hard to take guys era to era and put them on a court and play a virtual game in your head not knowing the rules we are playing by. But like I said I'm assuming we have a 3 point line forwards and bigs that can stretch the floor are going to give that team a decided advantage.

 

[UK Cowboy]

Solid post and viewpoint

I know you mixed it up with the nba guys recently on the board and I tend to think they go too far in the other direction in terms of guys even from the 90s not being able to play today. I generally disagree with that other than some bigs who don't have the skillset (at least at that time) to translate to today.

But also as I pointed out because of rules there is virtually no iso for bigs in the post and none of the players today can move in the post like Hakeem or Jabarr could.

Yeah, I don't have a lot of respect for their point of view. I totally understand the game has changed, but the guy we were debating wasn't Bob Pettit or Bill Russell, it was Shaq. Even today, there is no one even remotely close physically to a young Shaq. With today's rules, where you can't even put an elbow in a guys back to defend, where any hard foul at the rim is a flagrant, anyone who thinks Shaq wouldn't be just as dominant is past basketball ignorant IMO. I understand 3's vs 2's...but most good 3 point shooter are 40%, most of Shaq's shots today would be 100% dunks. But not just Shaq. Kevin McHale isn't a physical phenom..put him in todays game and he couldn't be defended. And don't tell me about modern defensive schemes...No matter what defense you are in, Shaq would demand a double(or triple) team or its a dunk. Once that happens and he passes it out, those 40% contested 3's for his team become 60% wide open 3's. I'll debate a lot of things with an open mind, but Shaq vs today's players and rules isn't one of them

 

[stakesarehigh]

No you are biased, it's just facts and how the game has evolved. That's why we should seperate eras when drafting for NBA...I've said this before.
The overall talent in the league today is without a doubt better, you have more athletes and talent across the board. You have guys that are on the bench that could play back in the day, those are just facts but you say that about a lot of the main sports. I mean look at the NFL, you have 4.4 guys at LB all over the field that are as strong as an ox, it's unfair. It's so difficult to win a golf tournament these days with all the talent and young talent....every sport is evolving which makes sense bc of all analytics is involving, they have so many more methods to improve their skills and become experts at their craft. I really do think in the NBA it makes the BIGGEST difference though, a couple of huge advantages would just be athleticism...some people think they just play no defense and that is absurb. How hard is it to guard a 6'11" guy that can run the floor like a 6'3" guard and is a sharpshooter. When you get into the 60's and 70's they never saw that...so they would have no idea how to stop that player, I mean they didn't even have to defend the 3 point line...they would be at a major disadvantage just from that aspect of the game.

That's why I pointed out Simmons specifically. He gets killed over his shooting but he'd still be a better shooter than a lot of these guys. But what he does bring is a player we've never really seen at his height do the things he does. So it's hard for me to see certain guys get all this love when I know Ben would crush most of them.

Just using him as an example.

 

[stakesarehigh]

Yeah, I don't have a lot of respect for their point of view. I totally understand the game has changed, but the guy we were debating wasn't Bob Pettit or Bill Russell, it was Shaq. Even today, there is no one even remotely close physically to a young Shaq. With today's rules, where you can't even put an elbow in a guys back to defend, where any hard foul at the rim is a flagrant, anyone who thinks Shaq wouldn't be just as dominant is past basketball ignorant IMO. I understand 3's vs 2's...but most good 3 point shooter are 40%, most of Shaq's shots today would be 100% dunks. But not just Shaq. Kevin McHale isn't a physical phenom..put him in todays game and he couldn't be defended. And don't tell me about modern defensive schemes...No matter what defense you are in, Shaq would demand a double(or triple) team or its a dunk. Once that happens and he passes it out, those 40% contested 3's for his team become 60% wide open 3's. I'll debate a lot of things with an open mind, but Shaq vs today's players and rules isn't one of them

Shaq is just a freak much like Wilt was in his era. I don't think you can use him as an example for anything. He'd have stayed leaner if he played today's game but he'd still be a handful. Just no player like him

 

[UK Cowboy]

I also go with the "played vs" argument. Wilt played against KAJ the last 5 years of Wilt's career and first 5 of Kareems. Wilt was just as good if not better than KAJ, certainly comparable. Kareem played with Magic Johnson, just as dominant a player no question. Magic played against MJ, and while MJ is considered the GOAT, Magic was certainly the same caliber player. LBJ is now the best player in the world and some consider him as good as MJ, though at best he is the same caliber player. So...how is it Wilt wouldn't be the same caliber player as LBJ today? Or. Without AAU, modern strength training, nutrition, and old time rules where LBJ would get smacked at the rim and it's just a common foul..would LBJ be able to score 100 in a game. Could he AVERAGE 50 points and 26 rebounds a game for a SEASON? And if your answer to those two questions is yes, then he is only Wilt's equal....

 

[stakesarehigh]

I also go with the "played vs" argument. Wilt played against KAJ the last 5 years of Wilt's career and first 5 of Kareems. Wilt was just as good if not better than KAJ, certainly comparable. Kareem played with Magic Johnson, just as dominant a player no question. Magic played against MJ, and while MJ is considered the GOAT, Magic was certainly the same caliber player. LBJ is now the best player in the world and some consider him as good as MJ, though at best he is the same caliber player. So...how is it Wilt wouldn't be the same caliber player as LBJ today? Or. Without AAU, modern strength training, nutrition, and old time rules where LBJ would get smacked at the rim and it's just a common foul..would LBJ be able to score 100 in a game. Could he AVERAGE 50 points and 26 rebounds a game for a SEASON? And if your answer to those two questions is yes, then he is only Wilt's equal....

I don't take a lot of issue with the top tier guys from then except Russell. His shooting stats are garbage even though he was far and away the best athlete until Wilt came around. You could put any number of guys in Boston at that time and they may not be quite the defender he was but they'd bring more from offense.

I feel like it gets in the weeds once we get past the top 30 or 40 type guys and that's where I skew from the Bird/Magic era forward. As I said I tend to look for 3s and 4s (especially 4s) that can hit a 3 with proficiency. If I'm spreading the floor and you have to guard my forwards all the way to the 3 point line and I don't have to do that with yours that's a huge huge advantage. Spacing on down is a major advantage.

 

[UK Cowboy]

Don't get me wrong, if a modern team played a team from 50 years ago in the NFL or NBA, I would take the modern team. Athletes are better. But give those athletes the same advantages, and everything equals out. Is Aaron Rodgers an all time great comparable to Marino? You bet. Is Matt Stafford and his 5000 yard seasons? That's an absolute joke.
Baseball...I'll say this, my son plays college ball and ive coached a lot of college and pro players. They are amazing. But I have an uncle who is 70. He was a Pro baseball player, though I never saw him play. Guy was normal size, 5' 10", 195. When he was 50 and I was 30 I was much bigger, 6'1" 240 and worked out all the time...but his forearms...man, they were the size of my biceps. And his hands...huge, muscle hands. No weightlifting could get me anywhere close. He said it was because nothing was automated and he did so much hard manual labor every day. I saw him throw a football 70 yards at 50 years old and have seen him hit a golf ball 325-330 at the same age. I look at those old photos of Mantle and see him hit balls 500 feet...IDK man...

 

[Nosferatu]

I may have said this once or twice before but when doing all time drafts we shouldn't use current players.

Also, why do we always assume yesterdays players would have to compete with today's rules?

You have to be pretty stupid not to realize that if players from yesterday played today they would have used all the advantages players today have.

And somehow the fact they didn't have to guard against the 3 means if they played today they would simply ignore that part of the game.

 

[Nosferatu]

I just think we go with what wins versus what is reality. We've beaten the subject to death but this infatuation with receivers and secondary in the NFL doesn't translate at all in the real world. Yes a CB 1 is a top five position. But other than that you can win titles with excellent qb play and outstanding line play. I've gotten to the point where I neglect the OL because it almost never wins our drafts even though it should.

The biggest difference with the Browns this year versus last was Baker emerging and them having a top 5 OL. That's the reality of the league rather than matchups decided on paper.

This is another part of your problem, what is reality, lolzzz

We draft super teams, there's nothing real about this. The reason receiver and corner are so important is because when we all have a super team you need to have advantages somewhere to win because all the teams are good, the easiest positions to create advantages are at receiver and in the secondary. We aren't playing against the Detroit Lions, we are matching up with other super teams.

 

[stakesarehigh]

This is another part of your problem, what is reality, lolzzz

We draft super teams, there's nothing real about this. The reason receiver and corner are so important is because when we all have a super team you need to have advantages somewhere to win because all the teams are good, the easiest positions to create advantages are at receiver and in the secondary. We aren't playing against the Detroit Lions, we are matching up with other super teams.

I don't agree. And regardless the game is played on a field. Real or imagined and the rules still hold true. If you have devalued your line you will suffer. Even moreso against all time teams

They recently held a similar style draft with SI. They had some goofy picks there but you didn't see runs of all secondary or all receiver in anyone's first six or seven rounds. You don't build a team that way unless you're matt Millen.

 

[stakesarehigh]

I may have said this once or twice before but when doing all time drafts we shouldn't use current players.

Also, why do we always assume yesterdays players would have to compete with today's rules?

You have to be pretty stupid not to realize that if players from yesterday played today they would have used all the advantages players today have.

And somehow the fact they didn't have to guard against the 3 means if they played today they would simply ignore that part of the game.

No one said they would ignore the 3 but you're assuming facts not in evidence. I don't know how well they would or would not.

Regardless especially in the nba pre bird and magic isn't a comparable talent level. It just isn't. So when I see buckets of those guys going I'm supposed to just assume they'd be anything remotely on par? I can't do that. Too many variables.

Totally different sport a generation from now US men's soccer will be a real player. Why? Because of two generations ofus playing catchup with the rest of the world. But do I go back and say Landon Donovan was even as good as Pulisic? And even moreso in 20 years?


That's how I view the nba. There is a very major divide from about 35 years ago where the sport started drawing and building the talent from there to today.

 

[citysushi]

When I first started these drafts, I genuinely believed today's NBA players would just make the old school players look ridiculous and outclass them. The game has evolved and so have the sophistication of offense and skills.

HOWEVER, to completely discount older generation players is equally as ridiculous as overvaluing today's players. We need to keep context here in terms of basketball ability. Generally what I look for in older players when I draft them (not saying I'm right, just my philosophy) is to draft players who had tangible skill sets that would transcend era. Those include, athleticism, height/length, shooting ability, defensive ability, rebounding, passing, etc. That's why from older generations I like taking a guy like Walt Bellamy because he has tangible skills that would be great in any era.

You always have to factor in the ability for an older generation player to have similar training and skill building to those of today. Then you can see more of where they would fall. Prime examples of this are John Stockton and Joe Dumars. Both started out as not very good 3 point shooters in their career but as the started to round into the 90's where the 3 point shot really started gaining some traction their percentage and volume both went up. They started to focus on it as a real area of strength.

Me personally, I like to mix up my squad and have a balance of both styles. Otherwise what's the point to these drafts if you can't imagine these players playing together and figuring out what it would look like. Alan Page was a 245lb DT. You think he could go up easily against Alan Faneca, assuming there were no changes Page's ability to put on weight and muscle in a different era?

 

[Nosferatu]

I don't agree. And regardless the game is played on a field. Real or imagined and the rules still hold true. If you have devalued your line you will suffer. Even moreso against all time teams

They recently held a similar style draft with SI. They had some goofy picks there but you didn't see runs of all secondary or all receiver in anyone's first six or seven rounds. You don't build a team that way unless you're matt Millen.

Comprehension isn't a strong point with you is it? What is devaluing your line? Define that for me? What are your standards so we know for future drafts? Do we have to have at least 4 hall of famers on the line all of whom played in the last 20 years to be successful?

It's amazing how much you cry, you cry if we have a draft where you have to research and pick players who weren't superstars or well known players and you also cry if we treat super teams like they're super teams.

My first 7 picks from the last NFL draft.
1. CB
2, QB
3. MLB
4. DE
5. RB
6. DT
7. WR

Let's go back to the previous NFL draft, my first 7
1. LB
2. OT
3. OG
4. WR
5. WR
6. S
7. OT

Yep, filled up on receivers and secondary.

 

[Nosferatu]

No one said they would ignore the 3 but you're assuming facts not in evidence. I don't know how well they would or would not.

Regardless especially in the nba pre bird and magic isn't a comparable talent level. It just isn't. So when I see buckets of those guys going I'm supposed to just assume they'd be anything remotely on par? I can't do that. Too many variables.

Totally different sport a generation from now US men's soccer will be a real player. Why? Because of two generations ofus playing catchup with the rest of the world. But do I go back and say Landon Donovan was even as good as Pulisic? And even moreso in 20 years?


That's how I view the nba. There is a very major divide from about 35 years ago where the sport started drawing and building the talent from there to today.

Okay, i'll say it for the 74th time. You are penalizing players because of when they were born. Do you really think if all the best players from the 60's and 70's played in todays game they wouldn't have taken advantage of all the things modern players have to help them develop? I mean that's beyond ignorant.

Who gives a fuck about soccer!

 

[citysushi]

To be completely fair, NBA is the only real sport in which there was a SIGNIFICANT change in the alteration of game play. In the NFL/MLB you have tweaks here or there, but the dynamic of the entire game has shifted.

I think going forward we need to incorporate into each NBA draft a segmenting of the halves which include one half having a 3 point line and the other not including it. You can still draft and place any player in either category, but by eliminating the 3 point line in judging one of the halves it gives a better indication of where the older generation stand in comparison with each other.

 

[Nosferatu]

To be completely fair, NBA is the only real sport in which there was a SIGNIFICANT change in the alteration of game play. In the NFL/MLB you have tweaks here or there, but the dynamic of the entire game has shifted.

I think going forward we need to incorporate into each NBA draft a segmenting of the halves which include one half having a 3 point line and the other not including it. You can still draft and place any player in either category, but by eliminating the 3 point line in judging one of the halves it gives a better indication of where the older generation stand in comparison with each other.

I was thinking the same but having the entire draft use the same rules, some drafts current rules some with old school rules.

 

[stakesarehigh]

Comprehension isn't a strong point with you is it? What is devaluing your line? Define that for me? What are your standards so we know for future drafts? Do we have to have at least 4 hall of famers on the line all of whom played in the last 20 years to be successful?

It's amazing how much you cry, you cry if we have a draft where you have to research and pick players who weren't superstars or well known players and you also cry if we treat super teams like they're super teams.

My first 7 picks from the last NFL draft.
1. CB
2, QB
3. MLB
4. DE
5. RB
6. DT
7. WR

Let's go back to the previous NFL draft, my first 7
1. LB
2. OT
3. OG
4. WR
5. WR
6. S
7. OT

Yep, filled up on receivers and secondary.

I think it's funny you see me calling out your opinion as crying. I happen to think it's absurd for a team filled with players from an earlier era to win this if we are including present day players.

That's the issue here man. You're the one name calling and telling me "fuck you" and I'm keeping the conversation to sports.

And I'm not talking about your nfl team specifically but the general vibe of the whole thing.

One of the very first thing that jumped off the page when I started drafting with you guys was the weird runs on secondary and receivers.

That and just the bizarre lack of logic on certain guys. Totally different logic for Barry Sanders and Emmitt. But both are seen as "no goes" in most drafts.

Ultimately the voting is stale and while i don't really care if i win I think it would be much more fun to shake it up then carry on like this

 

[stakesarehigh]

To be completely fair, NBA is the only real sport in which there was a SIGNIFICANT change in the alteration of game play. In the NFL/MLB you have tweaks here or there, but the dynamic of the entire game has shifted.

I think going forward we need to incorporate into each NBA draft a segmenting of the halves which include one half having a 3 point line and the other not including it. You can still draft and place any player in either category, but by eliminating the 3 point line in judging one of the halves it gives a better indication of where the older generation stand in comparison with each other.

This is a good idea