Julius Erving is considered by many to be a top ten player of all time

An MVP

A champion and an innovator, he was a neccesity for players like Jordan to be possible

But was he really much better than Bernard King, Clyde Drexler, Kobe, VC, Paul Pierce, Tmac, or a slew of other swingmen over the years?

Was he really that great?

He dominated the ABA, but the ABA was inconsistant and nobody ever saw him play. And he entered the NBA at 27, so it wasn't as if he was over the hill when he got to the NBA

In the NBA he averaged 22 ppg and 6.5 rpg with good defensive numbers

Year after year with stacked loaded teams he failed to win championships

It took until he got moses to win one

And Moses was the man on that team. Not the Doctor

If you prorate his stats to today's pace he averages 19.5 ppg and 6 rpg for his career

Those are good numbers. Especially with a ring and an MVP

but are those top 15 numbers all time? You decide.

I've always liked the way Julius Erving spoke and handled himself in the media. He was always polite and meaningful, at least what I've seen and heard. You are right Pest that his numbers are not that great and that he didn't achieve much, except for taking the high flying, slam dunking athlete to a new level. He should be known as a superstar but of the lowest level kind, production wise.

Kobe, TMac, Iverson and arguably Drexler (very even) have done better than Dr.J

migya wrote:I've always liked the way Julius Erving spoke and handled himself in the media. He was always polite and meaningful, at least what I've seen and heard. You are right Pest that his numbers are not that great and that he didn't achieve much, except for taking the high flying, slam dunking athlete to a new level. He should be known as a superstar but of the lowest level kind, production wise.

Kobe, TMac, Iverson and arguably Drexler (very even) have done better than Dr.J

I wouldn't say "he didn't achieve much". He was a champion and MVP, I just think he's overrated

It was his innovation, flair, elegance and dignity that brought him such acclaim. Reminds me of the famous Isaac Newton quote "I got where am by standing on the shoulders of giants". No Dr. J, no MJ, so you can underestimate the importance of the innovator. They are few and far between in any art, including the art of basketball.

coltraning wrote:It was his innovation, flair, elegance and dignity that brought him such acclaim.

Yep. It wasn't his dominance what made him such a star. It was that he was different than any other player of his time.

Let's not forget that he needed a loaded Philly team to win the title (Malone, Mo Cheeks, Andrew Toney...).

Is he a top 10 player on numbers alone?. No way. A top 50 player would be more accurate... but not top 10.

But, is he a top 10 player on the way he influenced the game?. Yes. No doubt about it.

I've always thought of him as the Earl "the Pearl" of the 80s...

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:I've always liked the way Julius Erving spoke and handled himself in the media. He was always polite and meaningful, at least what I've seen and heard. You are right Pest that his numbers are not that great and that he didn't achieve much, except for taking the high flying, slam dunking athlete to a new level. He should be known as a superstar but of the lowest level kind, production wise.

Kobe, TMac, Iverson and arguably Drexler (very even) have done better than Dr.J

I wouldn't say "he didn't achieve much". He was a champion and MVP, I just think he's overrated

He had a real good team that won the one and only championship he ever got. He didn't do as much as many other stars

migya wrote:He had a real good team that won the one and only championship he ever got. He didn't do as much as many other stars

Well, that actually can be applied to most stars. Magic had Worthy and Kareem, Jordan had Pippen, Bird had McHale and Parish...

TMC wrote:

migya wrote:He had a real good team that won the one and only championship he ever got. He didn't do as much as many other stars

Well, that actually can be applied to most stars. Magic had Worthy and Kareem, Jordan had Pippen, Bird had McHale and Parish...

But those you mentioned were definately the #1 players on their teams and their numbers and awards were much more!

Julius Erving is an alltime great but not in the same class as Bird, Magic, Jordan and co

migya wrote:

TMC wrote:

migya wrote:He had a real good team that won the one and only championship he ever got. He didn't do as much as many other stars

Well, that actually can be applied to most stars. Magic had Worthy and Kareem, Jordan had Pippen, Bird had McHale and Parish...

But those you mentioned were definately the #1 players on their teams and their numbers and awards were much more!

Read again my first post in the thread. I'm with you regarding Dr. J... I was just saying that everybody had good teams to help them win. Maybe Jordan's Bulls were the worsts.

Dr. J gets points for changing how people attack the basket, but not much else.

I would say that he is top 20, but I wouldn't place him above any of the forementioned players. I'd compare him to Fran Tarkenton as far as imprint on the sport and production levels. Would you call him a top 5 QB all time? No. But I'd say he is an innovator and one of the better players all time.

Thunder wrote:Dr. J gets points for changing how people attack the basket, but not much else.

I would say that he is top 20, but I wouldn't place him above any of the forementioned players. I'd compare him to Fran Tarkenton as far as imprint on the sport and production levels. Would you call him a top 5 QB all time? No. But I'd say he is an innovator and one of the better players all time.

that's a nice analogy, Thunder - Gale Sayers would be another. Cousy in basketball. There were certainly players after them who took their innovations a lot further, but they were all crucial, as was Dr J, to the development of the game. Here's an interesting one. I would argue that Bird, one of the top 10 players of all time, was NOT at all an innovator, he just did so many things so well. Sometimes, as with MJ, someone is an innovator and the top of the class. How about Nash - I see him as an innovator in how he moves and distributes, and I would submit that he is playing point guard as well these past 3 years as anyone ever has played the position.

coltraning wrote:How about Nash - I see him as an innovator in how he moves and distributes, and I would submit that he is playing point guard as well these past 3 years as anyone ever has played the position.

But he didn't look like that in Dallas, so D'Antoni deserves some props, too. Seems like the system is perfect for him.

I'm not saying that Nash is not the catalyst of Phoenix bbal, quite the oppositel... but he certainly didn't play like this as a Mav. Just food for thought, I guess.

I love Steve Nash but I'm not sure he is an innovator - more like a throw back to the PG's of the 70s and 80s.

He is along the lines of a Stockton or Mark Jackson (if Jackson was a much better scorer). A guy that is the epitome of what a PG should be for his teammates.

I actually had a discussion with my dad this Xmas break over who was better - Nash, Stockton, or Isiah. Nash has better personal hardware, Stockton has better career numbers, but Isiah has two titles. It's just too close to call definitively; they are all great in their own way.

But getting back to the topic, would any of them be better for a basketball team than Dr. J? I'd say yes, but no one had as great as impact on how the game was played than Julius.

Thunder wrote:I actually had a discussion with my dad this Xmas break over who was better - Nash, Stockton, or Isiah. Nash has better personal hardware, Stockton has better career numbers, but Isiah has two titles. It's just too close to call definitively; they are all great in their own way.

That's another great discussion. I'd pick Stockton by a hair, but I can see Thomas as the pick... but not Nash. At least, not yet. He should have some kind of success in the playoffs first. Til now, they've won all the series they were supposed to win, but not the tougher ones.

Thunder wrote:I love Steve Nash but I'm not sure he is an innovator - more like a throw back to the PG's of the 70s and 80s.

He is along the lines of a Stockton or Mark Jackson (if Jackson was a much better scorer). A guy that is the epitome of what a PG should be for his teammates.

The difference is that Nash did creative passes to everybody, stockton pick and rolled fifty times a game for his assists