Controversy??...My Lists and Some Explainatins For...

[Jano]

Re: Controversy??...My Lists and Some Explainatins For...

I was comparing human memory and tendency to automobiles. I said nothing about human spirit. Freaking weirdo.

You named 3 Centers at most who were worth naming. Doesn't disprove what I said in the least bit. Everyone remembers stuff they're fond of as better than it actually was. That's fact.

LMAO

[AlexBrady]

Re: Controversy??...My Lists and Some Explainatins For...

I was comparing human memory and tendency to automobiles. I said nothing about human spirit. Freaking weirdo.

You named 3 Centers at most who were worth naming. Doesn't disprove what I said in the least bit. Everyone remembers stuff they're fond of as better than it actually was. That's fact.

When the game is played to my specifications then I will obviously give positive comments. I just call em like I see em.

You said: "The only two players who could play against Wilt physically during his time in the NBA were Russell and Abdul-Jabbar. Even then they were a little too thin to match up with him strength-wise. The man never had a league full of athletes to contend against".

The truth is that Willis Reed, Bob Lanier, Nate Thurmond, Wes Unseld, and Elmore Smith had sufficient bulk to present a formidable challenge to Wilt. Nate Thurmond, Dave Cowens, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Clifford Ray were incredibly athletic. And with the notable exception of Elmore Smith, they were all fire-breathing competitors.

Exactly, which centers do you think could "play against Wilt physically" and "match up with him strength-wise"?
Actually, thats opinion. And are my memories fond, or are they accurate?

[DukeC]

Re: Controversy??...My Lists and Some Explainatins For...

I was comparing human memory and tendency to automobiles. I said nothing about human spirit. Freaking weirdo.

You named 3 Centers at most who were worth naming. Doesn't disprove what I said in the least bit. Everyone remembers stuff they're fond of as better than it actually was. That's fact.

Eh. You know 7 of those centers he just named were hall of famers and tremendous scorers right?

Wes Unseld = Hall of Fame
Bob Lanier = Hall of Fame
Dave Cowens = Hall of Fame
Willis Reed = Hall of Fame
Nate Thurmond = Hall of Fame
Kareem/Lew Alcindor = Hall of Fame
Bill Rusell = Hall of Fame

All of them, with the exception of Kareem and Russell, could shoot from 15 feet and create mismatch problems for Wilt. Not to mention having supreme footwork on the low block. So while no one could stop Wilt, Wilt couldn't stop them either.

[2k10Fonzarelli]

Re: Controversy??...My Lists and Some Explainatins For...

Its been a while since I've been in the presence of such critical thinking. Many of you have made points that have humbled my basketball knowledge.

I would make my team based on the Philosophy that Superior Offense Beats Superior Defense 100% of the time. This, I think after reading this thread is a very immature philosophy born of watching the great scorers of the last 20 years or so. But it seem the most oft repeated philosophy since 'Defense wins championships' (which is also irrevocably true)

So for me, I'd spark controversy by suggesting that a team consisting of :

1. Magic/Nash
(there my Canadian Bias kicking in, but I pick these 2 specifically because of the styles of teams that they ran, free flowing masters of transition and artists on the Fastbreak.

2. Jordan/Miller
(yeah, there's a whole bunch of players who are more talented, skilled and fundamentally sound. Better shooters even. But i needed a Great Off ball player who could shoot 3's backing up MJ and Giving Nash a reliable and consistent release valve at the 3pt line, plus reggie is so freakin clutch

3. Lebron/Bird
I so wanted to chose Durant over Bird because 2 things. I think he will be a top 5 all time scorer(health providing) and I think he's quite literally unguardable at his best. Much like a Jordan or a Nowitski or Shaq. but again its those off ball talents and the fact that Larry may have been the smartest baller to ever play that gets him the nod, plus theres a rumor going round that he was a pretty good shooter too. EDIT: based on the philosophy of the team, i think i'd move LeBron to the bench as only 1 isolation player is really needed when its freakin Michael Jordan. Then you have LeBron being the iso guy off the bench with guys like Malone, Kareem, Nash and Miller to find wide open as he does what he does so well. OP, your we're right about Raw talent, just raw.

4.Duncan/Malone.
Duncan has to start, the big fundamental is perfect for the start on this squad because you know he'd happily accept a role on this squad. Add to the fact he's remarkably efficient offensively and defensively and unselfish and we're starting to look like an unbeatable squad. Coming off the bench, Karl Malone is now the primary scoring option. Picking and rolling whenever Nash slows the tempo. Maybe this is an ignorant and bold statement(its definately bold) but i feel as if Nash would've had very close to the same amounts of assists as Stock did if he played with Malone his whole career

5. Shaq and Kareem.
I start Shaq out of bias, I absolutely loved every minute of this guys career despite the controversy surrounding his style of play and his "HOF work ethic" as someone so eloquently put it. Plus, unguardable by 99.8% of this era's players(Rodman comes to mind, anyone else stick out at you for being remarkably efficient at guarding shaq 1-1?, maybe i overstated that a bit?) You Simpily HAVE TO double Team this guy opening up automatic 17 footers for everyone. Hmmm maybe I should 'Manu' Shaq so he's rotating in with Miller and Bird. Kareem? what needs to be said? All-time leading Scorer.


...would beat the crap out of anyone!

So because I still have 2 bench spots I pick up Charles Barkley for 3 and 4 man, with a little bit of 2 just incase you want to go big.

And well, im also of the philosophy that no team that has possessed an elite big man has ever gone sub .500 on the season, so why not include the Center with the widest skill set of them all, Hakeem Olajuwon baby!

So yeah, its remarkably offensively minded while trying to include scorers that can score at an elite level without having to have posession all the time, guys like Nash, Jordan, Bird and Miller. Also, I aimed to bring the strongest players at specific modes and areas of scoring. Miller and Bird and Nash from Long range and/or off screens, Jordan from Anywhere inside the 3pt line, Shaq on the Low block, Malone on the high, Hakeem from the baseline. Alcindor in the Paint, Duncan just below the elbow(off the glass of course)Lebron on the Drive, Barkley off the offensive rebound ect...

So what do you think? Guys like Jordan and Malone never played in such a fastbreak system, do you think they could have attained such legendary status under such a system?

The way i look at it? These guys would have been the best at WHATEVER they chose to do in life, be it basketball or plumbing.

So anyways, thats my 'My team's better than your team" bit for the year. Who's up next?

[AlexBrady]

Re: Controversy??...My Lists and Some Explainatins For...

Fonzarelli, the old axiom is that a great defense can generate sufficient offense. While the reverse isn't necessarily true.

That fantasy team features big time players, but it wouldn't be totally cohesive. Magic wanted to play in transition and early offense. With the exception of Jordan, the other starters (Bird, Duncan, Shaq) were not runners. Duncan's jumper has always been slightly flat, so with Shaq parked in the post he would have to rely on too many of those. Magic, Bird, Duncan, and Shaq could also be the targets of opposing offenses in iso situations.

Off the bench, the players don't exactly complement each other. Nash and LeBron would be the primary ballhandlers, but these guys want to operate with the middle open. Screen/rolls would be tough to run with Malone because Kareem is parked in the post. Malone and Kareem both preferred to set up on the left box. All five bench guys are less than average defenders in man to man situations.

Charles Barkley was too slow to play the 2 or 3. His ploy was to massage the ball for at least a five count before making any attack move. Belligerent rebounder. Defense wasn't part of his gameplan.
Hakeem was a face-and-go scorer. An outstanding rebounder and shot blocker.

Michael Jordan would have been successful in any type of gameplan. Karl Malone played in controlled half-court sets. Stockton used to set these monster back-screens to get him low post position. And of course, they ran the high screen/roll.

Would Nash have racked up more assists playing with Malone? Probably not, since Nash looked to shoot more often than Stockton ever did. Here is a bold statement, Stockton made Malone much better than he actually was.

Overall, that team has outstanding talent but not enough blue-collar role players with complementary skills.

[Dice]

Re: Controversy??...My Lists and Some Explainatins For...

That fantasy team features big time players, but it wouldn't be totally cohesive. Magic wanted to play in transition and early offense.

I think your wrong with your assessment on Magic. He's a player who would adjust his game to tailor to the team. When Mike Dunlevey took over as Laker coach in 1991, he revamped the Lakers offense and took out 'Showtime' and slowed down the Laker's offense. Magic became a low post threat and took them all the way to the NBA Finals that year. I know what you mean about others who cannot adjust their game to tailor their team, but I think Magic is another player who could play any style.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Controversy??...My Lists and Some Explainatins For...

I think your wrong with your assessment on Magic. He's a player who would adjust his game to tailor to the team. When Mike Dunlevey took over as Laker coach in 1991, he revamped the Lakers offense and took out 'Showtime' and slowed down the Laker's offense. Magic became a low post threat and took them all the way to the NBA Finals that year. I know what you mean about others who cannot adjust their game to tailor their team, but I think Magic is another player who could play any style.

You're right, Magic was still outstanding in Mike Dunleavy's game plan. That offense wanted to milk mismatches and play one on one ball. Problem is that they only utilized one or two players at any given time, while the other three guys were just standing around. In a system like that, there is simply too much pressure on the players to make shots. Ultimately, it wasn't nearly good enough to beat a defense like the Bulls.

So I do feel like Magic was at his absolute best on the run. Bird and Duncan weren't runners. So, on that team I would suggest moving MJ to small forward, putting Jerry West at two guard, and getting Dave DeBusschere at power forward. You got three guys to run with Magic (West, MJ, DeBusschere) and then should they not generate a good shot, you smoothly transition into the triangle with Shaq at the apex. A fast-slow gameplan.

With all time greats on your team, playing in a standard pro set (3 out 2 in) is a cop out.