Page 17 of 20 FirstFirst ... 7 15 16 17 18 19 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 198
  1. #161
    Da Great One borinka99's Avatar




    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    6,821
    Liked
    73 times
    Karma
    20056005
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    36 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bland View Post
    Check out the first couple pages of this thread.
    I've been reading the thread and I still don't get what you're trying to say. The same argument you use to say a team can't win with just a dominant SG could be used to show the same exact thing for any other position.

  2. #162
    Concussed Villain Mondo Blando's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    8,260
    Liked
    1696 times
    Karma
    1396926
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1042 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Die Radio Die View Post
    So now it's the coaching. Gotcha.
    You honestly want to dispute the fact that Detrot has been weaker with Saunders than they were with Brown?

    Seriously?

    Little things like attention to defense tend to make a difference in all sports. Ben Wallace wanted out because Saunders refused to adhere to their previous staunch defensive structure.

  3. #163
    I don't rattle, kid. Kubrick's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    16,026
    Liked
    1236 times
    Karma
    1239154
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    604 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bland View Post
    Ben Wallace wanted out because Saunders refused to adhere to their previous staunch defensive structure.
    Right, it wasn't because of the 4 year/40M contract Detroit offered him, versus the 4 years/60M contract he signed with Chicago.

  4. #164
    Concussed Villain Mondo Blando's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    8,260
    Liked
    1696 times
    Karma
    1396926
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1042 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by borinka99 View Post
    I've been reading the thread and I still don't get what you're trying to say. The same argument you use to say a team can't win with just a dominant SG could be used to show the same exact thing for any other position.
    Alright, I'll try to clear this up a little.

    The current Lakers feature perhaps the greatest individual player in the game, Kobe Bryant. He is a shooting guard who looks for his shot first on nearly every possession. He is a dominant player at his position, and the most exciting player in the game.

    However, he alone cannot guarantee playoff success. When you take a look at recent NBA history, the teams that have won championships, or been able to sustain several seasons worth of championship contention, have for the most part been built around either dominant centers, power forwards or point guards.

    The lone, obvious exception are the Bulls of the 90's.

    I claim that a team who wants to build a championship contender should do so without maxing out a shooting guard. There are far too many talented players, offensively and defensively, at that position to justify absorbing too much of your salary cap.

    Kobe Bryant may score the most exciting 30+ ppg, but they count the same as the points scored by say a Ray Allen, Rip Hamilton, Paul Pierce, etc.

    Most NBA players fall within the 6'5" - 6'-9" range. Therefore, it is proportionally harder to find quality players at the positons who demand different physical builds. Quality point guards, power forwards and centers are much more difficult to come by than perimeter players and slashers.

    I firmly claim that you should build around these positions and keep the swingmen as support/specialty players.

    Take a look at recent NBA championship history and there primary focal points:

    San Antonio: Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobli, Michael Finley (supporting players, and one of the best examples of my theory) and to an extent, David Robinson.

    Miami*: Shaquille O'Neal, Dwayane Wade

    LA*: Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant

    Detroit: Chauncey Billups, the Wallace's, and Rip Hamilton (in a supporting role)

    Houston: Hakeem Olaujuwon and a bunch of perimeter players (Elie, Smith, Maxwell, Horry)

    Chicago: Jordan, Pippen (and a host of supporting big men - Grant, Rodman, Cartwright, Longley). IMO, this team is the lone exception.

    LA: Johnson, Abdul-Jabbar, Worthy (in a supporting role)

    Detroit: Thomas, Laimbeer, Rodman, Dumars (supporting role)

    Boston: Bird, McHale, Parrish, Johnson (in a supporting role)

    Non-title winners who remained in contention for more than one flash in the pan year:

    NY: Ewing, Johnson, Houston, Mark Jackson

    Indiana: Miller, Smits, Mark Jackson

    Cleveland: Brad Daugherty, Mark Price

    Utah: Malone and Stockton

    Phoenix: Barkley and Kevin Johnson at the point.

    New Jersey: Kidd, Jefferson and eventually Carter

    Portland: Drexler, Kersey, Duckworth - Another exception I previously cited.



    Please take a look at this list above, and feel free to analyze. I'm sure that there is plenty to argue about. However, there are simply not a lot of teams who feature swingmen as the focal point of there offensive schemes.

    It is fair to say that the Bulls are the only team on that list who did not run their offense through a big man or a point guard.

    *All other teams featured pure scorers in supporting roles, including the Lakers and Heat of this decade. Say what you will about Wade and Bryant being the dominant players of their respective championships, but to deny that O'Neal was the offensive focal point that forced defensive structure away from the perimeter is just plain incorrect.

    Also, the current NBA has a much more stringent salary cap than say even ten years ago. It is even more important to maximize the value your salary cap. You cannot build "super teams" like you could in the past, and it will be exceedingly difficult to acquire a quality big man without reducing the cap space available to fill out the line-up with even half-way decent players. The past two years of Laker failures emphasizes this point.

    In summary, it is my claim that the if Lakers want to build a contender, they should move Bryant (no matter how good he may be) and address the glaring weaknesses at the positions that traditionally win championships.

  5. #165
    Concussed Villain Mondo Blando's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    8,260
    Liked
    1696 times
    Karma
    1396926
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1042 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Die Radio Die View Post
    Right, it wasn't because of the 4 year/40M contract Detroit offered him, versus the 4 years/60M contract he signed with Chicago.
    I ain't gonna do the work for you, but Wallace stated openly in several interviews that he had to get out of Detroit because his role and potential contract value would be severely diminished if he kept playing under Saunders.

  6. #166
    Little Big Man 33isgod's Avatar




    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    4,645
    Liked
    5 times
    Karma
    1000000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Question for you Bland. Would that Lakers have won three in a row if you replaced Kobe with somone else?

  7. #167
    Concussed Villain Mondo Blando's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    8,260
    Liked
    1696 times
    Karma
    1396926
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1042 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 33isgod View Post
    Question for you Bland. Would that Lakers have won three in a row if you replaced Kobe with somone else?
    That's tough to argue in either direction. The first couple, I'd say yes, a Ginobli/Allen/Pierce type could have done the trick with all of those quality role players around.

    The last one, well, Shaq was in full "tubbing" mode, and I'm not nearly as confident they could have won without Bryant. However, it was a sweep, if my memory serves me correctly. The WCF were Kobe's show that year, and the finals were just an after thought.

  8. #168
    Now Available In HD Italian Seafood's Avatar




    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    886
    Liked
    12 times
    Karma
    1125000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    While I agree that winning with a dominant 2-guard is the exception to the rule, the Bulls proved that it can be done. So if it can be done it can be done. The question for you guys is, is Kobe the guy that it can be done with? Jordan had to grow up, adjust his game and ascend to where he got to. Kobe stepped into it--Phil Jackson, Shaq, won his titles young. Now he seems to think the world has to adjust to him when he's the one who needs to adjust his game and his attitude.

    Kobe got his way over Shaq because he had youth on his side, now he's approaching 30. At some point you either start to get it or you don't. There are guys who were known as loudmouths and troublemakers but people tolerated them because of their talent. At some point they either grow up and start to see things clearly, like Iverson for example, or even Marbury, or they go through their entire careers being a pain in the ass, like Rasheed Wallace. I don't know which way Kobe will go, but he does play the most replacable position in basketball, so if I were the Lakers I'm not sure how long I'd let him keep calling the shots publicly. Like I said in the beginning of the thread, he's as valuable now as he will ever be. Something to think about.

  9. #169
    Da Great One borinka99's Avatar




    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    6,821
    Liked
    73 times
    Karma
    20056005
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    36 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bland View Post
    Alright, I'll try to clear this up a little.

    The current Lakers feature perhaps the greatest individual player in the game, Kobe Bryant. He is a shooting guard who looks for his shot first on nearly every possession. He is a dominant player at his position, and the most exciting player in the game.

    However, he alone cannot guarantee playoff success. When you take a look at recent NBA history, the teams that have won championships, or been able to sustain several seasons worth of championship contention, have for the most part been built around either dominant centers, power forwards or point guards.

    The lone, obvious exception are the Bulls of the 90's.
    Yea, but NO TEAM can win with one player alone. Even Jordan didn't win the titles "ALONE," he had great supporting casts. Did Shaq win the title alone? No. Did Duncan? No. Did Wallace? No. Did Olajuwon? No. etc...

  10. #170
    I don't rattle, kid. Kubrick's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    16,026
    Liked
    1236 times
    Karma
    1239154
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    604 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bland View Post
    I ain't gonna do the work for you, but Wallace stated openly in several interviews that he had to get out of Detroit because his role and potential contract value would be severely diminished if he kept playing under Saunders.
    He also stated that he was insulted by the 40 million dollar offer. Potential contract value? How many years do you think he planned on playing beyond the contract he ended up signing? Ben Wallace was going to sign with whichever team ponied up the most cash, period. I don't know if you noticed but his numbers and minutes were down this season. So the talk about concern over role and his place in Saunders' system was horse ****.

    Wallace wanted his payday and he has feuded with his coaches before. If Detroit would have matched Chicago's offer there's no way he would have been playing anywhere but Detroit this year. Are you honestly taking a free agent to be's words at face value?

Page 17 of 20 FirstFirst ... 7 15 16 17 18 19 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28