How good would Larry Bird be in today's game?

[mez 0ne]

You guys act like Bird plays defense like Boozer does, he was always deceptively quick.

Kevin Love is not a guy who is dominating his position right now? Just because fundamental players are far and few in between does not mean they are incapable of dominating the sport, kids today all focus on crossovers and shooting 3's and can't make a single mid range jumper. Kidd is not known for his athleticism and shoots flatfooted yet was a dominant figure at his position.

You have PG's in this league who cant even shoot jump shots yet are considered in the top in this league because they can pass well, Bird can do a lot of things at a high level. You're giving today's league too much credit.

Don't have much else to add since you have your minds made up.

 

[monstar1]

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Originally Posted by MonStar1

Everything but that last part.  In his era he was a GOD. In this era he would be very very good!

  

I don't think he would be on the court long enough to reach a very very good status. How many sport up shooters (again I feel this is what his role would be) that are defensive liabilities (don't give me that he is a team defender cop out) play 30+ minutes per game. He isn't driving around anyone, he isn't going to be creating his own offense. He isn't going to be seeing superstar type minutes today.
6th man role at best? His lack of foot speed is what I am holding against him. Intangibles can only take you but so far.



I don't think you giving his game enough credit.  he would not be reduced to a spot up shooter.  I'm thinking he'd be like Hedo Turkoglu but wayyy better.  His skillset is very different and hard to find a player today to compare with.  He's big, he's a great shooter, he's an amazing passer, he has amazing instincts.  But he is slow.  

Don't say he'd just be a spot-up shooter.  We talking Bird in his prime not Bird at the end of his career.  On the Dream Team he was almost done.  I'm talking the mid 80's bird.
  

 

[CP1708]

DC, couldn't Bird at least be similar to what Dirk does? 

I agree, he would want ZERO part of facing Bron, Durant, even a Paul Pierce, but he could find a niche in today's game, and Dirk could be a good comparison. 

It is true that the training and what not of today is moreso than the 80's, but that also means Bird could train much more effectively today, and he was a hard worker back then, imagine what he could do now, even if he is limited athletically. 

Would he be "Larry Legend?"  That I don't know, but he could be a franchise guy to build around still, would he win anything or not, depends on who you put around him. 

 

[dade b0y]

As good as he did in the 80's.. Bird is a transcedent basketball talent, and in his prime he would drop 25-9-5 on good efficiency in every era. Stop the nonsense.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

Originally Posted by CP1708


DC, couldn't Bird at least be similar to what Dirk does? 

I agree, he would want ZERO part of facing Bron, Durant, even a Paul Pierce, but he could find a niche in today's game, and Dirk could be a good comparison. 

It is true that the training and what not of today is moreso than the 80's, but that also means Bird could train much more effectively today, and he was a hard worker back then, imagine what he could do now, even if he is limited athletically. 

Would he be "Larry Legend?"  That I don't know, but he could be a franchise guy to build around still, would he win anything or not, depends on who you put around him. 

That 4 inch difference (paws) goes a long way. So no I don't think he can do what Dirk is doing. You say he could find a niche, if he has to find a niche then he is not going to be on the same level as he was before. Finding a niche = role player.
@Truth, I know Bird's game. I am giving him more than enough credit honestly. His game and his body factor into the type of dominance he will display. He only possesses one of those things at a pro level. Even at his prime, he was a way below average NBA athlete. 

 

[dmbrhs]

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

He would not rank higher than LeBron if he were playing right now. LeBron does way too much compared to Bird. Bird would get torched so much on the defensive end that he wouldn't even have the faith of any coach to play him 30 MPG.

He is called Larry the Legend because he killed in the 80s.

I think some of you are discrediting the significance of the athleticism of today's athletes. Every night he is going up against a Michael Cooper X 3. I don't realistically seeing him doing what he did back then.

He would be relegated to a spot up shooting type of role honestly.

And this has nothing to do with age. The mentality of today's game and coach is based on athleticism. He just can't compete with these horses man. He can be as smart as he wants to be.

And you are discrediting the importance of a high basketball IQ. Look at the unathletic big guys in the league (mainly Dirk and Kevin Love). They're going up against these same athletes that Bird would be going up against today. Hell, Dirk just punked a Miami squad that had better athletes, so clearly athleticism only takes you so far. So can you explain how those two are able to compete at a high level but Bird, a basketball savant, couldn't?

 

[CP1708]

4 inch?  Bird was 6-10 wasn't he?  Dirk is like 6-11, maybe 7-0.  Shouldn't be that big of a difference. 

 

[monstar1]

Originally Posted by CP1708

4 inch?  Bird was 6-10 wasn't he?  Dirk is like 6-11, maybe 7-0.  Shouldn't be that big of a difference. 

Bird was 6'9...Dirk is 7ft

I'm also curious about their wingspans.

Dirk looks alot longer which matters

  

 

[DCAllAfrican]

You can have a high basketball IQ, but that won't keep you from getting torched on a nightly basis. The players with the highest basketball IQ's are role players and bench players. People that don't have the athletic or skillset to be dominant. Or just didn't get the chance.
Bird was brilliant mentally, yes, we know that. But I think he would get so many buckets thrown in his face that he would not be trusted to stay on the floor for long periods of time. And at a position where he is bound to get exposed? At a position where he will be facing probably the most athletic bunch? Nah man, I can't sit here and say that would be a recipe for success for Bird.

Being an unathletic big man and an unathletic wing player are two completely different things. Playing a back to basket game or being a face up player when the people guarding you are not traditionally trained to guard face up players (which Dirk and Love are) is much easier to succeed in than taking a slow footed SF and asking him to dominate against other small forwards. Not a valid comparison.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

Originally Posted by CP1708

4 inch?  Bird was 6-10 wasn't he?  Dirk is like 6-11, maybe 7-0.  Shouldn't be that big of a difference. 

 Come on man. We can only go by official heights. Stop trying to subtract from Dirk and add to Bird. 
Bird was 6'9

Dirk is 7'

Yes it is that much of a difference.

 

[mronegative]

You guys are acting like he didn't play with Parrish or McHale or Walton or Dennis Johnson.

Put him on a team.

Like say...you replace Rashard with him in '07 and that Orlando team beats the Celtics and the Lakers and the Cavs for the next 2 years, at least.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

Originally Posted by MrONegative

You guys are acting like he didn't play with Parrish or McHale or Walton or Dennis Johnson.

Put him on a team.

Like say...you replace Rashard with him in '07 and that Orlando team beats the Celtics and the Lakers and the Cavs for the next 2 years, at least.

Nobody said he would be a bum though. I am simply saying that it isn't fair to expect him to do the same things in 2012 that he did in 1985.

 

[Animal Thug]

Bird would be a top-3 player right now, no if's and's or but's about it. Not even up for debate.

Illest shot - whether it was spot up, or off the dribble, best SF defense you can ask for, good slasher and unbelivable passing for his size.

And I'm not even gonna sit here and say I watched dude play before, because I haven't - I'm just going off the strength of the videos I've watched over the years. He dominated during his prime.

 

[mronegative]

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Originally Posted by MrONegative

You guys are acting like he didn't play with Parrish or McHale or Walton or Dennis Johnson.

Put him on a team.

Like say...you replace Rashard with him in '07 and that Orlando team beats the Celtics and the Lakers and the Cavs for the next 2 years, at least.

Nobody said he would be a bum though. I am simply saying that it isn't fair to expect him to do the same things in 2012 that he did in 1985.

You're asking how good would he be. People didn't give Dirk his proper due until he won. I'm saying Larry would be at least a 2-time Finals MVP in the last 3 seasons if he played in this era.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

Originally Posted by MrONegative

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Originally Posted by MrONegative

You guys are acting like he didn't play with Parrish or McHale or Walton or Dennis Johnson.

Put him on a team.

Like say...you replace Rashard with him in '07 and that Orlando team beats the Celtics and the Lakers and the Cavs for the next 2 years, at least.

Nobody said he would be a bum though. I am simply saying that it isn't fair to expect him to do the same things in 2012 that he did in 1985.

You're asking how good would he be. People didn't give Dirk his proper due until he won. I'm saying Larry would be at least a 2-time Finals MVP in the last 3 seasons if he played in this era.

Eh, you are just randomly throwing out awards based on a hypothetical that you created. (Him replacing Rashard). Let us slow down a little and handle 1 hypothetical at a time.
Only fools didn't give Dirk his proper credit. To me, To me, Dirk never changed. Same dude he was 3 years ago. But that has nothing to do with this topic.

 

[monstar1]

Originally Posted by Animal Thug1539

Bird would be a top-3 player right now, no if's and's or but's about it. Not even up for debate.

Illest shot - whether it was spot up, or off the dribble, best SF defense you can ask for, good slasher and unbelivable passing for his size.

And I'm not even gonna sit here and say I watched dude play before, because I haven't - I'm just going off the strength of the videos I've watched over the years. He dominated during his prime.

 thanks for sharing

  

 

[Animal Thug]

I'm just being honest fam. I started watching basketball in 1992, the same year he retired...never watched him in his prime.

 

[mronegative]

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Originally Posted by MrONegative

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Nobody said he would be a bum though. I am simply saying that it isn't fair to expect him to do the same things in 2012 that he did in 1985.

You're asking how good would he be. People didn't give Dirk his proper due until he won. I'm saying Larry would be at least a 2-time Finals MVP in the last 3 seasons if he played in this era.

Eh, you are just randomly throwing out awards based on a hypothetical that you created. (Him replacing Rashard). Let us slow down a little and handle 1 hypothetical at a time.
Only fools didn't give Dirk his proper credit. To me, To me, Dirk never changed. Same dude he was 3 years ago. But that has nothing to do with this topic.

You guys are throwing out hypotheticals like he would ever face #6 in the playoffs or like the title wouldn't go through Ron Artest, Paul Pierce, Trevor Ariza, James Posey, Bruce Bowen, Tayshaun Prince.

I think #6 is always gonna be a wash in the conversation, because he'll be up to win every MVP every year, but we know what happens in those moments, doesn't happy to Larry and I outside of this Heat team, I don't see a situation where it'd matter in the playoffs that Larry was facing #6. His ability to stretch the floor, draw fouls and see the whole court is what matters, and 6 would be hard pressed to stay with a shooter like that.

So I'm saying Larry would win multiple championships in this era if they built a team around him. The last half a decade has been wide open and if the hypothetical of teammates doesn't matter, then let's make a thread on how good would Larry have been on another squad.

 

[everysingletime]

Originally Posted by MonStar1

Originally Posted by Animal Thug1539

Bird would be a top-3 player right now, no if's and's or but's about it. Not even up for debate.

Illest shot - whether it was spot up, or off the dribble, best SF defense you can ask for, good slasher and unbelivable passing for his size.

And I'm not even gonna sit here and say I watched dude play before, because I haven't - I'm just going off the strength of the videos I've watched over the years. He dominated during his prime.

 thanks for sharing

  

I'm willing to bet most of this board hasn't seen Bird play live.  Maybe 5-7 years as a young kid when you don't what the *%+# you're watching, which doesn't count.   So why the

?

 

[DCAllAfrican]

MrONegative wrote:
So I'm saying Larry would win multiple championships in this era if they built a team around him. The last half a decade has been wide open and if the hypothetical of teammates doesn't matter, then let's make a thread on how good would Larry have been on another squad.

How can you make a statement like that if we don't know what the other teams look like? 

 

[monstar1]

Originally Posted by amel223

Originally Posted by MonStar1

Originally Posted by Animal Thug1539

Bird would be a top-3 player right now, no if's and's or but's about it. Not even up for debate.

Illest shot - whether it was spot up, or off the dribble, best SF defense you can ask for, good slasher and unbelivable passing for his size.

And I'm not even gonna sit here and say I watched dude play before, because I haven't - I'm just going off the strength of the videos I've watched over the years. He dominated during his prime.

 thanks for sharing

  

I'm willing to bet most of this board hasn't seen Bird play live.  Maybe 5-7 years as a young kid when you don't what the *%+# you're watching, which doesn't count.   So why the

?

You don't have to see him play live.  But you could still watch whole games of him not just highlights.  I just thought it was funny how he stated how great Larry was then dropped that disclaimer.

 

[mronegative]

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

MrONegative wrote:
So I'm saying Larry would win multiple championships in this era if they built a team around him. The last half a decade has been wide open and if the hypothetical of teammates doesn't matter, then let's make a thread on how good would Larry have been on another squad.

How can you make a statement like that if we don't know what the other teams look like? 



DC: one hypothetical at a time
Me: replace one specific player on one specific team at one specific with Larry and they would've won
DC: what about reinventing all the other teams in the playoffs for the last half decade?

 

[Animal Thug]

Who said I watched just highlights though?

I watched his games fam. I've seen enough to drop my opinion.

Carry on.

 

[monstar1]

Originally Posted by Animal Thug1539

Who said I watched just highlights though?

I watched his games fam. I've seen enough to drop my opinion.

Carry on.

  

 

[jumpmanfromdabay]

Threads like this is the reason why I rarely discuss basketball on here

always a couple of clowns who think they know it all