Veteran ESPN analyst Stephen A. Smith recently delivered a blunt assessment of Victor Wembanyama, arguing that the towering Spurs center might not have survived the brutal physicality of Michael Jordan’s era. While Smith acknowledges Wemby’s extraordinary talent, he warns that his frame and style could have made him vulnerable in a different time.
On the PBD Podcast, Smith painted a vivid picture of how the 90s game could have exposed Wembanyama’s weaknesses.
“Want me to tell you what would happen to him? … What happened to him last year? … would happen to him back in the day. You had cats who had a license to assault you,” Smith said.
He specifically referenced the blood clot Wembanyama suffered in the 2024–25 season, suggesting that such a condition might not have been as well managed in the tougher, less regulated era.
Despite his concerns, Smith didn’t deny Wemby’s potential upside. He earlier said that Wembanyama could be a “special” force — noting his combination of size, mobility, and ball-handling. But the analyst was adamant that the physical toll of playing in a more aggressive, contact-heavy league could have hindered Wemby’s longevity and health.
Smith’s view reflects a common debate among NBA observers: how modern stars would stack up against the legends of previous generations. In Wembanyama’s case, it’s not just about skill — it’s about whether the game’s evolution has made players safer, or whether some once‑dominant physical traits have been rendered obsolete.
Whether mid-90s toughness would have taken Wembanyama down remains hypothetical, but Smith’s comments serve as a provocative reminder: talent alone doesn’t guarantee survival in a league built on both brilliance and battle scars.
