Who would be the best pro in today's nba? | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Who would be the best pro in today's nba?

Who would be the best pro today?

  • Charles Barkley

    Votes: 18 18.6%

  • Karl Malone

    Votes: 8 8.2%

  • David Robinson

    Votes: 21 21.6%

  • Clyde Drexler

    Votes: 45 46.4%

  • Joe Dumars

    Votes: 5 5.2%
  • Total voters
    97
boog204 said:
That's an interesting question... I think Drexler is horrifically underrated (even during his time) and would be a monster today. I think Dumars would be pretty much the same player. The other three were great, great players, but I'm not sure how their games translate today with such a reliance on the 3-ball. I also think the Stockton/Utah system factor with Malone is not to be underestimated. Maybe it's just b/c I think he's an all-time scumbag, but I think if he had a different point guard his #'s would be nowhere near what they were.
Expand ...

My assumption is that they'd be shooting 3s at a high volume and good percentage. It wasn't for lack of ability they didn't do it. It was for lack of vision by coaches. They didn't practice 3s.

KG's a guy who took thousands of 18-20 footers. These days, they'd all be 3s. Larry Bird's career 3-point numbers are underwhelming. Does anybody doubt he'd be a terror from behind the arc in today's NBA?

All of the players on that list would be great. I think if the Admiral could shoot 3s, he'd be insanely good. Barkley and Malone too. Drexler would thrive in today's NBA. No way he'd be a 32% 3-point shooter.

Dumars is nowhere near the other guys. Yes, he was the only of those who could shoot 3s back then, and maybe he'd shoot more now, but he just wasn't and wouldn't be in the other guys' class.
 
superjohn said:
Dumars was a great offensive and defensive player but he was always seen as #2 on his team to Isiah while Barkley, Malone, Drexler, and Robinson were all clearly #1's and stars.
Expand ...
True, but that was the go-to guy era, each team was allowed only one go-to guy and that was Isaiah for the Pistons. But Dumars was known for picking up his game in the big-spot (Finals MVP). With his shot and unselfish play of the highest caliber he would fit today's game like a glove, imo. Is Haliburton a good comp?
 
Last edited:
Excalibur said:
I don't see how the answer isn't Robinson. Athletic 7'1" guy, blazing fast, explosive leaper who could play facing the basket. He'd be the ultimate rim running pick and roll center and a premier rim protector.
Expand ...
But he was not a three point shooter. Robinson definitely the best player if we are playing real basketball….but they are playing analytics basketball…has to be Drexler in today’s game.
 
Hunt for 7 said:
But he was not a three point shooter. Robinson definitely the best player if we are playing real basketball….but they are playing analytics basketball…has to be Drexler in today’s game.
Expand ...
It's still Robinson. In this era, Robinson would have developed an outside shot. He'd be dominant in this era too. Maybe we all forget he had a growth spurt at Navy. He was a guard/wing coming out of HS. He has the skills.
 
HuskyHawk said:
It's still Robinson. In this era, Robinson would have developed an outside shot. He'd be dominant in this era too. Maybe we all forget he had a growth spurt at Navy. He was a guard/wing coming out of HS. He has the skills.
Expand ...
It's Robinson. He'd have more space than when he was in the league on offense but more importantly he's switchable on D. Compare him to the four remaining 5's and none of them are close either on offense or defense. As for being soft, as long as Olujawan isn't out there.... I'll take my chances against almost anyone.
 
HuskyHawk said:
It's still Robinson. In this era, Robinson would have developed an outside shot. He'd be dominant in this era too. Maybe we all forget he had a growth spurt at Navy. He was a guard/wing coming out of HS. He has the skills.
Expand ...

This. Like Garnett, Robinson had range out to 18-19 feet, which it's reasonable to expect that he would have expanded if the game demanded it.
 
All of them would be great

As far as shooting threes, does anyone think, Bill Russell or Wilt or Moses or Walton or Jabbar wouldn't be great today? They might be better :)
 
In a league where the norm is to have four out, Robinson would be almost unstoppable at center. I'm trying to think of who in today's game could handle him.

I'm curious as to why Hakeem wasn't on this list.

Malone would have to play center in today's game but he could pull it off. He may even have been able to put up better rebounding numbers in the current game.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
In a league where the norm is to have four out, Robinson would be almost unstoppable at center. I'm trying to think of who in today's game could handle him.

I'm curious as to why Hakeem wasn't on this list.

Malone would have to play center in today's game but he could pull it off. He may even have been able to put up better rebounding numbers in the current game.
Expand ...
To give a little insight- these 5 I thought were of the most debatable:
hall of famers whose skill set may or may not translate.

I thought about putting Hakeem instead of Robinson, and The Glove instead of Dumars but they would've gobbled up all the votes.
 
Robinson would still be great, but I would say Clyde the Glide. As others have observed, he's extremely underrated--somehow just #53 on the top 76 of all time list released in 2022:
The NBA's 75th Anniversary Team, ranked

Clyde should be ahead of, say, Steve Nash (#37), Dominique (#36), Iverson (#31), and Chris Paul (#29)--none of whom won a title.
John Havlicek (#26) of course won many with the Celtics, but Drexler was better.
Clyde won a title as Hakeem's deputy and was the lead player on 1990 and 1992 finals teams that lost to the Pistons and Bulls in a far more physical era. He finished #2 to Jordan in the '92 MVP voting.
Drexler appeared to be playing effortlessly but was in fact a great defensive as well as offensive player.
 
Clyde the Glide was my pick before I even saw the options. Barkley, despite being an elite talent, would likely be less effective in today's NBA, particularly on rebounding. His physical style of play would likely win him many fans, but also buy him a lot of pine time. A Barkley/Rambis type, sad as it is, just really isn't allowed anymore.
 
UCLJ0211 said:
The answer is probably Robinson or Clyde, but I think people are undervaluing Malone. He was a knockdown midrange shooter and he probably could learn to shoot the 3 at a good percentage too. Also, he would overpower whoever was guarding him.
Expand ...
True, that was like 30 years ago and there still isn't anyone in the NBA who physically looks like Malone.
 
Mik said:
Robinson would still be great, but I would say Clyde the Glide. As others have observed, he's extremely underrated--somehow just #53 on the top 76 of all time list released in 2022:
The NBA's 75th Anniversary Team, ranked

Clyde should be ahead of, say, Steve Nash (#37), Dominique (#36), Iverson (#31), and Chris Paul (#29)--none of whom won a title.
John Havlicek (#26) of course won many with the Celtics, but Drexler was better.
Clyde won a title as Hakeem's deputy and was the lead player on 1990 and 1992 finals teams that lost to the Pistons and Bulls in a far more physical era. He finished #2 to Jordan in the '92 MVP voting.
Drexler appeared to be playing effortlessly but was in fact a great defensive as well as offensive player.
Expand ...
Disagree about Havlicek and Clyde and I’m a big Clyde fan. Hondo is one of the great winners in sports and those early 70’s Celtics teams won championships with him as the Alpha when he was at the tail end of his career. Clyde was in his prime when the Blazers lost and one reason they lost was he didn’t necessarily have another gear to compete with those Bulls teams when the Blazers really needed it.
 
Some of you need to go watch some vintage Barkley. There’s video of him everywhere taking Robinson, Malone and everyone else to the cleaners. Literally swatting David Robinson’s shots, going right at Shaq etc. He was also a very good passer. The comment above about Barkley being a rich man’s Draymond Green is hilarious. Draymond has 25% of the talent Charles had. Barkley was a phenomenal player and he had no problem with 7 footers. He was incredibly versatile. You don’t get the long term rep that Barkley has from being a little better than Draymond. Barkley is an all time great.
 
Last edited:
Hoophound said:
Some of you need to go watch some vintage Barkley. There’s video of him everywhere taking Robinson, Malone and everyone else to the cleaners. Literally swatting David Robinson’s shots, going right at Shaq etc. He was also a very good passer. The comment above about Barkley being a rich man’s Draymond Green is hilarious. Draymond has 25% of the talent Charles had. Barkley was a phenomenal player and he had no problem with 7 footers. He was incredibly versatile. You don’t get the long term rep that Barkley has from being a little better than Draymond. Barkley is an all time great.
Expand ...
I couldn't agree more. I just getting ready to craft a reply but you hit on pretty much every point that I would have wanted to make. Barkley was SUCH a force. Even when he first came into the league. He was a 6'4 1/2" power forward who could guard centers. He was such an explosive leaper. I have been a die hard Celtics fan since the mid 70's and I hated Barkley when he was a 76er but I had to admit that he was a great, GREAT player. I have zero doubt that all 5 of the choices would have been just as great in today's game if not greater. Barkley was a special talent. Draymond Green being mentioned in the same sentence as Barkley is an insult. Green benefited from being someone who was willing to do the dirty work on a team full of all time great shooters. If you put a prime vintage Draymond Green on the 1985-86 Celtics he never would have seen the floor.

Also, Andrew Toney was a GREAT player. I hated him too. People forget just how good the 80's 76ers where because of the Celtics and Lakers but those Philly teams were powerhouses. Moses Malone is a criminally underrated player as well. Moses was a rebounding machine. He was so good. Don't even get me started on Bobby Jones too. He was a pain in the neck as well.
 
Drexler was a better athlete than Havlicek but that doesn't necessarily translate to being a better basketball player.

I wish some of the younger people in this board could have seen the game in the late 1960's through mid 1970's. There was a lot more skill and they ran far better offense than what we see today.
 
BuffaloHusky said:
Disagree about Havlicek and Clyde and I’m a big Clyde fan. Hondo is one of the great winners in sports and those early 70’s Celtics teams won championships with him as the Alpha when he was at the tail end of his career. Clyde was in his prime when the Blazers lost and one reason they lost was he didn’t necessarily have another gear to compete with those Bulls teams when the Blazers really needed it.
Expand ...
I don't think that's fair to Drexler. His career average in three NBA finals is 24.5 ppg, 8.3 rebs, and 6 assists. He was badly outplayed by Jordan in the finals because Jordan is the best ever. Barkley had a great NBA finals against the Bulls but Jordan averaged 41 ppg against him and badly outplayed him too. Jordan did the same thing to Malone in the finals.
 
Rationally all of them would be much better - defense and what defenses could do in the 90s was far more aggressive than defenses are allowed to do now.

Hand checking is not allowed in the NBA. The league banned hand checking in 2004, making any physical contact between a defender's hands and an offensive player a foul. They added defensive 3 second rule and zone.

I would think Jordan would avg 50 a game in today's NBA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
206
Guests online
1,533
Total visitors
1,739
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
163,951
Messages
4,376,497
Members
10,168
Latest member
CTFan142


.
..
Top Bottom