AH1971

Is that just a different way of saying we didn't budget wisely? If so, agreed completely.

Being generous. We pretty much punted on spots 6-13. Sisley and Harris being 6th and 7th men don't inspire much confidence. Really wish with a GM who got a head start on the portal that we'd moneyball some production off the bench. Instead, we're relying on true freshman and guys who have gotten minimal run. Could have a few break out guys, could have none...big risk.

I don't buy 1. You didn't need Mustaf, Harris, AND Lindsey, especially if you think Alexander-Moody is ready to contribute from day 1. And because of the money you spent on Sherrell and Samet, it's silly not to address the depth behind them. The money spent to acquire Harris or Mustaf could have been spent to elsewhere to acquire a more than serviceable backup 4 or 5. There is ~20mpg for a serviceable 4 or 5 had the roster been constructed appropriately imo.

My biggest gripe isn't even the minute allocation, it's the complete lack of depth from the 4 and 5 position off the bench. Are we just going to punt on a road game where Samet inevitably picks up 2 fouls before the first media TO? And then we're stuck playing Sisley 32-33 minutes?

If Mustaf is playing any meaningful minutes at the 4 next year, we're in deep sh*t. Ideally Samet and Sherrell would both max out around 25 mpg in conference and I wouldn't give more than 15 mpg to Sisley unless he's earned it. Going to have a lot of tired bigs, one that is extremely foul prone, playing extra minutes every game because there's no depth. That usually doesn't end well.

Who is playing the other 10 minutes? How many teams in the B10 last year had a 7 footer average 30 mpg, let alone two? I'm not sure there was a team that played two true bigs last year where each averaged 30 mpg. Michigan didn't. Illinois didn't. Awful egregious to think both are going to hold up for 30 mpg in the B10 over the course of the entire season.

Agreed. Roster was constructed horribly. Sherrell and Yigi on the court together would have created a ton of matchup problems for opponents. Now, you're almost relegated to platooning them. Malpractice the staff didn't sign another a 5 in the portal. If the plan was to platoon those guys, they should have at least brought in a solid 4 man...couldn't even do that. I'm usually one of the longest to hold out and defend the staff, but not adding adequate front court depth could be fatal for DeVries tenure here. Adding both Mustaf and Harris just seems redundant at this point. Really a do or die season for Darian and staff.

Bellamy definitely ahead of OG. Would argue Bellamy belongs ahead of McGinnis if we're strictly talking NBA career.

When have I ever said basketball then was comparable to today? If Wilt Chamberlain would have been allowed to drop step in that era he would have averaged 80 points a game. The NBA created half a dozen rules during Wilt's career to try and curtail his dominance.

I said my piece on both. Wilt would probably foul out Reed and Alexis in the first half with modern rules.

Again, it all depends on what era set of rules you play by. Is there a 3 point line? Are they calling a travel like they do in the 60's or like they do today? A lot of guys in those videos look "unathletic" because they dribble and move with the ball standing straight upright. That's not because they are unathletic, it's because they had strict palming/carry rules back in those days. If how the game was played today was officiated the way it was in the 60's, there would be a carry or travel called on almost every possession, and if there wasn't there would almost certainly be an offensive foul called. If a team from the 60's had to play a college team with modern rules today, it'd be interesting. The shooting isn't there and they would struggle to match 2's for 3's, and outside the Celtics not sure another team had a supporting cast to compete with modern athletes. However, a guy like Wilt could single handily keep his team in the game. You weren't allowed to initiate contact as an offensive player in that era and player disengagement was called an offensive foul almost every time. Wilt had to develop a fadeaway jumper to prevent himself from fouling out. He used to intentionally miss his shot just so he could rebound his own miss to position himself closer to the basket.

Athletically Giannis is a good comparison, but Wilt looked like Embiid but with little to no body fat....he was that imposing. No amount of grainy black and white footage you watch of Wilt will do his physique justice. It's all recency bias. Wemby is on an historic run right now and may go down as one of the best of all time. But he'll never be as dominant or physically imposing as Wilt. Nobody will.

Touche. I’ve seen Wilt play, you haven’t. Your respect means very little in this regard.

Athlete's in the 60's didn't train year round like NBA, college, or even high school kids do these days. They smoked cigarettes, drank liquor every night, and did whatever they wanted on top of working 2nd jobs in the summer. That doesn't dispel Chamberlain's God-given prowess which is unmatched by any NBA athlete today. It's hard to fathom what Chamberlain would look like with modern day weight training and a stringent regiment today like other professional athletes are on. He ran the 400m dash at Kansas in under 49 seconds at 7 feet and over 250 lbs. Wilt Chamberlain used to intentionally miss free throws just so he could rebound and dunk his own misses. The free throw lane was widened from 12 feet to 16 feet and the lane violation was created specifically for Chamberlain lol.

This isn't about development. Wemby will never be the athletic specimen that Wilt was. Don't care if he's still a kid. That isn't something you develop, that's genetics. Take an athletic specimen like Wilt that grew up with today's modern game on top of modern weight/strength programs, he'd be the best basketball player on the court at all times.

There are players alive to this day who have played against him that have all said that, they aren't tall tales. Dunking was vilified in that era and even outright banned for some time. Offensive rules worked strongly against guys like Wilt in that era as well. Guys would foul out accumulating offensive fouls alone back in those days. Joel Embiid is probably the closest active comp to Wilt. Wilt was bigger, faster, stronger than Embiid and way more athletic. And don't get me started on stamina. Wilt for 40 minutes a game would rebound, outlet, sprint and beat everyone else down the court every single time. Embiid averaged 36 and 12 in 39 games during his MVP season. With today's rules that benefit offensive players on top of modern spacing, no reason to think Wilt wouldn't be a 40 and 15 guy.

Wemby is more skilled than Wilt, who said otherwise? From an athletic/strength comparison however, it isn't close. Assuming Wilt grew up in this era with modern weight and strength programs on top of advanced basketball skillsets that simply didn't exist in the 60's, he'd be the best player in today's game. I grew up watching Wilt and even got to see him live in an exhibition as a teenager. Got the chance to see Wemby play in Phoenix in the fall, probably the worst game he played all year but the talent level was unreal. But from a physical perspective, he doesn't compare to Wilt. Nobody has or will. Put Wilt on the floor with actual spacing (that didn't exist in the 60's due to the rules/structure of the game) and there isn't a player in today's game that is stopping him one on one. The closest thing many on this board have seen to Wilt is mid-90's Shaq, except Wilt was twice as athletic. As an old geezer, I'm the first to admit that the level of basketball from the 60's and 70's isn't comparable to today. The average player is bigger, faster, stronger to a wide degree. But there are some players who are transcendental across eras and Wilt is certainly one of them. He'd benefit more playing today's game as would guys like Bird, Magic, etc. People who never saw Wilt play in person simply cannot appreciate him to the fullest extent. He was an Olympic caliber track and field athlete with a 45+ inch vertical all at 7'1 playing at close to 300 lbs. And he never broke a sweat.

Wilt would ragdoll Wemby. And that's not an indictment on Wemby either, just praise for Wilt's God-given strength. Wilt with a modern day strength program would have been locked up, studied, and preserved.

Well sure, I'm basing this off Wilt growing up in this era of basketball. But Wemby doesn't have Wilt's combination of size, strength, and athleticism. Wilt is probably the closest thing to a real life superhuman, he would absolutely fold Wemby.

And women

Wilt Chamberlain’s size and athleticism was so underutilized (and appreciated) due to the way the game was played. He’d be the best player in the NBA today.

Track meets. Old ABA Pacer games may have been some of the most entertaining basketball I’ve ever watched.

As someone who watched that era of basketball, the average modern-day B10 basketball player is bigger, faster, stronger, more skilled than the average 1960’s NBA player by a considerable margin. These guys smoked in the locker room, drank every night, and worked second jobs in the offseason to support their families. If you rolled the ball out as is, I don’t think it would be close.

Maybe? Did we offer him? Is being a key piece at Tennessee State better than making ridiculous money at Indiana?

He’s exponentially more equipped to guard opposing bigs than any combination of Sisley, Manhertz, or Sokolov. Which is what you’re looking at if Samet or Sherrell get hurt.