Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do we really need an elite point guard?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    star_bury wrote: View Post
    Positions don't matter. You need a team of talented players who play as a team.
    Atlanta is one example where this is untrue. An extremely talented and athletic team that struggles to beat the elite teams because they didn't pay attention to positions.

    As I said they have tons of athletic players, very talented, very skilled. But many of them are playing out of position because they don't have the right pieces. For years they had an average point guard in Bibby, who has only recently been replaced with Kirk Hinrich. Joe Johnson is the only guy playing the right position. Al Horford should be playing PF, not C. They never bothered to get a real C. Josh Smith should be playing SF for the majority of his minutes but they use him at PF, again because they have no C. Marvin Williams should be coming off the bench, but they have to start him because Smith is playing PF. Jamal Crawford is a combo guard coming off the bench when they should have spent a little less and just got an efficient point guard to run the show and play full time. They don't win because the roles of each player does not properly fit their respective games.
    your pal,
    ebrian

    Comment


    • #32
      Maleko wrote: View Post
      I would say that is what I hoped for him coming into the league, but Magic made his entire team better. Lebron - debateable at best.
      Are you kidding me? Look what happened to the Cavs after he left. He made Maurice Williams, a mediocre PG, at best, into an All-Star. Sure, he's never going to be Jordan or Magic, and seems to lack their sheer will, there's no denying he is one of the few players on the league that can put a team on his back.
      Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
      Follow me on Twitter.

      Comment


      • #33
        ebrian wrote: View Post
        Atlanta is one example where this is untrue. An extremely talented and athletic team that struggles to beat the elite teams because they didn't pay attention to positions.

        As I said they have tons of athletic players, very talented, very skilled. But many of them are playing out of position because they don't have the right pieces. For years they had an average point guard in Bibby, who has only recently been replaced with Kirk Hinrich. Joe Johnson is the only guy playing the right position. Al Horford should be playing PF, not C. They never bothered to get a real C. Josh Smith should be playing SF for the majority of his minutes but they use him at PF, again because they have no C. Marvin Williams should be coming off the bench, but they have to start him because Smith is playing PF. Jamal Crawford is a combo guard coming off the bench when they should have spent a little less and just got an efficient point guard to run the show and play full time. They don't win because the roles of each player does not properly fit their respective games.
        Well, they also don't have any elite players. Joe Johnson is their best player and he's not even a top 20 talent. Teams are usually as good as their best player, and that's the case with Atlanta.
        Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
        Follow me on Twitter.

        Comment


        • #34
          Boomer wrote: View Post
          I don't think Detroit was as extreme an outlier as everyone might think. In reading this thread it kind of clicked in my brain, that elite point guard or not, as someone else mentioned, its all about protecting the rim. Even the two "elite point guards" who won, Billups and Parker, had either the two Wallaces or The Greatest Power Forward of All Time protecting the rim.
          Teams like that can compete, but the only reason they won the Championship that year was because it was a weird year where Kobe and Shaq were feuding, the Spurs were hurt and Detroit took advantage. Following the Detroit plan is simply a bad idea if your intention is to win a Championship.
          Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
          Follow me on Twitter.

          Comment


          • #35
            The "point guard" driven league is in a way a fallacy. Its something fans enjoy watching (thank you Steve Nash), so it sells tickets, gets attention, makes money, therefore GMs want them. They get a ton of attention and then fans/media/pundits just jump on the who's hot bandwagon. But they don't guarantee you success, and they definetely don't automatically turn you into contenders or champions.

            The reality is, and its seen time and time again, that you don't need elite PGs. You don't need elite anything... what you do need elite something. Even with the example of Billups and Parker, I wouldn't put either as elite PGs and they weren't the best players on their teams either. They were good no doubt... but not the best.

            I personally think nothing tops a dominant big man. They are so rare that they instantly give you an edge. But even that guarantees nothing. The only thing that contenders consistently have is atleast one elite player (even Detroit had that in Ben Wallace) and expereince.

            Comment


            • #36
              Tim W. wrote: View Post
              Are you kidding me? Look what happened to the Cavs after he left. He made Maurice Williams, a mediocre PG, at best, into an All-Star. Sure, he's never going to be Jordan or Magic, and seems to lack their sheer will, there's no denying he is one of the few players on the league that can put a team on his back.
              Putting a team on your back is NOT the same thing as making your teammates better. Some players played better because other teams paid more attention to James, not because he made them better, there is a big difference. Watching Miami is another illustration of this: when Wade is on the floor the team flows better, when Lebron is running the show and Wade is on the bench the team is disjointed. That is not making teammates better.

              Comment


              • #37
                Maleko wrote: View Post
                Putting a team on your back is NOT the same thing as making your teammates better. Some players played better because other teams paid more attention to James, not because he made them better, there is a big difference. Watching Miami is another illustration of this: when Wade is on the floor the team flows better, when Lebron is running the show and Wade is on the bench the team is disjointed. That is not making teammates better.
                So you're ignoring his first 7 years in Cleveland, where he made the majority of his teammates look better (Mo Williams is NOT an All-Star), and focusing on the one year in Miami, where he had trouble figuring out his role?
                Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
                Follow me on Twitter.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Tim W. wrote: View Post
                  Teams like that can compete, but the only reason they won the Championship that year was because it was a weird year where Kobe and Shaq were feuding, the Spurs were hurt and Detroit took advantage. Following the Detroit plan is simply a bad idea if your intention is to win a Championship.
                  I agree 100 percent that following Detroit's plan is a bad idea. They could conceivably be the worst champ in the last 30-35 years, minimum. They, like you said, got lucky on a weird year. Their team was filled with, at best, a bunch of guys who would typically be the third best guy on most champs. The fact that they could protect the rim so well is what helped them sneak past everyone.

                  This point is also why I'm terrified whenever mention goes around of teams shopping guys like Iguodala. He'd be an excellent defensive wing player (especially on this team) but he's not the star player to lead a team everyone thinks. However, he still gets paid like he's a star and that will hamstring teams terribly. He's a good valuable player but getting paid like a #1 and being a #2 or #3 will never lead a team to a title.

                  A little separate from the point of your post, but I just felt it applied based on your line about following Detroit's plan, re: a bunch of second bananas.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    A Champ is a champ in my books. Detroit won 64 games that year and swept the Lakers in the finals 4-1.

                    The Mavs won 57 games this last season.
                    The Lakers the two seasons prior, 57 and 65.
                    The Celtics before them, 66.
                    The Spurs the year after the Pistons won, 58.

                    The Pistons are not the "worst champion" of the past 35 years. They earned the victory from game one of the season to game five of the finals. They kicked ass all season as a team. Most of us got re-programmed when Stern came on board and begun marketing the sport around the individual instead of the team. Now we value a team on the value of the stars instead of the sum of it's parts(I myself am also guilty as charged sometimes). If you pinned the 05/06 Pistons against either of the finals teams of this year, my money is on that Pistons team.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Actually the Pistons won 54 games the year they won (2003-2004):
                      http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/standings?year=season_2003

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        My bad, I got my seasons mixed up. Either way they had a strong playoffs run and beat the Lakers in five games. The following year they took the Spurs to seven games. They had a very strong team devoid of big star power. This is why they lack the respect.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Apollo wrote: View Post
                          A Champ is a champ in my books. Detroit won 64 games that year and swept the Lakers in the finals 4-1.

                          The Mavs won 57 games this last season.
                          The Lakers the two seasons prior, 57 and 65.
                          The Celtics before them, 66.
                          The Spurs the year after the Pistons won, 58.

                          The Pistons are not the "worst champion" of the past 35 years. They earned the victory from game one of the season to game five of the finals. They kicked ass all season as a team. Most of us got re-programmed when Stern came on board and begun marketing the sport around the individual instead of the team. Now we value a team on the value of the stars instead of the sum of it's parts(I myself am also guilty as charged sometimes). If you pinned the 05/06 Pistons against either of the finals teams of this year, my money is on that Pistons team.
                          Quite frankly, this was a weak year, too, and reminds me a lot of that season the Pistons won. Not to say that team was not a good team, but they certainly pale in comparison to nearly every other Championship team...except for this year.
                          Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
                          Follow me on Twitter.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I don't know about that. Our current programming/valuation of teams should lead us to believe that the Mavericks are one of the greatest Champions ever. I mean they conquered a team housing one of the "mightiest" superstar trios ever.

                            End of the day, you can't keep mucking around in the lottery forever hoping for the best player in the league to carry you to a championship. For one, there numerous players of that level who don't ever win; winning is even difficult with those players in house. There are no extra awards for winning with NBA marketing sweethearts. The Raptors need to aquire the best talent possible to win it. Right now it looks as though they're more likely to win one based on the Pistons model of team play and hard work than to win one based on the Lakers model of stockpiling household names.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Tim W. wrote: View Post
                              So you're ignoring his first 7 years in Cleveland, where he made the majority of his teammates look better (Mo Williams is NOT an All-Star), and focusing on the one year in Miami, where he had trouble figuring out his role?
                              Hardly, and once again, as I stated in the comment you replied to, other players had better years simply because opposing teams focused on Lebron. I am using Miami as an example, Tim, and while I acknowledge that I am in the minority, I have no issue doing so. Lebron is a very good/great all around player that makes any team he is playing for dangerous, but he does not play within the flow of the game, (which in some instances is excellent for him since he is often dominating in these situations). And I have not stated he does not have a great game or that his game does not deserve respect. But again, watching him play over the course of a decade, he is not a player who involves his teammates, certainly not like Magic did, heart and desire aside.

                              My opinion and observations come from playing, observing and critiquing for over 3 decades, forming how I view a game and team. It is certainly not the be all and end all of truth, as is the case with anyone else's opinions. You and I happen to coincide often, but not here. He is not a player I choose for my team, simple as that. I like the flow of a game, and Lebron has a negative impact on that.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Apollo wrote: View Post
                                I don't know about that. Our current programming/valuation of teams should lead us to believe that the Mavericks are one of the greatest Champions ever. I mean they conquered a team housing one of the "mightiest" superstar trios ever.

                                End of the day, you can't keep mucking around in the lottery forever hoping for the best player in the league to carry you to a championship. For one, there numerous players of that level who don't ever win; winning is even difficult with those players in house. There are no extra awards for winning with NBA marketing sweethearts. The Raptors need to aquire the best talent possible to win it. Right now it looks as though they're more likely to win one based on the Pistons model of team play and hard work than to win one based on the Lakers model of stockpiling household names.
                                I don't know about you, but I wasn't overly impressed with ANY teams this year. I love the Spurs, but they won 61 games without ever looking like a 60 win team. Same goes for Chicago. I think Dallas took advantage of an off year. Neither the Spurs or Lakers are the same teams that won the Championships. Miami isn't there, yet. Neither is Chicago or Oklahoma. Boston and Orlando made trades that actually made them worse.

                                And I think the likelihood of drafting an elite player is better than being able to form a Championship team without any elite players.
                                Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
                                Follow me on Twitter.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X