Detroit Pistons. Where was their star level player? Ben Wallace? The team I am suggesting would have more scoring and better defense if it played up to potential. Pistons were built on defense and playing as a team and to me it is the most impressive of all the nba final wins.
Where was your basketball knowledge about Lin? I already called George being an all star and Batum is the same, watch this space.
I hate when ppl try to use the Pistons as an example that year Chauncey was a legit top 5 PG, Rasheed top 5 PF, Ben Wallace best defensive Center in the game, Prince 2nd best perimeter defender after Ron Artest, and Rip was the best off ball player that year.
They didn't have big names but they had big games the Knicks without Melo and Amare don't have all those things.
And my basketball knowledge about Lin you don't even know how I felt about Lin it's funny you bring that up because while I never thought he'd be this good I always predicted he'd be a solid player on theLakernation forum I post on I was saying LA should draft this kid since 2010 and then sign him after he schooled John Wall so don't jump to conclusions.
^^^ Pistons also, fwiw, considered one of the weakest NBA champs ever.
Though you can win, let's say, without a "superstar", it doesn't mean that is the best way to construct your team and expect the best chance of actually being able to do so.
I don't think the lineup WrongIslander presented is as star-studded or talented as that Piston team, either.
It's a lovely looking lineup, but I think it's something of a rich man's Hawks team. Would get toppled by the upper crust teams in this golden age/dynasty age of the NBA.
It's a sexy team, but I think you'd need a real baller who can score at the 2 to legit say that's a championship squad in this day and age...swap Fields with say, OJ Mayo, and I wouldn't bet against that team.
So you didn't know what Lin was going to do.
You're dreaming if you think Chauncey, Rasheed and Wallace were considered stars. They were perfect for the team they played in and once again, who was going to put up the points?
They didn't have an Amar'e or a Melo and they did fine. You've basically just reinforced my point.
Smith and Chandler could dominate in the paint just as Wallace and Sheed did while neither would be all stars.
Lin could end up being mr big shot, you just don't know yet.
Batum's defense is vastly underrated and he'd put up more points that Prince.
The point (which still stands by the way) is they had the right players for the right positions with no one or two stars that took over completely and they won AS A TEAM with every player playing an important part on both ends of the court.
You didn't know what Lin would be and you don't know what he could be, same goes for Batum and Shumpert. For all you know they are all top 5 players in the future.
Once again, this was my point with Paul George. The clues were there and now he's living up to it.
TEAM > 1, 2 or 3 stars.
Lol, Detriot is seriously an exception to the rule.
You do realize that all of the championship teams going back to 1990 had: Jordan and Pippen; Olajuwon; Jordan, Pippen; Duncan, Robsinson; Shaq, Kobe; Duncan, Parker, Ginobli; Wade, Shaq; Duncan, Parker, Ginobli; Paul Pierce, KG, Ray Allen; Kobe, Pau, Odom, Bynum; Dirk, Terry, Tyson.
And I left guys like Kenny Smith, Sean Elliot, Fox, Horry, etc. off that list.
The argument that you can win it without stars because the Pistons did it back in the 03-04 season is crazy. Stars have been winning rings since way back in the 80s. People are too quick to try to ignore history to make a point.
We need STAT and Melo to play well going forward, and now that they have a real PG, it's feasible. But any scenario that has the Knicks winning a ring without those guys is the sort of **** you hear in the media that's said solely for reaction. It's not meant to be taken seriously.
Why is it crazy? There's not one sport in the world where a balanced team won't beat a team constructed around 1 or 2 great players.
Another thing that is proven in sports is you're better to MAKE a star, than buy or trade for one. I suppose that history doesn't back up your argument though.
By your logic of "you don't know what Lin and Shumpert could do they could be top 5 players" then why don't we just trade away Melo and Stat for a bunch of undrafted players... You never know they might be top 5 players one day!
And re needing a balanced team over stars.. It's not one or the other you need both. Name a team that won something significant without both of these components, in any sport, that's not the Detroit Pistons.
Yea, that's for cap reasons and the ability to build a team. But if you "buy" a couple of stars and put a decent supporting cast around them, you're fine.
We already have STAT and Melo, we have what seems to be our PG of the future, we have defense, rebounding, and shooting on the wings, we have depth up front (if used correctly) in Jordan, Jorts, and Jeffries, we have a starting 5 with a wing who can create his own shot if the defense is set, we have a PG who can run the PnR and feed his 4 and 5, we have a 2 who doesn't need the ball, and is always moving.
Once you have your stars.....why cry about it?
What if your team constructed around one or two players IS a balanced team? I don't even get that statement...I mean...are the Thunder not constructed around Durant and Westbrook? Were the Bulls not constructed around Jordan? You acquire stars, and build around them. It's more advantageous to do it thru the draft so you can retain assets, get cheap talent, and also control their rights until they have enough accrued time to be eligible for free agency, and then you have their Bird Rights.
We bought our stars, but now we have what seems to be enough of a supporting cast and a decent bench.
Why so mad?
After reading some of the posts on this thread, I can honeslty say drugs are bad; say nope to dope.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote