[paradox]

I find it interesting to say the least that most posters here regard the modern era as the dominant one, when in fact, it is the era of the three to four step travel, the 25 second run and gun shot clock, and the so-called illegal defenses. The era of the past twenty years has been aptly labeled, "the era of five guys playing one-on-one." Although it has slightly improved recently with the allowance of a few permitted zone looks here and there. The bottom line is that the team game in the NBA died out somewhere near the end of the Bird-Johnson era. And basketball is supposed to be the ultimate team game. So, as a purist of the game, I gotta jump on that one.

However, there are a few who seem to transcend the era: Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, and perhaps Tim Duncan and maybe even Dwayne Wade. But com'on, Shaq? When he was winning championships it looked as though a WWF element had been entered into the league. Captain Lou Albano could have been pacing the sidelines as coach and it would'nt have made a difference. In fact, it would have been more entertaining.

[Realist]

I find it interesting to say the least that most posters here regard the modern era as the dominant one, when in fact, it is the era of the three to four step travel, the 25 second run and gun shot clock, and the so-called illegal defenses. The era of the past twenty years has been aptly labeled, "the era of five guys playing one-on-one." Although it has slightly improved recently with the allowance of a few permitted zone looks here and there. The bottom line is that the team game in the NBA died out somewhere near the end of the Bird-Johnson era. And basketball is supposed to be the ultimate team game. So, as a purist of the game, I gotta jump on that one.

However, there are a few who seem to transcend the era: Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, and perhaps Tim Duncan and maybe even Dwayne Wade. But com'on, Shaq? When he was winning championships it looked as though a WWF element had been entered into the league. Captain Lou Albano could have been pacing the sidelines as coach and it would'nt have made a difference. In fact, it would have been more entertaining.

I (gulp) have to agree with dox on this one. Shaq? He has never even been a factor at the end of games b/c of his free throw shooting.

[paradox]

I (gulp) have to agree with dox on this one. Shaq? He has never even been a factor at the end of games b/c of his free throw shooting.

Thus, the introduction of the "Hack-a-Shaq" rule, in order to protect the myth. It's great entertainment and I'm sure that it generates plenty of $, but it waters down the game considerably.

[TIMSCAR20]

I'm curious as to why you wouldn't put Nash in the conversation, SCAR?

Nash is a great player but I can name 5 point guards I would take over him. Oscar, Tiny, Magic, Stockton, Pistol

Dr J greatest ever Dox? I am a Philly homer but I have to disagree with that. I still give it to MJ. He made his teams better. Dr J had an all-star team around him and only got us 1 ring. Doc is still my favorite though.

Dox you are right about the era's. This era is watered down due to the number of teams, the defections from college and high schools and the highlight reel style of play. The game was at it's purest form in the 80's.

I disagree with the assesment of Shaq. He has a lot of touch around the basket for a big guy, decent hands, when he was in his prime he was as mobile as any big man but yet twice as strong. Say what you want about his physicality but that was also a curse because the refs let people bludgeon him before he went to the line. His free throw shooting was terrible but he was able to overcome it.

Russell was a winner for sure but he is not the starting center. You have to give it to Wilt still. History has not been kind to Wilt but anyone and everyone that played during their era all believe Wilt was the best of the 2. Even Russell says that. Russell was more of a winner with a bigger heart and didn't shy away from the moment but that was more of a character issue than skills and talent on both men's part. I would actually take the Dream over Russell. Put Hakeem in the league in the 50's and 60's and he would have been incredible. Hakeem dominated in the era of the Big Man: Gilmore, Abdul Jabbar, Parrish, Malone, Ewing, Robinson, Lanier, all played against him. No era had more dominant big men and Hakeem was one of the best. Kareem belongs on this team for sure. All time leading scorer in NBA history (may be 2nd now after Jordan?).

[paradox]

Scar:

I actually settled on Oscar Robertson as my all-time greatest. No gaurd was more versitile in any era.

Dr.J had inside moves that could not be defended and he brought more intangibiles to the table than most people probally remember. In my mind, even at 6-7, the doctor was the greatest PF of all-time. He was great as a Sixer, but his best years may have been his first six in the old ABA with the Virginia Squires and the New York Nets.

Wilt was great and ahead of his time in terms of size and strength. He was really too big for anyone to defend in his era, except of course, when he had to go up against Russell. And Russell won every major battle except for one. Defense and rebounding are so important at the center position, and again, Russell dominated in the head-to-head battles. Therefore, I give the nod to Russell. By the way, I'm not surprised that Russell had nice things to say about his old friend Wilt. Russell is a class guy with a great deal of charactor and a humble man who doesn't try to lift himself up. That's exactly the way that he played the game. He was the complete team player.

Your beloved Sixers fell victum to the Shaq era not too long ago. I know quite a few basketball fans who couldn't bear to watch a 7-5 300lb man repeatedly lead with his elbow, knocking Mutumbo and others trying to defend him on thier backs. The refs never called anything against Shaq as AI and the boys were denied a championship. That's just not basketball to me. It's more like WWF. Shaq was really nothing special in college. I don't think that he even made it out of the first round of the NCAA's. His NCAA experience demonstrates to me what he really is when playing under normal basketball rules with the game being officiated correctly: solid player because of his size and soft hands, but certainly not unstoppable and not nearly as dominating because he has too many limitations.

[TDDance234]

I agree with Shaq. A lot of his game was completely neutralized in the final minutes. Lucky for him-- he's had someone to bail him out in Kobe with the Lakers and DWade with the Heat. Of course, those teams go nowhere without the "Daddy" in the regular season. He's def. in the top-15 or so, all time, for me but not starting over guys like Wilt, Russell, and even Timmy Duncan.

I just can't agree with you on Nash, Scar. The guy is incredible. There is no question, in my mind, he's the most valuable player in the league. You take him way from the Suns and they are a very ordinary basketball team. I don't think you can say that about one guy, except for LeBron James. Steve Nash isn't the best player in the NBA now, nor even during his two MVP runs, but if you're taking a captain of a team-- a guy that's going to lead your offense and make it run as smooth as the Suns, you're taking Nash. Another thing people overlook on Steve Nash is his defense. He's a gritty guy, he may have some flair to his game, but the Spurs played him dirty the whole series and he took it on the chin and kept going. His defense is vastly underrated. The guy is an absolute stud on the floor.

Your problem is that he's white.

[paradox]

Scar ended up putting Nash near his top five all-time at the position. It's a fair accessment.

TD: the fact that the opposition actually tried to injure the guy in the playoffs, speaks volumes of his game. Nash is the kind of player that makes everyone around him better. He'd be unstoppable on a championship caliber team.