|
United States4471 Posts
On July 12 2012 10:33 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 10:15 slyboogie wrote:
I actually don't see why everyone is so prepared to offer Roy Hibbert upwards of $12-$13 million on an escalator but balks at Brook at the same amount. They're wildly similar from a production standpoint, I would say Hibbert is marginally better at this point. Both are pretty limited in terms of their growth and neither is a double-digit win player. So...we have learned that the NBA overpays bigs. Hibbert is light years ahead of Brooks defensively and a great passer  @Cyric: I agree that controlling the paint is a big deal. But when contending for a championship just loading up on size hasn't been a good idea in the NBA for almost a decade now. Too many top tier perimeter players get to the rim and eat front lines alive. Better to get a strong wing defender and pair him with a big to make both of their lives easier imo.
Well, I don't think that loading up on size is the key. My point is that controlling the point is the key to winning in the postseason, controlling the paint requires an advantage in the frontcourt, having an advantage in the frontcourt requires having talented PFs and Cs, there are relatively few talented PFs and Cs in the league, and so talented PFs and Cs are going to be expensive.
Agree with you that you need strong wing defenders these days too, but having a frontcourt that can control the paint can go a long way to making defense easier for wings. Just look at how BOS was able to have a dominant defense despite having Ray and Pierce out on the perimeter, neither of whom would be considered top-tier wing defenders. The same goes for how D12 was able to cover up for the defense of Jameer, Turkoglu and Rashard during their best years. I think wing defenders are important, but there are more players capable of filling that role in the league than there are bigs who can give you an advantage in the paint, and controlling the paint can make defending the perimeter a lot easier.
A good frontcourt can make up for average wing defenders, but good wing defenders can't make up for an average frontcourt. Obviously, you'd want to be good at both, but talent in your frontcourt is the way to go if you have to pick between them.
|
Well, they got Gerald Wallace for a nice price now that I think about it. Honestly it's the Joe Johnson contract that really hampers them. Add in the Lopez contract and they have to let him be the #1 option offensively and play heavy minutes to speed up his development. Need to justify that 61 M!
|
When you say it like that--Jesus! Brook Lopez is your #1 option and defensive anchor.
Hello Brooklyn indeed...
|
D. Will is pretty stoked right now.
|
Deron Williams - Joe Johnson - Gerald Wallace - Kris Humphries - Brook Lopez.
That's not a bad team at all.
|
On July 12 2012 10:33 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 10:15 slyboogie wrote:
I actually don't see why everyone is so prepared to offer Roy Hibbert upwards of $12-$13 million on an escalator but balks at Brook at the same amount. They're wildly similar from a production standpoint, I would say Hibbert is marginally better at this point. Both are pretty limited in terms of their growth and neither is a double-digit win player. So...we have learned that the NBA overpays bigs. Hibbert is light years ahead of Brooks defensively and a great passer @Cyric: I agree that controlling the paint is a big deal. But when contending for a championship just loading up on size hasn't been a good idea in the NBA for almost a decade now. Too many top tier perimeter players get to the rim and eat front lines alive. Better to get a strong wing defender and pair him with a big to make both of their lives easier imo.
Loading up on size, maybe not, but the vast majority of title teams in the last decade have had an exceptional to elite big man on them. Miami and Lakers had Shaq, Lakers later had Gasol and Bynum, San Antonio has Duncan, Mavs had Dirk and Chandler, etc. Championship winners tend to atleast have ONE very very good big man on the team.
|
On July 12 2012 10:18 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 13:18 shawster wrote:On July 11 2012 12:57 Durp wrote:On July 11 2012 12:45 BlueRoyaL wrote:On July 11 2012 12:02 QTIP. wrote:On July 11 2012 12:00 thuracine wrote:
To soon to call for the repeat. Curious on how LBJ conditioning with hold up next season, playing in the Olympics and a full NBA season with the type of minutes he plays. I know Kobe had some trouble with this after the 08 Olympics who only does what half of what LBJ does on the floor. LBJ is young and made of adamantium. He is virtually indestructible. I'm sure his body will hold just fine. In all seriousness, with the exception of that ghost elbow injury and the severe cramps during this years Finals, I have never seen Lebron's body fail him. He is the pinnacle of raw athletic ability in the NBA right now. ive heard randomly from all over the place that he is the pinnacle of raw athletic ability in the history of the game. is this true? I'm not remotely an LBJ fan (which has been well documented in the NBA playoffs thread) but I'd say he's the pinnacle of raw athletic ability in just about any pro sport. I can't think of a single player in any sport (Demarcus Ware is the closest to pop to mind) that matches LBJ's freak-of-nature athleticism. The guy who said he's made of adamantium had me laughing, and it wouldn't surprise me at all. LBJ kind of reminds me of the T-1000 from Terminator 2: Judgement Day. football has some great strong athletes. cam newton is a hell of a specimen. adrian peterson as well. recently rg3 had a 4.4 40yard dash and a 39 inch vertical and the dudes a quarter back. granted rg3 is like 6 inches shorter than lebron, but cam newton is the closest to lebron imo. 6'5 hella strong fast Best raw athlete in the NFL is Calvin Johnson
how could i forget about megatron
the dudes a dirttttty beast. 6'5 4.35 42.5 vert at 240 pounds.
|
Woah... why in the world did Indiana do that trade with Dallas..?
|
On July 12 2012 12:31 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 10:33 Ace wrote:On July 12 2012 10:15 slyboogie wrote:
I actually don't see why everyone is so prepared to offer Roy Hibbert upwards of $12-$13 million on an escalator but balks at Brook at the same amount. They're wildly similar from a production standpoint, I would say Hibbert is marginally better at this point. Both are pretty limited in terms of their growth and neither is a double-digit win player. So...we have learned that the NBA overpays bigs. Hibbert is light years ahead of Brooks defensively and a great passer @Cyric: I agree that controlling the paint is a big deal. But when contending for a championship just loading up on size hasn't been a good idea in the NBA for almost a decade now. Too many top tier perimeter players get to the rim and eat front lines alive. Better to get a strong wing defender and pair him with a big to make both of their lives easier imo. Loading up on size, maybe not, but the vast majority of title teams in the last decade have had an exceptional to elite big man on them. Miami and Lakers had Shaq, Lakers later had Gasol and Bynum, San Antonio has Duncan, Mavs had Dirk and Chandler, etc. Championship winners tend to atleast have ONE very very good big man on the team.
they also tend to have a top ranked wing player too
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5905Q.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Se8Jg.png)
yaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
|
|
|
FML. Nash is no Luke Skywalker.
|
On July 12 2012 12:49 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 12:31 TwoToneTerran wrote:On July 12 2012 10:33 Ace wrote:On July 12 2012 10:15 slyboogie wrote:
I actually don't see why everyone is so prepared to offer Roy Hibbert upwards of $12-$13 million on an escalator but balks at Brook at the same amount. They're wildly similar from a production standpoint, I would say Hibbert is marginally better at this point. Both are pretty limited in terms of their growth and neither is a double-digit win player. So...we have learned that the NBA overpays bigs. Hibbert is light years ahead of Brooks defensively and a great passer @Cyric: I agree that controlling the paint is a big deal. But when contending for a championship just loading up on size hasn't been a good idea in the NBA for almost a decade now. Too many top tier perimeter players get to the rim and eat front lines alive. Better to get a strong wing defender and pair him with a big to make both of their lives easier imo. Loading up on size, maybe not, but the vast majority of title teams in the last decade have had an exceptional to elite big man on them. Miami and Lakers had Shaq, Lakers later had Gasol and Bynum, San Antonio has Duncan, Mavs had Dirk and Chandler, etc. Championship winners tend to atleast have ONE very very good big man on the team. they also tend to have a top ranked wing player too
Right, so all positions are very valuable and you can win a title stacking up on elite talent of any size and speed! :D
The Mavs didn't really have an elite wing player, though, even if Jet played really well. :p And would you really call Wade a wing player? I know he's a SG, but still, the only "wing" part of his game are hero shots and having to technically walk from the wing to get to the paint where he scores, lol.
Hmm, was there an elite wing player on the first Spurs title? I know Manu was there, but he wasn't really a top guard at that point. They had a bunch of dudes who rotated there but I can't remember if any of them were actually prime contributors and top players.
edit: I'm not trying to be petulant or anything, just seeing if there actually is a fairly consistent "formula" for the majority of title winning teams over the past decade. Offseason boredom.
|
United States4471 Posts
Sean Elliot? My memory isn't too clear either and I'm too lazy to look it up.
|
Spurs had Malik Rose and Sean Elliot.
|
|
|
Wasn't talking 1999, he said last decade. Was talking about 02-03. My bad, I did say "first" which was really misleading.
And hell, Sean Elliot was far from a top player at his position during the 1999 title season, for what that's worth as well.
|
They had Bruce Bowen, Stephen Jackson playing 32+ minutes, Ginobili with 27 minutes and Mailk Rose playing 23 minutes. Those are pretty solid wings, at least better than what the Nets will be putting with JJ/Wallace/Brooks next year.
and elite wing players can be linked back to when Jordan was first claiming his championships over the giants of the 90's. Only the 94' Houstan rockets didn't have a top tier wing player, and I don't know enough about Robert Horry, Vernon Maxwell, Mario Elie, to judge their abilities back then.
The year after they got Clyde The Glide.
|
United States10328 Posts
On July 12 2012 14:29 krndandaman wrote:
anyone willing to start a nba fantasy league?
espn? yahoo?
head to head, or ranking
I might do yahoo
|
On July 12 2012 17:07 Holcan wrote:
They had Bruce Bowen, Stephen Jackson playing 32+ minutes, Ginobili with 27 minutes and Mailk Rose playing 23 minutes. Those are pretty solid wings, at least better than what the Nets will be putting with JJ/Wallace/Brooks next year.
and elite wing players can be linked back to when Jordan was first claiming his championships over the giants of the 90's. Only the 94' Houstan rockets didn't have a top tier wing player, and I don't know enough about Robert Horry, Vernon Maxwell, Mario Elie, to judge their abilities back then.
The year after they got Clyde The Glide.
Stephen Jackson wasn't even a great player until he left San Antonio the following year. The inverse is true for Malik Rose (that year was probably the best of his career averaging 10/6), but definitely not top tier. They had a bunch of solid guys on a fairly deep rotation, nothing elite at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
