CB Historical Draft - Team Rosters/Panelists Comments

[Fan from VT]

Chemistry & compatability are two factors that have played a huge role in my drafting so far.  I want guys that will complement each other well rather than, necessarily, a team of all-stars.  We saw in recent Olympics and World Championships before '08 how a team of all-stars fares.  I pretty much took that philosophy and extended it here.  I want role players and guys who excelled at the very highest levels (Olympics & NBA Finals) but who also fit in and seem to know their roles.  From a matchup standpoint, I really don't think its going to hurt me because I can mix & match these guys to cater to whatever they're going up against.  

My three cents.

And therein lies the question. How did the '08 Olympic Team and Dream Team and the team after the Dream Team succeed while so many others failed. To me it isn't quality of role player nearly as much as quality of character of the player that was the difference with those teams.

For that reason I tried like hell to fill my roster with the absolute best talent but stayed away from players(for the most part) that were head cases or locker room problems(Marion maybe the only exception) or were super ball dominant players. Almost every player on my team played with other superstars or on star laden teams and had to sacrifice their games accordingly at some point in their careers. To me that shows they are superstar level players that get "it" much like the players on the Dream and Redeem Teams were where so many other Olympic and World Championship teams weren't.

I also love Dons approach as well and think it works tremendously. I won't pick out any other team but there are teams that have multiple ball dominant players that have never been known to acquiesce to others. That will be a huge problem chemistry wise for those teams.  

This was my approach as well. I do think "role players" get pretty overrated in the NBA today...well, not overrated compared to other players of this era or compared to "value," but compared to other players of the past.

So once a team wins a title, we all like to retroactively construct the narrative of how each component of the title run was necessary for the championship, as well as simultaneously concluding that any alterations to any of those components would have meant no title.

In today's NBA, role players always end up being valuable, but more because of the salary structure of the NBA: you can't have that many great players on one team and pay them all.

(Let's be clear, though, at the same time there are certain types of stars: those that love sharing the ball and winning (high character high efficiency stars) and those that need to "get there's." I think it's clear that Golden State tried to stack their squad with multi-dimensional high-character guys who do their thing efficiently.)

But because of the salary structure, by definition A particular role player will be important to a championship team, not necessarily because that role player is vital to the team's success, but because the NBA requires that role players be a part of the team.

Take Robert Horry. Yes, he made plays that contributed to several Spurs titles. So now the story goes the Spurs needed his particular plays in order to win the title. I would argue two things: 1. It is a thousand times more the case that Horry needed Manu, Parker, and Duncan to win the title more than they needed Horry, and 2. Had Horry been replaced with a better player who had a good attitude (say, KG), the championship run would have unfolded in an unforeseeable way, but they very likely would still have won the title without needing the specific clutch plays Horry provided.

Another example: PJ Brown.

Fact: C's do not win the title if PJ Brown doesn't make his 4th quarter jumpers.

Myth: No matter what, there was going to be a need for those jumpers.

Myth 2: Only PJ Brown had the exact skill set to make those jumpers

Myth 3: No other player in that position would have netted the title, as events needed to unfold exactly as they did in order to win.

So what if we swapped out PJ Brown and threw in in-his-prime Marcus Camby? Camby can certainly drain elbow jumpers. But let's be honest, do we need elbow jumpers if we have Prime Marcus Camby for 7 games? And you might say Camby would be unhappy coming off the bench behind Perk. Well, as Nick pointed out, What are his options? Camby has a great attitude, so players of his skill level in this league cannot start for another team (they're all all-time teams) so they know they're bench players. Point is, on the floor, Camby's a great team player. And besides, this is an all-time team, so he's not sitting behind Perk, his sitting behind DPOY/In Prime Alonzo Mourning.

This is not to bash Don's picks. Horry was a very good pick, a good all-round player with a good attitude. My point is that just because Horry was a good all round player with a good attitude who happened to have the good luck to sign with several elite teams does not mean that a BETTER all round good player with a good attitude also could have won titles...just that, financially, the spurs couldn't fit him into their team.

In conclusion, I think it's more important to consider the skills and teamsmanship/general attitude of players and not as much the retroactively placed "elite role player" tag in and of itself.

[Roy Hobbs]

Chemistry & compatability are two factors that have played a huge role in my drafting so far.  I want guys that will complement each other well rather than, necessarily, a team of all-stars.  We saw in recent Olympics and World Championships before '08 how a team of all-stars fares.  I pretty much took that philosophy and extended it here.  I want role players and guys who excelled at the very highest levels (Olympics & NBA Finals) but who also fit in and seem to know their roles.  From a matchup standpoint, I really don't think its going to hurt me because I can mix & match these guys to cater to whatever they're going up against.  

My three cents.

And therein lies the question. How did the '08 Olympic Team and Dream Team and the team after the Dream Team succeed while so many others failed. To me it isn't quality of role player nearly as much as quality of character of the player that was the difference with those teams.

For that reason I tried like hell to fill my roster with the absolute best talent but stayed away from players(for the most part) that were head cases or locker room problems(Marion maybe the only exception) or were super ball dominant players. Almost every player on my team played with other superstars or on star laden teams and had to sacrifice their games accordingly at some point in their careers. To me that shows they are superstar level players that get "it" much like the players on the Dream and Redeem Teams were where so many other Olympic and World Championship teams weren't.

I also love Dons approach as well and think it works tremendously. I won't pick out any other team but there are teams that have multiple ball dominant players that have never been known to acquiesce to others. That will be a huge problem chemistry wise for those teams.  

This was my approach as well. I do think "role players" get pretty overrated in the NBA today...well, not overrated compared to other players of this era or compared to "value," but compared to other players of the past.

So once a team wins a title, we all like to retroactively construct the narrative of how each component of the title run was necessary for the championship, as well as simultaneously concluding that any alterations to any of those components would have meant no title.

In today's NBA, role players always end up being valuable, but more because of the salary structure of the NBA: you can't have that many great players on one team and pay them all.

(Let's be clear, though, at the same time there are certain types of stars: those that love sharing the ball and winning (high character high efficiency stars) and those that need to "get there's." I think it's clear that Golden State tried to stack their squad with multi-dimensional high-character guys who do their thing efficiently.)

But because of the salary structure, by definition A particular role player will be important to a championship team, not necessarily because that role player is vital to the team's success, but because the NBA requires that role players be a part of the team.

Take Robert Horry. Yes, he made plays that contributed to several Spurs titles. So now the story goes the Spurs needed his particular plays in order to win the title. I would argue two things: 1. It is a thousand times more the case that Horry needed Manu, Parker, and Duncan to win the title more than they needed Horry, and 2. Had Horry been replaced with a better player who had a good attitude (say, KG), the championship run would have unfolded in an unforeseeable way, but they very likely would still have won the title without needing the specific clutch plays Horry provided.

Another example: PJ Brown.

Fact: C's do not win the title if PJ Brown doesn't make his 4th quarter jumpers.

Myth: No matter what, there was going to be a need for those jumpers.

Myth 2: Only PJ Brown had the exact skill set to make those jumpers

Myth 3: No other player in that position would have netted the title, as events needed to unfold exactly as they did in order to win.

So what if we swapped out PJ Brown and threw in in-his-prime Marcus Camby? Camby can certainly drain elbow jumpers. But let's be honest, do we need elbow jumpers if we have Prime Marcus Camby for 7 games? And you might say Camby would be unhappy coming off the bench behind Perk. Well, as Nick pointed out, What are his options? Camby has a great attitude, so players of his skill level in this league cannot start for another team (they're all all-time teams) so they know they're bench players. Point is, on the floor, Camby's a great team player. And besides, this is an all-time team, so he's not sitting behind Perk, his sitting behind DPOY/In Prime Alonzo Mourning.

This is not to bash Don's picks. Horry was a very good pick, a good all-round player with a good attitude. My point is that just because Horry was a good all round player with a good attitude who happened to have the good luck to sign with several elite teams does not mean that a BETTER all round good player with a good attitude also could have won titles...just that, financially, the spurs couldn't fit him into their team.

In conclusion, I think it's more important to consider the skills and teamsmanship/general attitude of players and not as much the retroactively placed "elite role player" tag in and of itself.

Take a guy like Steve Kerr, though.  There's no doubt that he doesn't have the all-around game of the overwhelming majority of the players selected so far.  In fact, Steve Kerr may be the very worst all-around player selected thus far.  However, he fills a role:  he is an elite three point shooter (one of the best, if not the best, of all time), and he hit clutch shots.

Now, when you're talking about the 11th or 12th player on a roster, would you rather have the guy who can fit a role and can handle a particular game situation masterfully, or would you better have a better all-around player even though there are already two or three other all-time greats ahead of him on the depth chart?

[Who]

East

No particular order


Bobcats
Bucks
Nets  most likely my favorites..

West

Golden state
blazers
spurs
jazz

The west is Tough

more of this later on

Just so that you know the Jazz have three former MVPs on their roster. The only team with that as many as that. They also have 4 members of the NBA's 50 Greatest Players list, again the only team with an amount that high.

Nothing major. Just a couple little tidbits I thought you might like to know.

1990 Moses wasn't quite MVP caliber, though.  If anything, isn't he a bit of a question mark, having to swallow his pride and come off the bench?

Of course, almost every team has superstars coming off their bench, so the questions of role / chemistry are mitigated a bit.  I will say, though, that I like Dons strategy of grabbing all-time great role players in the late rounds.

Moses Malone wouldn't be in my first choice rotation. I would play McDyess all of the backup big man minutes and switch Dirk to the center position while Shaq rests.

[Eja117]

Chemistry & compatability are two factors that have played a huge role in my drafting so far.  I want guys that will complement each other well rather than, necessarily, a team of all-stars.  We saw in recent Olympics and World Championships before '08 how a team of all-stars fares.  I pretty much took that philosophy and extended it here.  I want role players and guys who excelled at the very highest levels (Olympics & NBA Finals) but who also fit in and seem to know their roles.  From a matchup standpoint, I really don't think its going to hurt me because I can mix & match these guys to cater to whatever they're going up against.  

My three cents.

And therein lies the question. How did the '08 Olympic Team and Dream Team and the team after the Dream Team succeed while so many others failed. To me it isn't quality of role player nearly as much as quality of character of the player that was the difference with those teams.

For that reason I tried like hell to fill my roster with the absolute best talent but stayed away from players(for the most part) that were head cases or locker room problems(Marion maybe the only exception) or were super ball dominant players. Almost every player on my team played with other superstars or on star laden teams and had to sacrifice their games accordingly at some point in their careers. To me that shows they are superstar level players that get "it" much like the players on the Dream and Redeem Teams were where so many other Olympic and World Championship teams weren't.

I also love Dons approach as well and think it works tremendously. I won't pick out any other team but there are teams that have multiple ball dominant players that have never been known to acquiesce to others. That will be a huge problem chemistry wise for those teams.  

This was my approach as well. I do think "role players" get pretty overrated in the NBA today...well, not overrated compared to other players of this era or compared to "value," but compared to other players of the past.

So once a team wins a title, we all like to retroactively construct the narrative of how each component of the title run was necessary for the championship, as well as simultaneously concluding that any alterations to any of those components would have meant no title.

In today's NBA, role players always end up being valuable, but more because of the salary structure of the NBA: you can't have that many great players on one team and pay them all.

(Let's be clear, though, at the same time there are certain types of stars: those that love sharing the ball and winning (high character high efficiency stars) and those that need to "get there's." I think it's clear that Golden State tried to stack their squad with multi-dimensional high-character guys who do their thing efficiently.)

But because of the salary structure, by definition A particular role player will be important to a championship team, not necessarily because that role player is vital to the team's success, but because the NBA requires that role players be a part of the team.

Take Robert Horry. Yes, he made plays that contributed to several Spurs titles. So now the story goes the Spurs needed his particular plays in order to win the title. I would argue two things: 1. It is a thousand times more the case that Horry needed Manu, Parker, and Duncan to win the title more than they needed Horry, and 2. Had Horry been replaced with a better player who had a good attitude (say, KG), the championship run would have unfolded in an unforeseeable way, but they very likely would still have won the title without needing the specific clutch plays Horry provided.

Another example: PJ Brown.

Fact: C's do not win the title if PJ Brown doesn't make his 4th quarter jumpers.

Myth: No matter what, there was going to be a need for those jumpers.

Myth 2: Only PJ Brown had the exact skill set to make those jumpers

Myth 3: No other player in that position would have netted the title, as events needed to unfold exactly as they did in order to win.

So what if we swapped out PJ Brown and threw in in-his-prime Marcus Camby? Camby can certainly drain elbow jumpers. But let's be honest, do we need elbow jumpers if we have Prime Marcus Camby for 7 games? And you might say Camby would be unhappy coming off the bench behind Perk. Well, as Nick pointed out, What are his options? Camby has a great attitude, so players of his skill level in this league cannot start for another team (they're all all-time teams) so they know they're bench players. Point is, on the floor, Camby's a great team player. And besides, this is an all-time team, so he's not sitting behind Perk, his sitting behind DPOY/In Prime Alonzo Mourning.

This is not to bash Don's picks. Horry was a very good pick, a good all-round player with a good attitude. My point is that just because Horry was a good all round player with a good attitude who happened to have the good luck to sign with several elite teams does not mean that a BETTER all round good player with a good attitude also could have won titles...just that, financially, the spurs couldn't fit him into their team.

In conclusion, I think it's more important to consider the skills and teamsmanship/general attitude of players and not as much the retroactively placed "elite role player" tag in and of itself.

Take a guy like Steve Kerr, though.  There's no doubt that he doesn't have the all-around game of the overwhelming majority of the players selected so far.  In fact, Steve Kerr may be the very worst all-around player selected thus far.  However, he fills a role:  he is an elite three point shooter (one of the best, if not the best, of all time), and he hit clutch shots.

Now, when you're talking about the 11th or 12th player on a roster, would you rather have the guy who can fit a role and can handle a particular game situation masterfully, or would you better have a better all-around player even though there are already two or three other all-time greats ahead of him on the depth chart?

As much as I don't love conceding the point I think you're right.

Sorry to barge in on a thread.

But you're right.

We're seeing that with Eddie House vs Nate Robinson right now. Eddie would be great to have in the playoffs right now.

Also think of Steve Kerr vs Marquis Daniels.

I just can't think of lots of situations where you'd rather have a better all around player.

Michael Finley a year ago vs Steve Kerr?  I don't know.

[Fan from VT]

Chemistry & compatability are two factors that have played a huge role in my drafting so far.  I want guys that will complement each other well rather than, necessarily, a team of all-stars.  We saw in recent Olympics and World Championships before '08 how a team of all-stars fares.  I pretty much took that philosophy and extended it here.  I want role players and guys who excelled at the very highest levels (Olympics & NBA Finals) but who also fit in and seem to know their roles.  From a matchup standpoint, I really don't think its going to hurt me because I can mix & match these guys to cater to whatever they're going up against.  

My three cents.

And therein lies the question. How did the '08 Olympic Team and Dream Team and the team after the Dream Team succeed while so many others failed. To me it isn't quality of role player nearly as much as quality of character of the player that was the difference with those teams.

For that reason I tried like hell to fill my roster with the absolute best talent but stayed away from players(for the most part) that were head cases or locker room problems(Marion maybe the only exception) or were super ball dominant players. Almost every player on my team played with other superstars or on star laden teams and had to sacrifice their games accordingly at some point in their careers. To me that shows they are superstar level players that get "it" much like the players on the Dream and Redeem Teams were where so many other Olympic and World Championship teams weren't.

I also love Dons approach as well and think it works tremendously. I won't pick out any other team but there are teams that have multiple ball dominant players that have never been known to acquiesce to others. That will be a huge problem chemistry wise for those teams.  

This was my approach as well. I do think "role players" get pretty overrated in the NBA today...well, not overrated compared to other players of this era or compared to "value," but compared to other players of the past.

So once a team wins a title, we all like to retroactively construct the narrative of how each component of the title run was necessary for the championship, as well as simultaneously concluding that any alterations to any of those components would have meant no title.

In today's NBA, role players always end up being valuable, but more because of the salary structure of the NBA: you can't have that many great players on one team and pay them all.

(Let's be clear, though, at the same time there are certain types of stars: those that love sharing the ball and winning (high character high efficiency stars) and those that need to "get there's." I think it's clear that Golden State tried to stack their squad with multi-dimensional high-character guys who do their thing efficiently.)

But because of the salary structure, by definition A particular role player will be important to a championship team, not necessarily because that role player is vital to the team's success, but because the NBA requires that role players be a part of the team.

Take Robert Horry. Yes, he made plays that contributed to several Spurs titles. So now the story goes the Spurs needed his particular plays in order to win the title. I would argue two things: 1. It is a thousand times more the case that Horry needed Manu, Parker, and Duncan to win the title more than they needed Horry, and 2. Had Horry been replaced with a better player who had a good attitude (say, KG), the championship run would have unfolded in an unforeseeable way, but they very likely would still have won the title without needing the specific clutch plays Horry provided.

Another example: PJ Brown.

Fact: C's do not win the title if PJ Brown doesn't make his 4th quarter jumpers.

Myth: No matter what, there was going to be a need for those jumpers.

Myth 2: Only PJ Brown had the exact skill set to make those jumpers

Myth 3: No other player in that position would have netted the title, as events needed to unfold exactly as they did in order to win.

So what if we swapped out PJ Brown and threw in in-his-prime Marcus Camby? Camby can certainly drain elbow jumpers. But let's be honest, do we need elbow jumpers if we have Prime Marcus Camby for 7 games? And you might say Camby would be unhappy coming off the bench behind Perk. Well, as Nick pointed out, What are his options? Camby has a great attitude, so players of his skill level in this league cannot start for another team (they're all all-time teams) so they know they're bench players. Point is, on the floor, Camby's a great team player. And besides, this is an all-time team, so he's not sitting behind Perk, his sitting behind DPOY/In Prime Alonzo Mourning.

This is not to bash Don's picks. Horry was a very good pick, a good all-round player with a good attitude. My point is that just because Horry was a good all round player with a good attitude who happened to have the good luck to sign with several elite teams does not mean that a BETTER all round good player with a good attitude also could have won titles...just that, financially, the spurs couldn't fit him into their team.

In conclusion, I think it's more important to consider the skills and teamsmanship/general attitude of players and not as much the retroactively placed "elite role player" tag in and of itself.

Take a guy like Steve Kerr, though.  There's no doubt that he doesn't have the all-around game of the overwhelming majority of the players selected so far.  In fact, Steve Kerr may be the very worst all-around player selected thus far.  However, he fills a role:  he is an elite three point shooter (one of the best, if not the best, of all time), and he hit clutch shots.

Now, when you're talking about the 11th or 12th player on a roster, would you rather have the guy who can fit a role and can handle a particular game situation masterfully, or would you better have a better all-around player even though there are already two or three other all-time greats ahead of him on the depth chart?

True. I'd consider Steve Kerr to be a slightly different situation because he does his one thing at a level higher than many all-round players. I'm more addressing the all-round "role player" label, the Bowen/Battier/Horry types that have been picked.

In this hypothetical league, sure, Kerr would be great for if you were down 3 and needed a team of three point shooters and he absolutely doesn't need to shoot over anyone or create off the dribble or fall back on defense against these other tough teams. But he could be valuable in that way.

Horry, on the other hands, doesn't really do anything except "hit clutch shots" at an all-time level, so I think he's quite replaceable. after all, he's missed a lot of clutch shots too (we just don't remember those) and such a reputation is largely based on selective memory and opportunities created by the stars on his team. So I do think there are lots of players that would be better than him.

But the Kerr example is a good one, since he has a definable skill that is at an all-time level and could therefor be used for very specific situations. Of course, if there's a bunch of injuries and he has to start or play a significant part of any game, THEN there's trouble.

[wdleehi]

Horry was also a pretty good defender. 

A great role player to have as the 11th or 12th man.

[Donoghus]

I think when it comes to filling out my team, roster spots 11-15 should be fine to be filled out with role players rather than stars.

I still got guys who'd you consider great all-around players coming off my bench and will be in my rotation (Ginobili, Rondo, Granger, Sabonis).  Its not like I'm relying on the true role players to play extended minutes here.  

Each of them (my role players) seem to fill a need or speciality.  3 point shooting, perimeter defense, interior defense, etc...  These guys will be playing when the situation dictates, not necessarily regular rotation minutes.  I really think from a chemisty & compatability standpoint, filling out the end of my roster with situational guys is a very low risk move.  

[Fan from VT]

Chemistry & compatability are two factors that have played a huge role in my drafting so far.  I want guys that will complement each other well rather than, necessarily, a team of all-stars.  We saw in recent Olympics and World Championships before '08 how a team of all-stars fares.  I pretty much took that philosophy and extended it here.  I want role players and guys who excelled at the very highest levels (Olympics & NBA Finals) but who also fit in and seem to know their roles.  From a matchup standpoint, I really don't think its going to hurt me because I can mix & match these guys to cater to whatever they're going up against.  

My three cents.

And therein lies the question. How did the '08 Olympic Team and Dream Team and the team after the Dream Team succeed while so many others failed. To me it isn't quality of role player nearly as much as quality of character of the player that was the difference with those teams.

For that reason I tried like hell to fill my roster with the absolute best talent but stayed away from players(for the most part) that were head cases or locker room problems(Marion maybe the only exception) or were super ball dominant players. Almost every player on my team played with other superstars or on star laden teams and had to sacrifice their games accordingly at some point in their careers. To me that shows they are superstar level players that get "it" much like the players on the Dream and Redeem Teams were where so many other Olympic and World Championship teams weren't.

I also love Dons approach as well and think it works tremendously. I won't pick out any other team but there are teams that have multiple ball dominant players that have never been known to acquiesce to others. That will be a huge problem chemistry wise for those teams.  

This was my approach as well. I do think "role players" get pretty overrated in the NBA today...well, not overrated compared to other players of this era or compared to "value," but compared to other players of the past.

So once a team wins a title, we all like to retroactively construct the narrative of how each component of the title run was necessary for the championship, as well as simultaneously concluding that any alterations to any of those components would have meant no title.

In today's NBA, role players always end up being valuable, but more because of the salary structure of the NBA: you can't have that many great players on one team and pay them all.

(Let's be clear, though, at the same time there are certain types of stars: those that love sharing the ball and winning (high character high efficiency stars) and those that need to "get there's." I think it's clear that Golden State tried to stack their squad with multi-dimensional high-character guys who do their thing efficiently.)

But because of the salary structure, by definition A particular role player will be important to a championship team, not necessarily because that role player is vital to the team's success, but because the NBA requires that role players be a part of the team.

Take Robert Horry. Yes, he made plays that contributed to several Spurs titles. So now the story goes the Spurs needed his particular plays in order to win the title. I would argue two things: 1. It is a thousand times more the case that Horry needed Manu, Parker, and Duncan to win the title more than they needed Horry, and 2. Had Horry been replaced with a better player who had a good attitude (say, KG), the championship run would have unfolded in an unforeseeable way, but they very likely would still have won the title without needing the specific clutch plays Horry provided.

Another example: PJ Brown.

Fact: C's do not win the title if PJ Brown doesn't make his 4th quarter jumpers.

Myth: No matter what, there was going to be a need for those jumpers.

Myth 2: Only PJ Brown had the exact skill set to make those jumpers

Myth 3: No other player in that position would have netted the title, as events needed to unfold exactly as they did in order to win.

So what if we swapped out PJ Brown and threw in in-his-prime Marcus Camby? Camby can certainly drain elbow jumpers. But let's be honest, do we need elbow jumpers if we have Prime Marcus Camby for 7 games? And you might say Camby would be unhappy coming off the bench behind Perk. Well, as Nick pointed out, What are his options? Camby has a great attitude, so players of his skill level in this league cannot start for another team (they're all all-time teams) so they know they're bench players. Point is, on the floor, Camby's a great team player. And besides, this is an all-time team, so he's not sitting behind Perk, his sitting behind DPOY/In Prime Alonzo Mourning.

This is not to bash Don's picks. Horry was a very good pick, a good all-round player with a good attitude. My point is that just because Horry was a good all round player with a good attitude who happened to have the good luck to sign with several elite teams does not mean that a BETTER all round good player with a good attitude also could have won titles...just that, financially, the spurs couldn't fit him into their team.

In conclusion, I think it's more important to consider the skills and teamsmanship/general attitude of players and not as much the retroactively placed "elite role player" tag in and of itself.

Take a guy like Steve Kerr, though.  There's no doubt that he doesn't have the all-around game of the overwhelming majority of the players selected so far.  In fact, Steve Kerr may be the very worst all-around player selected thus far.  However, he fills a role:  he is an elite three point shooter (one of the best, if not the best, of all time), and he hit clutch shots.

Now, when you're talking about the 11th or 12th player on a roster, would you rather have the guy who can fit a role and can handle a particular game situation masterfully, or would you better have a better all-around player even though there are already two or three other all-time greats ahead of him on the depth chart?

As much as I don't love conceding the point I think you're right.

Sorry to barge in on a thread.

But you're right.

We're seeing that with Eddie House vs Nate Robinson right now. Eddie would be great to have in the playoffs right now.

Also think of Steve Kerr vs Marquis Daniels.

I just can't think of lots of situations where you'd rather have a better all around player.

Michael Finley a year ago vs Steve Kerr?  I don't know.

I replied to Roy's comment already, and Roy's point was a good one. To address yours, though, with these teams we're not comparing Kerr (single great skill) to an all round guy like Daniels (has some glaring holes in his game).

First, I was thinking of comparing one all-round guy who happened to be on great winning teams to BETTER all-round guys, who, because of the salary structure of the NBA were not asked to be in Horry's role, but could do as good (if not better) a job in our hypothetical league.

Second, with Kerr, a few things. We're not comparing Kerr to a guy like Daniels, who has major wholes in his game. We're comparing him to to several-time all-stars who also shoot very well from three. now, kerr did shoot about .525% from three for a year. Of course he still only was able to score about 8 per game because his opportunities needed to be created by others. But there are some questions: would he shoot as well if the opponents were all well-coached teams of uber-talented players? Would the team do as well if they were giving up certain things with one of their players being one dimensional and easier to plan for? As I said in my reply to Roy, Kerr would be very valuable in specific situations, but in others would be a HUGE liability in this league. Additionally, Kerr had the joy of shooting wide open threes. Many of these all-time players have very good 3 point percentages even though THEY were the ones getting double teamed/hoisting end-of-shot-clock shots. What would Mullin shoot from down-town if his guy were doubling Karl Malone for an entire season and all he had to do was shoot open set shots from chosen locations? Probably a really high, close to kerr percentage.

[Fan from VT]

I think when it comes to filling out my team, roster spots 11-15 should be fine to be filled out with role players rather than stars.

I still got guys who'd you consider great all-around players coming off my bench and will be in my rotation (Ginobili, Rondo, Granger, Sabonis).  Its not like I'm relying on the true role players to play extended minutes here.  

Each of them (my role players) seem to fill a need or speciality.  3 point shooting, perimeter defense, interior defense, etc...  These guys will be playing when the situation dictates, not necessarily regular rotation minutes.  I really think from a chemisty & compatability standpoint, filling out the end of my roster with situational guys is a very low risk move.  

I agree. I don't think you need to defend any of your choices. I'm speaking more about later on when/if people try to justify playing Bowen 25 mpg.

[nickagneta]

Chemistry & compatability are two factors that have played a huge role in my drafting so far.  I want guys that will complement each other well rather than, necessarily, a team of all-stars.  We saw in recent Olympics and World Championships before '08 how a team of all-stars fares.  I pretty much took that philosophy and extended it here.  I want role players and guys who excelled at the very highest levels (Olympics & NBA Finals) but who also fit in and seem to know their roles.  From a matchup standpoint, I really don't think its going to hurt me because I can mix & match these guys to cater to whatever they're going up against.  

My three cents.

And therein lies the question. How did the '08 Olympic Team and Dream Team and the team after the Dream Team succeed while so many others failed. To me it isn't quality of role player nearly as much as quality of character of the player that was the difference with those teams.

For that reason I tried like hell to fill my roster with the absolute best talent but stayed away from players(for the most part) that were head cases or locker room problems(Marion maybe the only exception) or were super ball dominant players. Almost every player on my team played with other superstars or on star laden teams and had to sacrifice their games accordingly at some point in their careers. To me that shows they are superstar level players that get "it" much like the players on the Dream and Redeem Teams were where so many other Olympic and World Championship teams weren't.

I also love Dons approach as well and think it works tremendously. I won't pick out any other team but there are teams that have multiple ball dominant players that have never been known to acquiesce to others. That will be a huge problem chemistry wise for those teams.  

This was my approach as well. I do think "role players" get pretty overrated in the NBA today...well, not overrated compared to other players of this era or compared to "value," but compared to other players of the past.

So once a team wins a title, we all like to retroactively construct the narrative of how each component of the title run was necessary for the championship, as well as simultaneously concluding that any alterations to any of those components would have meant no title.

In today's NBA, role players always end up being valuable, but more because of the salary structure of the NBA: you can't have that many great players on one team and pay them all.

(Let's be clear, though, at the same time there are certain types of stars: those that love sharing the ball and winning (high character high efficiency stars) and those that need to "get there's." I think it's clear that Golden State tried to stack their squad with multi-dimensional high-character guys who do their thing efficiently.)

But because of the salary structure, by definition A particular role player will be important to a championship team, not necessarily because that role player is vital to the team's success, but because the NBA requires that role players be a part of the team.

Take Robert Horry. Yes, he made plays that contributed to several Spurs titles. So now the story goes the Spurs needed his particular plays in order to win the title. I would argue two things: 1. It is a thousand times more the case that Horry needed Manu, Parker, and Duncan to win the title more than they needed Horry, and 2. Had Horry been replaced with a better player who had a good attitude (say, KG), the championship run would have unfolded in an unforeseeable way, but they very likely would still have won the title without needing the specific clutch plays Horry provided.

Another example: PJ Brown.

Fact: C's do not win the title if PJ Brown doesn't make his 4th quarter jumpers.

Myth: No matter what, there was going to be a need for those jumpers.

Myth 2: Only PJ Brown had the exact skill set to make those jumpers

Myth 3: No other player in that position would have netted the title, as events needed to unfold exactly as they did in order to win.

So what if we swapped out PJ Brown and threw in in-his-prime Marcus Camby? Camby can certainly drain elbow jumpers. But let's be honest, do we need elbow jumpers if we have Prime Marcus Camby for 7 games? And you might say Camby would be unhappy coming off the bench behind Perk. Well, as Nick pointed out, What are his options? Camby has a great attitude, so players of his skill level in this league cannot start for another team (they're all all-time teams) so they know they're bench players. Point is, on the floor, Camby's a great team player. And besides, this is an all-time team, so he's not sitting behind Perk, his sitting behind DPOY/In Prime Alonzo Mourning.

This is not to bash Don's picks. Horry was a very good pick, a good all-round player with a good attitude. My point is that just because Horry was a good all round player with a good attitude who happened to have the good luck to sign with several elite teams does not mean that a BETTER all round good player with a good attitude also could have won titles...just that, financially, the spurs couldn't fit him into their team.

In conclusion, I think it's more important to consider the skills and teamsmanship/general attitude of players and not as much the retroactively placed "elite role player" tag in and of itself.

Take a guy like Steve Kerr, though.  There's no doubt that he doesn't have the all-around game of the overwhelming majority of the players selected so far.  In fact, Steve Kerr may be the very worst all-around player selected thus far.  However, he fills a role:  he is an elite three point shooter (one of the best, if not the best, of all time), and he hit clutch shots.

Now, when you're talking about the 11th or 12th player on a roster, would you rather have the guy who can fit a role and can handle a particular game situation masterfully, or would you better have a better all-around player even though there are already two or three other all-time greats ahead of him on the depth chart?

But here's is where I think we differ.

Steve Kerr is a role player and you are lauding Dons drafting of role players for end of bench picks. You then say but wouldn't it be better to have a role player that was great at his particular skill than a better overall player that might not be able to fill that role as well.

But personally I would rather have that player that can do that skill, maybe not to the effect that Kerr did but definitely did it and was extremely successful at it to the point of being one of the best ever at it as well, as well as having the ability to do other things to contribute.

I see the validity of the argument for both sides and I don't think you can go wrong either way. Heck, I have done it both ways. Jayson Williams will be a situational role player for me but by the same token I like Sean Elliot as an all around player with his versatility to do a lot of things at a high level as well.

[Roy Hobbs]

Chemistry & compatability are two factors that have played a huge role in my drafting so far.  I want guys that will complement each other well rather than, necessarily, a team of all-stars.  We saw in recent Olympics and World Championships before '08 how a team of all-stars fares.  I pretty much took that philosophy and extended it here.  I want role players and guys who excelled at the very highest levels (Olympics & NBA Finals) but who also fit in and seem to know their roles.  From a matchup standpoint, I really don't think its going to hurt me because I can mix & match these guys to cater to whatever they're going up against.  

My three cents.

And therein lies the question. How did the '08 Olympic Team and Dream Team and the team after the Dream Team succeed while so many others failed. To me it isn't quality of role player nearly as much as quality of character of the player that was the difference with those teams.

For that reason I tried like hell to fill my roster with the absolute best talent but stayed away from players(for the most part) that were head cases or locker room problems(Marion maybe the only exception) or were super ball dominant players. Almost every player on my team played with other superstars or on star laden teams and had to sacrifice their games accordingly at some point in their careers. To me that shows they are superstar level players that get "it" much like the players on the Dream and Redeem Teams were where so many other Olympic and World Championship teams weren't.

I also love Dons approach as well and think it works tremendously. I won't pick out any other team but there are teams that have multiple ball dominant players that have never been known to acquiesce to others. That will be a huge problem chemistry wise for those teams.  

This was my approach as well. I do think "role players" get pretty overrated in the NBA today...well, not overrated compared to other players of this era or compared to "value," but compared to other players of the past.

So once a team wins a title, we all like to retroactively construct the narrative of how each component of the title run was necessary for the championship, as well as simultaneously concluding that any alterations to any of those components would have meant no title.

In today's NBA, role players always end up being valuable, but more because of the salary structure of the NBA: you can't have that many great players on one team and pay them all.

(Let's be clear, though, at the same time there are certain types of stars: those that love sharing the ball and winning (high character high efficiency stars) and those that need to "get there's." I think it's clear that Golden State tried to stack their squad with multi-dimensional high-character guys who do their thing efficiently.)

But because of the salary structure, by definition A particular role player will be important to a championship team, not necessarily because that role player is vital to the team's success, but because the NBA requires that role players be a part of the team.

Take Robert Horry. Yes, he made plays that contributed to several Spurs titles. So now the story goes the Spurs needed his particular plays in order to win the title. I would argue two things: 1. It is a thousand times more the case that Horry needed Manu, Parker, and Duncan to win the title more than they needed Horry, and 2. Had Horry been replaced with a better player who had a good attitude (say, KG), the championship run would have unfolded in an unforeseeable way, but they very likely would still have won the title without needing the specific clutch plays Horry provided.

Another example: PJ Brown.

Fact: C's do not win the title if PJ Brown doesn't make his 4th quarter jumpers.

Myth: No matter what, there was going to be a need for those jumpers.

Myth 2: Only PJ Brown had the exact skill set to make those jumpers

Myth 3: No other player in that position would have netted the title, as events needed to unfold exactly as they did in order to win.

So what if we swapped out PJ Brown and threw in in-his-prime Marcus Camby? Camby can certainly drain elbow jumpers. But let's be honest, do we need elbow jumpers if we have Prime Marcus Camby for 7 games? And you might say Camby would be unhappy coming off the bench behind Perk. Well, as Nick pointed out, What are his options? Camby has a great attitude, so players of his skill level in this league cannot start for another team (they're all all-time teams) so they know they're bench players. Point is, on the floor, Camby's a great team player. And besides, this is an all-time team, so he's not sitting behind Perk, his sitting behind DPOY/In Prime Alonzo Mourning.

This is not to bash Don's picks. Horry was a very good pick, a good all-round player with a good attitude. My point is that just because Horry was a good all round player with a good attitude who happened to have the good luck to sign with several elite teams does not mean that a BETTER all round good player with a good attitude also could have won titles...just that, financially, the spurs couldn't fit him into their team.

In conclusion, I think it's more important to consider the skills and teamsmanship/general attitude of players and not as much the retroactively placed "elite role player" tag in and of itself.

Take a guy like Steve Kerr, though.  There's no doubt that he doesn't have the all-around game of the overwhelming majority of the players selected so far.  In fact, Steve Kerr may be the very worst all-around player selected thus far.  However, he fills a role:  he is an elite three point shooter (one of the best, if not the best, of all time), and he hit clutch shots.

Now, when you're talking about the 11th or 12th player on a roster, would you rather have the guy who can fit a role and can handle a particular game situation masterfully, or would you better have a better all-around player even though there are already two or three other all-time greats ahead of him on the depth chart?

But here's is where I think we differ.

Steve Kerr is a role player and you are lauding Dons drafting of role players for end of bench picks. You then say but wouldn't it be better to have a role player that was great at his particular skill than a better overall player that might not be able to fill that role as well.

But personally I would rather have that player that can do that skill, maybe not to the effect that Kerr did but definitely did it and was extremely successful at it to the point of being one of the best ever at it as well, as well as having the ability to do other things to contribute.

I see the validity of the argument for both sides and I don't think you can go wrong either way. Heck, I have done it both ways. Jayson Williams will be a situational role player for me but by the same token I like Sean Elliot as an all around player with his versatility to do a lot of things at a high level as well.

I'd agree, if we're talking about role players in the heavy rotation.  That's Fan From VT's point, and I agree:  having a one-dimensional, or at the very least limited, player in your rotation doesn't make sense, because your competitors all have guys who can do it all.

However, I'm assuming that teams aren't going to play with 12 man rotations.  That being the case, why does a team need a spectacular all-around player as his 7th big man, for instance?  Doesn't it make sense to fill those slots with all-time greats at certain skills?

In a normal league, health would be a concern, but I'm assuming that people are going to be choosing seasons where their players were largely healthy.  That being the case, does it make sense to have a team of 12 all-around great players, or, say, 10 great all-around players, and two "role" players who had elite skills in one or two areas?

I would personally choose the latter situation.  Sean Elliot is a better all-around player than Steve Kerr, but if I needed a three to tie or win the game, I'd take Kerr.  Thus, I'd rather have Kerr as my 12th man, since neither is going to be seeing minutes except in specific circumstances.

[GreenFaith1819]

When is our Team Report due?

[nickagneta]

Chemistry & compatability are two factors that have played a huge role in my drafting so far.  I want guys that will complement each other well rather than, necessarily, a team of all-stars.  We saw in recent Olympics and World Championships before '08 how a team of all-stars fares.  I pretty much took that philosophy and extended it here.  I want role players and guys who excelled at the very highest levels (Olympics & NBA Finals) but who also fit in and seem to know their roles.  From a matchup standpoint, I really don't think its going to hurt me because I can mix & match these guys to cater to whatever they're going up against.  

My three cents.

And therein lies the question. How did the '08 Olympic Team and Dream Team and the team after the Dream Team succeed while so many others failed. To me it isn't quality of role player nearly as much as quality of character of the player that was the difference with those teams.

For that reason I tried like hell to fill my roster with the absolute best talent but stayed away from players(for the most part) that were head cases or locker room problems(Marion maybe the only exception) or were super ball dominant players. Almost every player on my team played with other superstars or on star laden teams and had to sacrifice their games accordingly at some point in their careers. To me that shows they are superstar level players that get "it" much like the players on the Dream and Redeem Teams were where so many other Olympic and World Championship teams weren't.

I also love Dons approach as well and think it works tremendously. I won't pick out any other team but there are teams that have multiple ball dominant players that have never been known to acquiesce to others. That will be a huge problem chemistry wise for those teams.  

This was my approach as well. I do think "role players" get pretty overrated in the NBA today...well, not overrated compared to other players of this era or compared to "value," but compared to other players of the past.

So once a team wins a title, we all like to retroactively construct the narrative of how each component of the title run was necessary for the championship, as well as simultaneously concluding that any alterations to any of those components would have meant no title.

In today's NBA, role players always end up being valuable, but more because of the salary structure of the NBA: you can't have that many great players on one team and pay them all.

(Let's be clear, though, at the same time there are certain types of stars: those that love sharing the ball and winning (high character high efficiency stars) and those that need to "get there's." I think it's clear that Golden State tried to stack their squad with multi-dimensional high-character guys who do their thing efficiently.)

But because of the salary structure, by definition A particular role player will be important to a championship team, not necessarily because that role player is vital to the team's success, but because the NBA requires that role players be a part of the team.

Take Robert Horry. Yes, he made plays that contributed to several Spurs titles. So now the story goes the Spurs needed his particular plays in order to win the title. I would argue two things: 1. It is a thousand times more the case that Horry needed Manu, Parker, and Duncan to win the title more than they needed Horry, and 2. Had Horry been replaced with a better player who had a good attitude (say, KG), the championship run would have unfolded in an unforeseeable way, but they very likely would still have won the title without needing the specific clutch plays Horry provided.

Another example: PJ Brown.

Fact: C's do not win the title if PJ Brown doesn't make his 4th quarter jumpers.

Myth: No matter what, there was going to be a need for those jumpers.

Myth 2: Only PJ Brown had the exact skill set to make those jumpers

Myth 3: No other player in that position would have netted the title, as events needed to unfold exactly as they did in order to win.

So what if we swapped out PJ Brown and threw in in-his-prime Marcus Camby? Camby can certainly drain elbow jumpers. But let's be honest, do we need elbow jumpers if we have Prime Marcus Camby for 7 games? And you might say Camby would be unhappy coming off the bench behind Perk. Well, as Nick pointed out, What are his options? Camby has a great attitude, so players of his skill level in this league cannot start for another team (they're all all-time teams) so they know they're bench players. Point is, on the floor, Camby's a great team player. And besides, this is an all-time team, so he's not sitting behind Perk, his sitting behind DPOY/In Prime Alonzo Mourning.

This is not to bash Don's picks. Horry was a very good pick, a good all-round player with a good attitude. My point is that just because Horry was a good all round player with a good attitude who happened to have the good luck to sign with several elite teams does not mean that a BETTER all round good player with a good attitude also could have won titles...just that, financially, the spurs couldn't fit him into their team.

In conclusion, I think it's more important to consider the skills and teamsmanship/general attitude of players and not as much the retroactively placed "elite role player" tag in and of itself.

Take a guy like Steve Kerr, though.  There's no doubt that he doesn't have the all-around game of the overwhelming majority of the players selected so far.  In fact, Steve Kerr may be the very worst all-around player selected thus far.  However, he fills a role:  he is an elite three point shooter (one of the best, if not the best, of all time), and he hit clutch shots.

Now, when you're talking about the 11th or 12th player on a roster, would you rather have the guy who can fit a role and can handle a particular game situation masterfully, or would you better have a better all-around player even though there are already two or three other all-time greats ahead of him on the depth chart?

But here's is where I think we differ.

Steve Kerr is a role player and you are lauding Dons drafting of role players for end of bench picks. You then say but wouldn't it be better to have a role player that was great at his particular skill than a better overall player that might not be able to fill that role as well.

But personally I would rather have that player that can do that skill, maybe not to the effect that Kerr did but definitely did it and was extremely successful at it to the point of being one of the best ever at it as well, as well as having the ability to do other things to contribute.

I see the validity of the argument for both sides and I don't think you can go wrong either way. Heck, I have done it both ways. Jayson Williams will be a situational role player for me but by the same token I like Sean Elliot as an all around player with his versatility to do a lot of things at a high level as well.

I'd agree, if we're talking about role players in the heavy rotation.  That's Fan From VT's point, and I agree:  having a one-dimensional, or at the very least limited, player in your rotation doesn't make sense, because your competitors all have guys who can do it all.

However, I'm assuming that teams aren't going to play with 12 man rotations.  That being the case, why does a team need a spectacular all-around player as his 7th big man, for instance?  Doesn't it make sense to fill those slots with all-time greats at certain skills?

In a normal league, health would be a concern, but I'm assuming that people are going to be choosing seasons where their players were largely healthy.  That being the case, does it make sense to have a team of 12 all-around great players, or, say, 10 great all-around players, and two "role" players who had elite skills in one or two areas?

I would personally choose the latter situation.  Sean Elliot is a better all-around player than Steve Kerr, but if I needed a three to tie or win the game, I'd take Kerr.  Thus, I'd rather have Kerr as my 12th man, since neither is going to be seeing minutes except in specific circumstances.

Except your comparing apples and oranges. Sean Elliot would never be someone I have in a game for the specific purpose of taking a three pointer. Be fair Roy, I have yet to address that need.

[Roy Hobbs]

Chemistry & compatability are two factors that have played a huge role in my drafting so far.  I want guys that will complement each other well rather than, necessarily, a team of all-stars.  We saw in recent Olympics and World Championships before '08 how a team of all-stars fares.  I pretty much took that philosophy and extended it here.  I want role players and guys who excelled at the very highest levels (Olympics & NBA Finals) but who also fit in and seem to know their roles.  From a matchup standpoint, I really don't think its going to hurt me because I can mix & match these guys to cater to whatever they're going up against.  

My three cents.

And therein lies the question. How did the '08 Olympic Team and Dream Team and the team after the Dream Team succeed while so many others failed. To me it isn't quality of role player nearly as much as quality of character of the player that was the difference with those teams.

For that reason I tried like hell to fill my roster with the absolute best talent but stayed away from players(for the most part) that were head cases or locker room problems(Marion maybe the only exception) or were super ball dominant players. Almost every player on my team played with other superstars or on star laden teams and had to sacrifice their games accordingly at some point in their careers. To me that shows they are superstar level players that get "it" much like the players on the Dream and Redeem Teams were where so many other Olympic and World Championship teams weren't.

I also love Dons approach as well and think it works tremendously. I won't pick out any other team but there are teams that have multiple ball dominant players that have never been known to acquiesce to others. That will be a huge problem chemistry wise for those teams.  

This was my approach as well. I do think "role players" get pretty overrated in the NBA today...well, not overrated compared to other players of this era or compared to "value," but compared to other players of the past.

So once a team wins a title, we all like to retroactively construct the narrative of how each component of the title run was necessary for the championship, as well as simultaneously concluding that any alterations to any of those components would have meant no title.

In today's NBA, role players always end up being valuable, but more because of the salary structure of the NBA: you can't have that many great players on one team and pay them all.

(Let's be clear, though, at the same time there are certain types of stars: those that love sharing the ball and winning (high character high efficiency stars) and those that need to "get there's." I think it's clear that Golden State tried to stack their squad with multi-dimensional high-character guys who do their thing efficiently.)

But because of the salary structure, by definition A particular role player will be important to a championship team, not necessarily because that role player is vital to the team's success, but because the NBA requires that role players be a part of the team.

Take Robert Horry. Yes, he made plays that contributed to several Spurs titles. So now the story goes the Spurs needed his particular plays in order to win the title. I would argue two things: 1. It is a thousand times more the case that Horry needed Manu, Parker, and Duncan to win the title more than they needed Horry, and 2. Had Horry been replaced with a better player who had a good attitude (say, KG), the championship run would have unfolded in an unforeseeable way, but they very likely would still have won the title without needing the specific clutch plays Horry provided.

Another example: PJ Brown.

Fact: C's do not win the title if PJ Brown doesn't make his 4th quarter jumpers.

Myth: No matter what, there was going to be a need for those jumpers.

Myth 2: Only PJ Brown had the exact skill set to make those jumpers

Myth 3: No other player in that position would have netted the title, as events needed to unfold exactly as they did in order to win.

So what if we swapped out PJ Brown and threw in in-his-prime Marcus Camby? Camby can certainly drain elbow jumpers. But let's be honest, do we need elbow jumpers if we have Prime Marcus Camby for 7 games? And you might say Camby would be unhappy coming off the bench behind Perk. Well, as Nick pointed out, What are his options? Camby has a great attitude, so players of his skill level in this league cannot start for another team (they're all all-time teams) so they know they're bench players. Point is, on the floor, Camby's a great team player. And besides, this is an all-time team, so he's not sitting behind Perk, his sitting behind DPOY/In Prime Alonzo Mourning.

This is not to bash Don's picks. Horry was a very good pick, a good all-round player with a good attitude. My point is that just because Horry was a good all round player with a good attitude who happened to have the good luck to sign with several elite teams does not mean that a BETTER all round good player with a good attitude also could have won titles...just that, financially, the spurs couldn't fit him into their team.

In conclusion, I think it's more important to consider the skills and teamsmanship/general attitude of players and not as much the retroactively placed "elite role player" tag in and of itself.

Take a guy like Steve Kerr, though.  There's no doubt that he doesn't have the all-around game of the overwhelming majority of the players selected so far.  In fact, Steve Kerr may be the very worst all-around player selected thus far.  However, he fills a role:  he is an elite three point shooter (one of the best, if not the best, of all time), and he hit clutch shots.

Now, when you're talking about the 11th or 12th player on a roster, would you rather have the guy who can fit a role and can handle a particular game situation masterfully, or would you better have a better all-around player even though there are already two or three other all-time greats ahead of him on the depth chart?

But here's is where I think we differ.

Steve Kerr is a role player and you are lauding Dons drafting of role players for end of bench picks. You then say but wouldn't it be better to have a role player that was great at his particular skill than a better overall player that might not be able to fill that role as well.

But personally I would rather have that player that can do that skill, maybe not to the effect that Kerr did but definitely did it and was extremely successful at it to the point of being one of the best ever at it as well, as well as having the ability to do other things to contribute.

I see the validity of the argument for both sides and I don't think you can go wrong either way. Heck, I have done it both ways. Jayson Williams will be a situational role player for me but by the same token I like Sean Elliot as an all around player with his versatility to do a lot of things at a high level as well.

I'd agree, if we're talking about role players in the heavy rotation.  That's Fan From VT's point, and I agree:  having a one-dimensional, or at the very least limited, player in your rotation doesn't make sense, because your competitors all have guys who can do it all.

However, I'm assuming that teams aren't going to play with 12 man rotations.  That being the case, why does a team need a spectacular all-around player as his 7th big man, for instance?  Doesn't it make sense to fill those slots with all-time greats at certain skills?

In a normal league, health would be a concern, but I'm assuming that people are going to be choosing seasons where their players were largely healthy.  That being the case, does it make sense to have a team of 12 all-around great players, or, say, 10 great all-around players, and two "role" players who had elite skills in one or two areas?

I would personally choose the latter situation.  Sean Elliot is a better all-around player than Steve Kerr, but if I needed a three to tie or win the game, I'd take Kerr.  Thus, I'd rather have Kerr as my 12th man, since neither is going to be seeing minutes except in specific circumstances.

Except your comparing apples and oranges. Sean Elliot would never be someone I have in a game for the specific purpose of taking a three pointer. Be fair Roy, I have yet to address that need.

What good does it do to have an elite all-around all-star as your 12th or 13th man, though.  He's never going to see playing time.  At least a guy like Kerr -- or potentially Horry -- will.

[Donoghus]

Chemistry & compatability are two factors that have played a huge role in my drafting so far.  I want guys that will complement each other well rather than, necessarily, a team of all-stars.  We saw in recent Olympics and World Championships before '08 how a team of all-stars fares.  I pretty much took that philosophy and extended it here.  I want role players and guys who excelled at the very highest levels (Olympics & NBA Finals) but who also fit in and seem to know their roles.  From a matchup standpoint, I really don't think its going to hurt me because I can mix & match these guys to cater to whatever they're going up against.  

My three cents.

And therein lies the question. How did the '08 Olympic Team and Dream Team and the team after the Dream Team succeed while so many others failed. To me it isn't quality of role player nearly as much as quality of character of the player that was the difference with those teams.

For that reason I tried like hell to fill my roster with the absolute best talent but stayed away from players(for the most part) that were head cases or locker room problems(Marion maybe the only exception) or were super ball dominant players. Almost every player on my team played with other superstars or on star laden teams and had to sacrifice their games accordingly at some point in their careers. To me that shows they are superstar level players that get "it" much like the players on the Dream and Redeem Teams were where so many other Olympic and World Championship teams weren't.

I also love Dons approach as well and think it works tremendously. I won't pick out any other team but there are teams that have multiple ball dominant players that have never been known to acquiesce to others. That will be a huge problem chemistry wise for those teams.  

This was my approach as well. I do think "role players" get pretty overrated in the NBA today...well, not overrated compared to other players of this era or compared to "value," but compared to other players of the past.

So once a team wins a title, we all like to retroactively construct the narrative of how each component of the title run was necessary for the championship, as well as simultaneously concluding that any alterations to any of those components would have meant no title.

In today's NBA, role players always end up being valuable, but more because of the salary structure of the NBA: you can't have that many great players on one team and pay them all.

(Let's be clear, though, at the same time there are certain types of stars: those that love sharing the ball and winning (high character high efficiency stars) and those that need to "get there's." I think it's clear that Golden State tried to stack their squad with multi-dimensional high-character guys who do their thing efficiently.)

But because of the salary structure, by definition A particular role player will be important to a championship team, not necessarily because that role player is vital to the team's success, but because the NBA requires that role players be a part of the team.

Take Robert Horry. Yes, he made plays that contributed to several Spurs titles. So now the story goes the Spurs needed his particular plays in order to win the title. I would argue two things: 1. It is a thousand times more the case that Horry needed Manu, Parker, and Duncan to win the title more than they needed Horry, and 2. Had Horry been replaced with a better player who had a good attitude (say, KG), the championship run would have unfolded in an unforeseeable way, but they very likely would still have won the title without needing the specific clutch plays Horry provided.

Another example: PJ Brown.

Fact: C's do not win the title if PJ Brown doesn't make his 4th quarter jumpers.

Myth: No matter what, there was going to be a need for those jumpers.

Myth 2: Only PJ Brown had the exact skill set to make those jumpers

Myth 3: No other player in that position would have netted the title, as events needed to unfold exactly as they did in order to win.

So what if we swapped out PJ Brown and threw in in-his-prime Marcus Camby? Camby can certainly drain elbow jumpers. But let's be honest, do we need elbow jumpers if we have Prime Marcus Camby for 7 games? And you might say Camby would be unhappy coming off the bench behind Perk. Well, as Nick pointed out, What are his options? Camby has a great attitude, so players of his skill level in this league cannot start for another team (they're all all-time teams) so they know they're bench players. Point is, on the floor, Camby's a great team player. And besides, this is an all-time team, so he's not sitting behind Perk, his sitting behind DPOY/In Prime Alonzo Mourning.

This is not to bash Don's picks. Horry was a very good pick, a good all-round player with a good attitude. My point is that just because Horry was a good all round player with a good attitude who happened to have the good luck to sign with several elite teams does not mean that a BETTER all round good player with a good attitude also could have won titles...just that, financially, the spurs couldn't fit him into their team.

In conclusion, I think it's more important to consider the skills and teamsmanship/general attitude of players and not as much the retroactively placed "elite role player" tag in and of itself.

Take a guy like Steve Kerr, though.  There's no doubt that he doesn't have the all-around game of the overwhelming majority of the players selected so far.  In fact, Steve Kerr may be the very worst all-around player selected thus far.  However, he fills a role:  he is an elite three point shooter (one of the best, if not the best, of all time), and he hit clutch shots.

Now, when you're talking about the 11th or 12th player on a roster, would you rather have the guy who can fit a role and can handle a particular game situation masterfully, or would you better have a better all-around player even though there are already two or three other all-time greats ahead of him on the depth chart?

But here's is where I think we differ.

Steve Kerr is a role player and you are lauding Dons drafting of role players for end of bench picks. You then say but wouldn't it be better to have a role player that was great at his particular skill than a better overall player that might not be able to fill that role as well.

But personally I would rather have that player that can do that skill, maybe not to the effect that Kerr did but definitely did it and was extremely successful at it to the point of being one of the best ever at it as well, as well as having the ability to do other things to contribute.

I see the validity of the argument for both sides and I don't think you can go wrong either way. Heck, I have done it both ways. Jayson Williams will be a situational role player for me but by the same token I like Sean Elliot as an all around player with his versatility to do a lot of things at a high level as well.

I'd agree, if we're talking about role players in the heavy rotation.  That's Fan From VT's point, and I agree:  having a one-dimensional, or at the very least limited, player in your rotation doesn't make sense, because your competitors all have guys who can do it all.

However, I'm assuming that teams aren't going to play with 12 man rotations.  That being the case, why does a team need a spectacular all-around player as his 7th big man, for instance?  Doesn't it make sense to fill those slots with all-time greats at certain skills?

In a normal league, health would be a concern, but I'm assuming that people are going to be choosing seasons where their players were largely healthy.  That being the case, does it make sense to have a team of 12 all-around great players, or, say, 10 great all-around players, and two "role" players who had elite skills in one or two areas?

I would personally choose the latter situation.  Sean Elliot is a better all-around player than Steve Kerr, but if I needed a three to tie or win the game, I'd take Kerr.  Thus, I'd rather have Kerr as my 12th man, since neither is going to be seeing minutes except in specific circumstances.

Except your comparing apples and oranges. Sean Elliot would never be someone I have in a game for the specific purpose of taking a three pointer. Be fair Roy, I have yet to address that need.

What good does it do to have an elite all-around all-star as your 12th or 13th man, though.  He's never going to see playing time.  At least a guy like Kerr -- or potentially Horry -- will.

Pretty much sums up where my late round strategy is coming from.