Bird said the same thing that Kerr said.

I wrote, " But that talent is relative. I don't think guys who played then could have played today, but you never know because of the advancements in health and the way players are coddled today"

Relative is the key. Comparing eras is fine, but you have to have context, and compare how a guy compares to his peers, as well as what the league was like. It's like Ruth hitting more home runs than the entire American League; how do you ever too that? Top to bottom, I don't see how anyone can say that there wasn't more "talent" found in the league back then.

A lot of the things you pointed out are due to the evolution of the game, not ability. It's hard for me to believe, for example, that Bird wouldn't have shot more 3s if they realized how effective the 3 is. It's not like people suddenly because better shooters. That's not logical. The same goes for health and being able to take care of your body. While literally everyone on the cavs or warriors can pay a personal chef and understand the value of lifting, you had guys smoking prior to the game, traveling in coach, and now work out (they used to say you couldn't work out like guys like Lebron do today).