What does it take to win a championship?

[Diesel]

I have compiled this poll as a means to determine what Hawks fans think is the most necessary component of winning a championship. True all of these may be apparent in championship teams, but is there one thing that we deem as most necessary and how far away are the Hawks (right now).

So if you please, answer the pull and give your take on what you believe is most necessary and how far off are these Hawks.

It's time to get rid of the cliche and get to the point in our discussions.

[coachx]

I voted a well built team (Good GM) ..........but the GM is only as good as the ownership that writes the pay checks (& luxury tax checks).

[benhillboy]

This topic is so loaded and one I think of a lot. I can say that I don't wrestle with this question in baseball or football because so much of their season's outcome is clearly left up to chance, injuries, luck, The Gods, the incalculable bounce of a pigskin, weather and wind, ballpark dimensions, meddling fans, steriods, referees, and a 1,001 other things. But this sport we all love?

I'm 29, and hopefully have seen a nice sample size of what it takes to go the length. Looking at all of the champagne poppers, the only common denominator I see is defense (mainly all-out, life-or-death rebounding and loose-ball recovery, or 50/ 50 balls as Doc likes to call it) and Hall of Fame level coaching (aforementioned Doc is on his way, Tomjanovich no so much?) The ideal team make-up of a damn good (Parker) to phenomenal (Magic) PG, capable scorer, and dominant big man has only been accomplished by the Showtime Lakers and New Millenium Spurs. If you can configure a trio of Hall of Famers sandwiched between your 1 and 5 (Mike's Bulls, Doc's Celtics with a much better 1 and 5), that works too. Hall of Famers at 3, 4, and 5 is too easy (Larry and Them). The Shaq Run was such a bad time in my opinion because it was just too late for an awfully skilled ogre to dominate, but can't discount the fact that he played beside a transcendent 2 guard and for a living legend in both cases. Having Twin Towers goes a very long way. Having someone you can run your offense through off the bench whle not compromising your defense doesn't hurt. The Bad Boy Pistons took advantage of the violence that was allowed then and added great team passing with easily the best traditionally sized PG I've ever seen, while the Rag-Tag LB Pistons simply had a chemistry that can't be explained. We'll probably never see another team whose united force was so superior to their individual. There are players on that team who are at the end of benches, criticized for quitting, and are on milk cartons (Corliss Williamson, anybody?)

At the end of the day, you need Hall of Fame credentials. That's it. Smart, awesome players that give their man hell defensively and value the ball like their child. Smart, awesome coaches who drill these creedos into their players heads with mental and physical toughness while keeping the players hungry and their approach fresh. Every player in the NBA knows how it feels to be dominant offensively at some level. Maybe even Ben Wallace. The great teams know that offense will come and go. It's probably written in James Naismith's early drafts of the game. Defense ABSOLUTELY CANNOT. It has to be forever present, and if it isn't, you have to take two timeouts within 3 minutes like Doc,Phil, Larry, or Pat does. My favorite of All-Time, top to bottom, has to be these current Celtics, the healthy version, with players like James Posey and Eddie House instead of cats like Marquis Daniels and Nate Robinson. They had/ have it all. I will always say that Kobe beat a team in the Finals far better than any Mike beat, but probably wouldn't have happened anyway hadn't Perkins gone down in the thick of the series. Kerrs and Paxsons and Wenningtons and Grants and Longleys and Browns and Buchelers wouldn't get it done against these Celtics (loved Ron Harper), but who am I to put anything past His Airness? He made his GM pay him what he deserved while covering the holes at 1 and 5 because of his suffocating defense on small guards and his relentless help on big men. Would love to see that series play out for real because I don't play NBA 2K11 Live or whatever it is. Would Scottie chase Ray around or bang with Paul? Don't remember the Showtime Lakers in their prime, but I understand that they too had in-game and extended periods of lulls much like the current, wildly overrated, wierd personality-assembled Lakers sans Kobe Bean.

As much as I love my team, if I were Al I think I would be maturing to the point where I could see that I am a championship-piece-type of player. Unfortunately, there isn't another single entity in that locker room or front office who can, or ever will share that quality.

I'm a sixth man now? Time to go all Crawford on yall. Straight to your neck like a bowtie.

Edited January 5, 2011 by benhillboy

[macdaddy]

I voted well built team but I think more correctly the answer is TALENT. You need exceptional talent at least 1-6 if not 1-8. 1-6 and good role players can work.

So I think that's why we aren't a contender right now. We don't have that wealth of talent. Joe and Horford are our most talented but even Horf has't established himself as an offensive force. Smoove is a great player but not consistent enough. The rest of the team are role players.

[T21]

Money!

That's it in our case... I mean, we're just a piece or two away from true shot at it!

However, it takes willingness to get into luxury tax waters... If anyone else knows how to acquire one or two missing pieces without goin' over, please illuminate us!?

P.S. I like our team, we have very good core, but if we think that just by improvement from within we'll make that next step forward, then our strategy is wrong or we simply have no ambitions of winnin' it all!

[Chickenstanley]

In the end...

I think it takes being extremely dominant in at least one major facet of the game -- so dominant that it totally disrupts any other team's major strength and ability to execute.

Among the choices you listed, only 1. Great Offense or 2. Great Defense would be a possible answer, in my opinion.

CS

[Wretch]

If you're talking about what is needed, the answer is ALL of it. If you're looking for a place to start, then you have to begin with a special player. Every team has one, every championship team, runner up, conference finalist…they have one or MORE.

He's the guy you call on when you need ONE shot that makes or breaks the game. He's there as a decoy, because everyone knows the ball is going to him. When you've fallen behind, he's the guy that puts the team on his back and WILLS the team back in it. He's the guy that destroys good to even GREAT defenses. He's the guy that trades baskets with THAT SAME GUY on the other team.

We need one, because I can guarantee that our opponent will have one.

And while people love to point at the anomaly in the 2003/04 Pistons, they also fail to realize that not only were they defensively great – but they had guys 1-4 that could hit shots and a defensive All Star. Collectively, they were like 1 great player:

Billups – Mr. Big Shot

Hamilton – All Star, underrated, and one of the best that I have ever seen at moving without the ball

Prince – Awesome glue guy, capable of hitting shots

Rasheed – All Star, inside, outside, stretching the defense with VERY good 3pt shootin

Ben Wallace – All Star, defensive ACE, rebounding MONSTER

I think because the guys on LA's team were so highly rated and Detroit's squad was underrated, people overlook how good (or rather EFFICIENT) Detroit's offense was. A player like Rip in his prime, alongside JJ, would put this team right into the ECFs at least. Same for Billups.

The above example shows almost all of the other necessary components: a good team, good defense, good offense, well built team, good coach, a good floor general, and BALANCE. Really though, all "NBA Final Four" teams have most if not all of that. We currently do not.

We need a star.

We need a floor general.

We need offensive and defensive balance.

We need good if not GREAT offense and defense.

We need RELIABLE inside scoring.

We need a good coach.

F#@K luck...because we have to get there first, and then we'll see what lady luck can do for us. lol

Edited January 5, 2011 by Wretch

[Diesel]

There are some interesting things about this poll (which is why I posted it).

First. Let's get Balance off the floor.

Jordan's Bulls were not so balanced. They were a strongly defensive, SG dominated team. They really had terrible offense and is probably the reason why Iso ball exists. Unlike the predecessors Those Bulls did not rely on the strong team game but they had the goto Mike syndrome. My friends and I would call it give him the ball and move out of the way. They were the only team without a dominant Big. So in that respect, I say that this team was an anamoly but several have followed that mold.

Still, Utah had great Balance for years and only came close twice. They also had star players. The Suns had great Balance with Barkley, KJ, Thunder Dan and the rest. They only came close once. Let's not even mention the team that Portland built.

Still you have teams like Detroit, Houston, Boston and LAL who have won with balance.

Great PG (floor general). Because Kidd and Stockton are two of the best that ever did it and never won a ring... says that Great PG won't get you a title.

Dominant Big. This is my favorite. As you look down the line of NBA champs.. I would say all but the Bulls had a big man that could dominate in one way or another.

Great Coach. Do you become a great coach after you win or before? The coaching circle of Championship winners is small. I mean over the last 20 years, you have Riley, Jackson Rivers, Brown, Rudy T, and Popp? Did I miss anybody? That's it. You extend to 30 years and you can add Daly,Nellie, Westhead, Wilkens, and KC Jones to that. Not a large fraternity. That's 30 championships and 10 guys.

Maybe coaching means something... or maybe you're not a great coach until you win? Therefore, anybody can be a great coach?

Offensive play - I'm a believer that offense wins games just as much as defense does. If that wasn't the case then tbe best defensive team in the league would wni every year. The thing is that you have to have offense. Is it the most needed prt? Not in my opinion.

Defensive play - See offensive play. One point, these latest Lakers and the Heat are examples of what I feel were teams that won without having great defense.

Luck - Probably the most important but nobody will vote on it. Health makes a difference. You have Perkin saying that had he played in the finals, Boston would have won. IN fact, there are several teams that health couldn't sustain them to the championship. Houston with Dream, Barkley, and Pipp should have won a title. One year the Knicks could have won a title. In the strike shortened season, we could have possibly won a title. Back to Luck, PTL should have won a title but were unlucky to have Rasheed tossed because of a look (has never happened since).

[Joker]

I would say the Bulls were balance as most teams who win a title. The thing is they usually have a squad of All Stars or a superstar or two.

[Diesel]

I would say the Bulls were balance as most teams who win a title. The thing is they usually have a squad of All Stars or a superstar or two.

Actually, the Bulls were the least balanced of championship teams:

Who was the PG? Where does he rank amoungst Championship PGs.

Who was the Dominant Bigs C and PF?

The Bulls did exactly what I wish that we would do, develop a formula based on needed skillset and forget classical convention.

[MaceCase]

I would say the Bulls were balance as most teams who win a title. The thing is they usually have a squad of All Stars or a superstar or two.

They were crazy balanced with number 1 ranked offenses and defenses which is what allowed them to win most of those championships without a dominant offensive low post big. I believe the answer lies in great balance as really only the 2001 Lakers that were terrible on defense and the 2004 Detroit Pistons that were terrible on offense managed to win while being ranked 2nd in one aspect of the game and were less than average at the other. Every other team has managed to be tops in the league in both aspects or top in one aspect while being average or better than average at the other.

[Wretch]

I'd have to say the Bulls were balanced. They didn't have a dominant big, but Pippen and Jordan could score at will both inside and outside. They had specialist 3pt shooters - Paxon, Hodges, Kerr. They had rebounding and toughness - Rodman, Grant, Cartwright. No need to debate coaching. They had two stars (three if you count Rodman, I would...). They had well built teams.

I think you know who the good coaches are. It's the same guys you want when your head coaching slot comes open: Avery Johnson, Doc Rivers (when he left Orlando), Fratello, Adelman, Van Gundy, DiAntoni. Whether or not they have won anything, you see how these guys motivate. How they get the most out of seemingly ANY player. They have good X's and O's...or they just know how to make adjustments. You give these guys the right team and you get results.

Drew is OK so far. But you know that at the end of his tenure, unless he just blows us away, if a guy like Adelman or maybe even Paul Westpaul becomes available - if you're really serious about winning, you start looking at bringing in experience.

[Crank]

I voted luck before reading the thread lol .

In the end the ball has got to bounce your way and youve got to stay healthy .

[HawkItus]

Dominant big man. Save for the Bulls and the Pistons of Isiah, all the the others had a dominant big man.

[sasuke]

Money!

That's it in our case... I mean, we're just a piece or two away from true shot at it!

However, it takes willingness to get into luxury tax waters... If anyone else knows how to acquire one or two missing pieces without goin' over, please illuminate us!?

P.S. I like our team, we have very good core, but if we think that just by improvement from within we'll make that next step forward, then our strategy is wrong or we simply have no ambitions of winnin' it all!

This

To have all those things in the poll we need to spend. If there is no will to spend then better of start operating like the Clippers.

[Joker]

I'd have to say the Bulls were balanced. They didn't have a dominant big, but Pippen and Jordan could score at will both inside and outside. They had specialist 3pt shooters - Paxon, Hodges, Kerr. They had rebounding and toughness - Rodman, Grant, Cartwright. No need to debate coaching. They had two stars (three if you count Rodman, I would...). They had well built teams.

I think you know who the good coaches are. It's the same guys you want when your head coaching slot comes open: Avery Johnson, Doc Rivers (when he left Orlando), Fratello, Adelman, Van Gundy, DiAntoni. Whether or not they have won anything, you see how these guys motivate. How they get the most out of seemingly ANY player. They have good X's and O's...or they just know how to make adjustments. You give these guys the right team and you get results.

Drew is OK so far. But you know that at the end of his tenure, unless he just blows us away, if a guy like Adelman or maybe even Paul Westpaul becomes available - if you're really serious about winning, you start looking at bringing in experience.

Woody was a top 10 coach in my opinion. I liked him but he wasn't the coach for our personnel but anyway I think Drew is when we get the needed pieces for his system. He's okay so far but his potential is higher than Woody's.

[benhillboy]

Money matters not when your owner(s) is clueless as to how to spend it a la Knicks and Redskins. If we did have the money, I'm sure we'd fall into that category. But to answer D's question simply, it's outstanding team defense over all else by far. Just listen to the post-game comments for Mike or Kobe after a Finals loss. They sound like a broken record speaking of getting stops.

Edited January 5, 2011 by benhillboy

[Wretch]

I don't think Money matters as much either. Look at NY and Dallas. Although Dallas went to the finals once, it's really not the money that got them there. Cuban brought an attitude to that team. He has a passion about his club and it is not just about the money. NY is the perfect example. The reason why they have been lost in obscurity for so long is because they threw away draft picks and threw away money like crazy (did anyone think that Zeke was intentionally trying to screw them? lol). OMG...that payroll they had not too long ago?

Back on point though...riddle me this:

Name a team ECFs, WCFs, or Finals that DID NOT have an All NBA caliber player. AND, since I know that team doesn't exist unless you count the 03 Pistons, remove their best player, their special player, and tell me that team makes it as far as they did. I'm talking Chicago without Jordan, Jazz without Malone, Celtics without Bird or KG (proven), Lakers without Kobe (or Shaq, pick one). And the list goes on and on...Nuggets without Melo, Pistons without Rip, Pacers without Miller, Blazers without Drexler, Suns without Nash. Hell think about 2nd round fodder like us - without Steve Smith, Joe Johnson, or Dominique Wilkens.

There are a lot of things you need to compete. But honestly, it starts with having a special player. Teams are just not the same without one no matter how you slice it.

[Diesel]

I don't think Money matters as much either. Look at NY and Dallas. Although Dallas went to the finals once, it's really not the money that got them there. Cuban brought an attitude to that team. He has a passion about his club and it is not just about the money. NY is the perfect example. The reason why they have been lost in obscurity for so long is because they threw away draft picks and threw away money like crazy (did anyone think that Zeke was intentionally trying to screw them? lol). OMG...that payroll they had not too long ago?

Back on point though...riddle me this:

Name a team ECFs, WCFs, or Finals that DID NOT have an All NBA caliber player. AND, since I know that team doesn't exist unless you count the 03 Pistons, remove their best player, their special player, and tell me that team makes it as far as they did. I'm talking Chicago without Jordan, Jazz without Malone, Celtics without Bird or KG (proven), Lakers without Kobe (or Shaq, pick one). And the list goes on and on...Nuggets without Melo, Pistons without Rip, Pacers without Miller, Blazers without Drexler, Suns without Nash. Hell think about 2nd round fodder like us - without Steve Smith, Joe Johnson, or Dominique Wilkens.

There are a lot of things you need to compete. But honestly, it starts with having a special player. Teams are just not the same without one no matter how you slice it.

That's a mighty good point. Your best player has to be a star.

I'm sold. However, the opposite is that there are a whole lot of teams with Stars who never win. Why couldn't Barkley ever win? Why didn't Ewing ever win? Why didn't Malone and Stockton (both Iron men) ever win? Why didn't TMac ever win? What about Iverson? What about Melo or James?

[Joker]

That's a mighty good point. Your best player has to be a star.

I'm sold. However, the opposite is that there are a whole lot of teams with Stars who never win. Why couldn't Barkley ever win? Why didn't Ewing ever win? Why didn't Malone and Stockton (both Iron men) ever win? Why didn't TMac ever win? What about Iverson? What about Melo or James?

Who was around Stockton and Malone.