Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon34
Epipen, you're killing me here. You have many valid points, but your conclusions are a bit over the top, and your arguments are not well articulated. That combined with the fact that you admit not actually seeing much of McHale's actual games, ruins any credibility you might have, despite the validity of some of your points.
I'm 26, a Celtics fan, and saw a bit of McHale, though more towards the end of his career (more '88 and on than '86).
McHale was a superior defender. Many stars including Barkley openly admitted to hating to play the C's because of the way McHale locked them down. It is tough to compare him defensively to Duncan or Garnett, as the current era is much more geared towards team defense than 1 on 1. But in any event, he was clearly a plus-plus defender, whereas Barkley and Amare were/are liabilities.
Offensively, there was no one technically better than him. He had every move, every hook, up and under, dropstep, and turnaround in the book. Extremely effective on the block, and could also succeed in the running game.
Epipen, I agree that defense is important in this format, and as such I would take him over the likes of Barkley or Amare. But to say he is more valuable than Bird or Magic ruins any credibility to the argument.
I said I would take McHale over Bird or Magic but obv a case could be made (being that I def can see someone taking either over McHale and not bash it at all and I would take Bird/Magic if this was an ordinary NBA era ie. just one era not 30 years of players). I just feel that offense is so deep, that getting someone who can play BOTH elite offense and defense is at a premium.
I am glad u actually saw McHale play, and agree with me on a lot of points I made where others who didn't see him play didn't. I am also glad u said u would take him over Barkley, as I clearly would too.