A Young Kobe Tells Jordan: "I Can Take You One On One"

I can think of some great 1-on-1 players: Rafer Alston, Stephon Marbury.

 

You never watched Nash play then, A prime Nash beats Brooks one on one more than 60% of the time.

 

Steve Nash

 

Exactly, basketball is a 5v5 game. 1v1 is pointless except to practice what you are weak on. If you want to prove you are better, do it in the game.

 

A great player must be a good 1-on-1 player. But a great 1-on-1 player might not be a good player.

 

Non-sense.
Its like soulja boy tells JayZ the same thing

 

You obviously don't understand the context of the argument.

A prime Steve Nash will beat a Brooks 1v1, but this current Nash will not beat Brooks 1v1. But guess what? 100% of the league will take this current Nash over a healthy Brooks.

You obviously haven't seen Nash AND Brooks play if you think Nash will beat Brooks in a one on one game in his current form.

 

Steve Nash still wins. Nash has about 3 inches and 20 lbs on Brooks. The only thing Brooks can do better than Nash at this point is dribble faster. Both players are terrible defensive players so I'm going with the player with a much better shot, size, and a higher bball IQ.

 

I agree, tons of playground legends are great 1x1 but they suck in a team environment.

 

Steve Nash has no post moves, he is not faster than Brooks, there are no screens for him to use to get away from Brooks.

1v1 is more about your physical advantages than your actual talent. Brooks will drive by Nash every single time, and if Nash gives him space Brooks will get a wide open mid range shot.

 

The Rockets won two NBA championships with an offense based on creating double teams due to the threat of 1v1 in the post. Olajuwon created tons of open 3pt shots from the left block. All of this due to the fact no one could guard him 1v1.

 

What are you talking about, Nash will post the crap out of Brooks, he will just shoot fadaways all day long and Brooks can't stop any of it.

Nash is more fundamentally sound in every category than Brooks and probably better conditioned.

 

Nash's height and weight are a big physical advantage when it comes to one on one. I'm pretty sure Nash can go in the post against a smaller player when necessary it just isn't something you see during games bc he usually isn't the bigger person and it's not what he does best. Also, Brooks wouldn't just blow by Nash. Nash is quicker than you think.

 

You get my point, and if Brooks is not good enough an example. How about Shaun Livingston? Or Rafer Alston?

Livingston is a 6 ft 7 PG.

 

My point is, its not the most useless test of skill in basketball. Some of the best players to ever play this game were great 1v1 players. Many game winning plays in the history of the NBA were created off 1v1.

And you can definitely show bball IQ with 1v1. You need to know how to react to the defense. Whether you pull up for the jumper because he's giving you space or drive it in if the defender is all over you. Obviously it doesn't help with everything because it is a team sport but it's a team sport that relies on meshing individual skills of multiple players. Nobody here is saying that if Player A beats Player B, then he's automatically better. But to say it's the most useless test of skill in basketball is absurd.

Yea, Hakeem Olajuwon, famous center for the Houston Rockets if you didn't know, sucked in a team environment. Those 1v1 drills with CD did nothing for his career. His days of dominating playground ball at Fonde was the only time he dominated 1v1. And anytime he went 1v1 in the post, it was a disaster. I don't know how they won titles with that game plan.

You're a smart man.

To add to that list, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, Shaquille Oneal.......and it goes on and on and on and on

 

I don't think it's useless, but I do think it's a meaningless method of testing basketball skills. I'm sure a lot of great streetball players will beat a lot of great NBA players, but like I said it doesn't mean anything about their skills.

Of course, I don't think one on one is useless, there are many drills and practices that one could do during one and one to improve their skills. But I think we ourselves have seen how effective Chuck Hayes is against Yao Ming in their practice 1v1 videos.

I'm basically saying it doesn't mean anything, not saying it's useless. But the outcome of 1v1 should be taken for a grain of salt.

 

And to make it more clear.

It's like saying "I'm better than you at lay up drills". That might be true, but it's meaningless. But by no means does it make the drill useless.

 

How many players are considered to be just shy of great, or just shy of being able to lead a team, if they could only create their own shot? Plenty. Year in and year out, at any level of the game. It's not the only skill needed to be great, but it's absolutely one of them.

 

There was a time Tracy McGrady was better. Damnit. Anyway, who cares, Allen Iverson said the same thing.

 

One on one? No way. Last year's AB was ridiculously quick.