Can he be compared to shaq idk hes another shooter who hits 3s and as mid range game, would shaq have adapted ? I dont think so his ft % was horrible and his shooting forum just atrocious

When people really watch him in his prime he was physically so dominant. He was super agile for his size as well, but he was never regarded as a high IQ player by any means. Back then centers had it easy, their job was to just stay in the paint and protect the rim. Shaq especially, he was so bad against the P&R and never did anything besides play under every screen and just stay back (like most centers did then). These days you can't do that, big men are expected to step up and hedge hard or switch in general because players are so skilled and big men can shoot these days. There is no "just man up" like Shaq believes, that will get you smoked over and over again. Players back then weren't taking and hitting threes anywhere near the rate they are now (not even close).

People knock NBA big men now for being more "finesse" or "soft" but that's because they have to play a whole different style game of basketball. Offensive players are more advanced than ever, shooting from deeper than ever and the floor is bigger than ever because guys are hitting consistently from so far out. I mean, there are 30 players in the league right now taking 7+ threes per game. Back in Shaq's day nobody even took that many per game, you were lucky to see a guy attempt 4 or 5 if you were lucky. Now you've got guys like Curry, Lillard, Harden, etc, all taking 11+ 3PA per game and torching you regularly from 3pt as soon as you give them space on a P&R.

This is a convo that old heads aren't ready for, but it's the truth. The game was simple back then compared to now, on both offense and defense. Players now are just on a different level of skilled and kill you from any part of the floor.

This post was edited by Sixers on Mar 8 2021 12:09pm

Do you think Luka Garza will be any good in the NBA?

Just entertainment, they just recycling the same takes



Just as you have to adapt to great shooters, is it not others that also have to adapt towards you?
When your so heavily dominate in one part of the game, do you honestly have to change..

Most "centeres" are masqueraded power forwards. Not sure how your going to deny shaq post position.
Just as shooters spread the floor, shaq would draw a ton of pressure inside and get easy looks for other shooters.
Is it necessarily bad to have a simplistic offense if it works?
30/15 a night easy.

You also have to take into account the fact that the game has sped up so much now with the 14 second rule
Its not like you didnt have really great shooters back then tbh, but yes volume 3's were less incentivized back then

If he stayed in that 295-325 range, he'd match up a lot better in todays game and still be a lot bigger than most of the players.
But there was just a lot more true centers back then, the added weight was necessary to physically dominate those players, though it did get out of control for a bit tho

This post was edited by potentate on Mar 8 2021 12:59pm

Not really, but he could surprise if he works hard enough I guess. Can't see him being more than a situational type of center, maybe a best case scenario ceiling of being a Kanter type.

Just doesn't fit the modern NBA game, his inability to even remotely defend the P&R ruins his value. He can't even defend the Big 10 guards, let alone NBA guards at the next level. He's slow as shit and has shit athleticism in NBA standards.

Fun to watch in college though.

I agree, I feel like Kanter is a good player type/ceiling comparison for him. Big slow footed guy who can’t keep up with today’s agile and skilled guards but can get buckets in the right situation

This post was edited by Izzo4Rizzo on Mar 8 2021 10:25pm

Or maybe Frank Kaminsky on the disappointing end of the spectrum

Redundant.

Whatchu think about Cockburn