Big Men are not trends

[chickenstanly]

Everyone should remember that Wilt never won a championship until late in his career. And he dwarfs Jordan as being by far the most dominant player of his era.

The 80's Lakers and Celtics were so good that could have played an all-star team made up of the rest of the league and probably won most games.

Magic was great, but without Kareem, he would not have

5 (if any) rings. Sorry.

Let's flashback to the Portland team with Walton. This is

an example of how when great big men cancel each other

out, it all comes down to the surrounding cast. That year,

Walton had a better team around him than Kareem and they

defeated the Lakers in the WCF.

The 76ers never could do it until Moses came along. As great

as Erving, Cheeks, Toney, etc were....it still took Moses

to allow them to get past the Celtics/Lakers. And Cheeks was a top 3 point guard. (the truth of the matter was they

could not guard Kevin McHale, while Bird/Dr.J canceled each other out. As did Cheeks/DJ and Caldwell-B.Jones/Parrish.)

The Jordan Bulls were an anomolie, but unless you think you have a Jordan on your hands, I wouldn't use them as a blueprint. I have my doubt whether it would even work now in the age of zones.

I can't say I have the answer, but I'd say that you MUST have 2-3 players that are top 2-3 at their position in the league. This is for a dynasty. I think the Pistons were a freak thing and not the makings for a dynasty.

Just look at the Lakers/Celtics for a second.

Celtics SF Bird Top 1-2 in league

PF McHale #1

PG DJ Top-3

C Chief Top 4

Lakers SF Worthy Top 3

C Kareem Top 1-2

PG Magic #1

The lakers had the advantage of better bench players

with Mychael Thompson and McAdoo. When walton came

to Boston, the Celtics won. With these two teams, it

all came down to bench play as to who was better each

year.

[Wretch]

Not at all. But, I think that's what some people are getting from what I'm saying. I know what a dominant big man means to a team, but at the same time, I also know what a dominant PG means.

I think it's misleading to sit here and say that all these championship teams got there because they had a dominant big man. You will find a dominant big man in some facet of the game - be it offense or defense; however, you will also find an irreplaceable player on the wing.

Does Sacramento give the Lakers such a hard time if Bibby doesn't come up clutch? Or if Peja isn't stickin' it to em from outside? Replace Kobe with Dion Glover or Eddie Jones...do the Lakers beat the Spurs or the Kings? Hell, Horry bailed them out plenty of times.

All I'm saying is that it's not "ALL ABOUT DA BIG MAN!" Great post play is a solid foundation. I believe you can win without a dominant post player, but you better bring it like the Pistons or the Bulls did. Vice Versa, you can win without dominant guard play - but you better bring twin towers to the court.

[Wretch]

First of all, it wasn't my statement. It was you who said that Magic Johnson was replaceable. It is you who has been going on and on about how having a dominant big man is the key to winning a championship and that his worth is somehow greater to the team than anyone and everyone else. I have maintained that you need a bigman, but at the same time you need everything else. You keep insisting that the big guy is most important. Even in your last post you're saying you don't care about drafting a superstar, you are more concerned about spending our pick on the best big available - whether he be a role player or not.

So in repsonse to your position, I made the point that these players on these Lakers teams (mainly Magic and Worthy) were not replaceable. Your response was meant to show some kind of bias on my part which you knew was incorrect - so you just took a sarcastic route to get your point out.

Why do I think that you take me for a fool? Because... I'm sitting here showing you every single reason why your logic is flawed and you continue to scramble around...hiding behind sarcasm.

And regardless, you're still wrong. Looking at the draft board, you don't just take a big guy because all things are not equal. Drafting is an inexact science and nobody knows how any of these players will turn out. If you go in with one particular mindset (focus on atheletic/big/experience), then you are surely going to miss something. The only real way to approach the draft is to look for the best "talent" regardless of position or need - and even that has serious consequences.

...and with a lottery pick, I think you are in the microscopic minority that thinks we should spend it (or any future lotto picks) on a role player.

[Wretch]

Magic's vs. Kareem's worth to their championships. As far as Kareem's worth, I will give you as many as 3 of those titles. But it was Magic in his prime that truly carried the latter teams. Kareem was showing his age and they were bringing in guys off the bench to support him. What's more, Kareem was only honored ONCE with the finals MVP. The other 4? Magic 3 and Worthy 1... To me, that doesn't exactly say either of these guys is replaceable.

Once again though, I have to say that MY part in this isn't about bigs vs. wings. I'm not saying Magic or Bird is any more valuable than Kareem or McHale. Yes, there is a dominant big man in all of these championship renditions; but there is MUCH MUCH more than that. To discount the contributions from some of the greatest to play the game is just horribly biased. To say that the reason why these teams won is because they had a good big man is simply being HIGHLY selective. That's my point. It has nothing to do with any position's value over another.

Quote:

---

I can't say I have the answer, but I'd say that you MUST have 2-3 players that are top 2-3 at their position in the league. This is for a dynasty. I think the Pistons were a freak thing and not the makings for a dynasty.

---

This is EXACTLY what I'm saying. When you say "top 2-3" at their position, you are essentially saying superstar. There's no way around it. It might work in any other sport, but in the NBA (especially today's NBA) you need stars.

[Buzzard]

I understand what you are saying here. But still I think dominant post play, offensively and/or defensively was the key to winning for most of those teams. Yes it takes three top players to win a championship. But they all had one or two top tier big men.

Even Detroit, the older version had Lambier (sp) and Rodman. How cannot you think those guys together did not form one of the best defesive low post combinations of their day.

They were unreal on the defensive end of the court. Any perimeter player that tried to drive on those two guys would quite often end up on his ass.

I may not have liked them, but I would have loved to have had them. And then Detroit with Ben Wallcae last year, yea I think we all would like to have him as well.

Detroit to me is not the only team that won with great interior play. But I do think they possibly proved the point more than any team in the history of the game. Except maybe those Russell teams of the Celtics. Which I never got to see play and do not know as much about.

I agree with you, it takes great players to make a great team. Thats a fact. But I do think that it all starts down low. Like you said its the easiest way to start building a good team, but I also think it is were most (Jordans bulls 1st version being the exception)of the great teams separated themselves from the pretenders at.

I like this management team and I am completely behind last years draft. I did not think there was a big man worthy of our lottery pick last year. And thought JSmoothe was a steal as well.

I just think that until we get a solid center and power forward, no matter who we draft, they will not be able to carry us to a division title much less a championship.

There is hope for the hopeless, and it takes the form of the draft (free agency to a lesser degree)every year. I am always hoping that one day we will have a shot at a defensive minded big man. I have been waiting patiently just like you for many many years.

[Wretch]

In some situatons, yes they had outstanding post play...but in others, it was someone else coming up big. For example, during the Showtime Lakers' final stretch, Kareem was fading badly. The torch was passed on to Magic and he carried the team.

For the Pistons, Rodman was just a puppy, nowhere near as dominant on the boards as he was during his latter years with San Antonio and Chicago. As a matter of fact, Dennis was more of an offensive threat than anything and he got sparing minutes behind Mahorn, Salley, Buddah, and Lambier. I think both the new Pistons and the old Bad Boy Pistons had much in common...they were a complete team. But what really made the Bad Boys tough was just that...those were some bad, down and dirty dudes...and they were deeeeeeep.

I wouldn't say that it begins and ends with a post presence, but SURELY you've got to have something serious down there in addition to a great team if you want to even think about taking the title. If not, you better be able to just shoot the lights out. I also believe that if you don't have outstanding wing play, that you better have something like Duncan and the Admiral dominating the paint.

You are right that post play is essential to a championship team, and is most certainly easier to build around. But I think Magic (ironically) said it best when he gave advice to Orlando management back in 1993. Orlando had won the lottery for the 2nd year in a row and they were torn between Penny Hardaway and Webber. Now, obviously Penny is a shadow of his former self, but back then he was young and phenomenal.

Orlando managemant consulted Johnson on what he thought would be the best route to go with Oneal. He told them that they'd be better off with a PG like Anfernee paired with the big guy than paring CWebb with Shaq. We all wanted to see Webber and Shaq, but when they put Penny out there with Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott, and the Diesel...they shot straight to the top.

Now obviously, you take Shaq out and that is CLEARLY a different team. And yes, Shaq's presence was the most significant...BUT, it is the combination of these players that takes the team to the next level and if you take away certain pieces, especially keys like Bird, Magic, and Zeke, you have a dramatically different team.

That's essentially what I'm saying.