2011 CB Historical Draft - Draft Thread

[Who]

Amare Stoudemire- 2007-08

.........................

Stats:            PPG      RPG      APG      FG%      
Amare Stoudemire:   25.2   9.1   1.5   .590   .161   2.1   .8

.........................

Minutes

C: Shaquille O’Neal 38/ Paul Silas 10
PF: Bob Pettit 35/ Amare 13
SF: Elgin Baylor 40/ Schrempf 8
SG: George Gervin 35/ Manu 13
PG: Deron Williams 30/ Rose 18

I would pick Amare's 2004-05 season. Before he first got hurt. As great of an athlete as Amare is nowadays he still lost quite a bit of his explosiveness from those injuries. He was an absolute animal athletically before that injury.

Amare had a great playoff run that season too. Dismantled Tim Duncan's defense in the Conference Finals and Duncan was the best defensive player in the league at that time. Timmy had no answer (one-on-one defense) for Amare.

That is the Amare Stoudemire I'd pick. Less skilled but his quickness / explosiveness opened up a lot more doors for him offensively with his face up game (blow by ability).

I also think Amare should be your backup five with Silas at the four. Although it does make a good point that teams with a slow footed backup center could switch their PF onto Amare and leave their C on Silas. Still, Silas + Amare would be excellent in transition offense with their quickness.

[RebusRankin]

Miami: What do you think people are looking and what is your teams greatest strength that gives you advantages over some of the other teams? (I also feel you're underrated  Smiley )

I think my team's greatest strength is that it is built to play multiple styles but primarily as an inside out team. As I've said, on offense the focus is Wilt, but you also have to deal with McHale as a 1b. I'm not sure any team in this format has quite a combo. However if you focus on those two, I have two of the best shooters of all time in Barry and Richmond to make you pay. Then I have Isiah just to run the show, but he also adds shooting and another dimension with his penetration.

If I need to go to the bench, I can use a Lanier/Haywood combo inside which I feel matches up with any team's bench. I also can use Sikma as a stretch 4 either off the bench or with Wilt to give the team a different look.

I have T-Mac to provide instant offense off the bench.

I have a number of quality three point shooters in Richmond, T-Mac, Johnson and Ellis.

I have the size to match-up to any team be it bigs or wings.

I have quality rebounding with Wilt, McHale, Sikma, Lanier, Haywood and Lever.

[nickagneta]

I think Rodman limitations makes him very vulnerable against a guy like that when standing 17+ feet away from the rim ... because Pippen is just going to completely ignore Rodman, play 10+ feet off of him when he doesn't have the ball and play a free safety against all your other offensive players. Doing quite a bit of damage to your offense.

In those situations, against elite team / help defenders, I think it's debatable as to whether Dennis Rodman is adding enough with his defense / rebounding to make up for what he is costing you offensively.

That's basically my point.  I don't think the Bulls' offense is good enough to go up against teams 4-on-5, which is essentially what they'd be doing with Rodman (especially if Rodman is out on the perimeter as a SF).  Having a guy like Pippen or Lebron or Bird or whoever else roam and help on the Bulls' other four players is going to hurt.

For instance, look at the Bulls against Portland:

Moncrief can adequately defend West
Robinson can adequately defend Walton
Webber can adequately defend Reed

The one mismatch would seem to be Magic against Tiny.  However, with Rodman chilling on the perimeter, Bird is free to help on Magic, mitigating the Bulls perceived advantage.  

Inserting Rodman into the starting lineup means that your starting small forward will be outscored by 15 points every night, and opposing teams will be able to limit your other four starters because they'll be using five defenders to do so.

EDIT:  Or, even worse, match up Chicago against Seattle.

Olajuwon limits Walton
Lucas limits Reed
Pippen or Reggie limits West
Kidd limits Magic

That allows either Pippen or Reggie Lewis to literally be a disruptor all over the court.  That's going to be killer for Chicago's offense.

First off I am not sure where you are getting the fact that Webber can adequately defend Reed as Webber was never what one would call a great defender. I think the word you used is much better used describing Webber's defensive game...adequate. Playing against an MVP type PF Webber would usually struggle. Comparing his head to head to similar type MVP caliber PFs Webber was outscored, outrebounded and at times dominated while not often winning the battle of the stats.

Also, as I stated, Rodman would only start and play big minutes versus Bird and Lebron. Against someone like Pippen, Durant would start.

Lastly, because some of my players are from a much earlier era, I don't think they are getting their just due here defensively due to a lack of familiarity with them. Walton, Reed and West were elite defensive players and could limit other players as much as Hakeem or Pippen or any of the other more modern defensive elites could.

I really think many don't give earlier era players their just due defensively or athletically simply because most haven't watched them regularly or seen them on ESPN doing athletic highlights. I am not saying that is strictly you Roy, just people in general.

[nickagneta]

I think Rodman limitations makes him very vulnerable against a guy like that when standing 17+ feet away from the rim ... because Pippen is just going to completely ignore Rodman, play 10+ feet off of him when he doesn't have the ball and play a free safety against all your other offensive players. Doing quite a bit of damage to your offense.

In those situations, against elite team / help defenders, I think it's debatable as to whether Dennis Rodman is adding enough with his defense / rebounding to make up for what he is costing you offensively.

That's basically my point.  I don't think the Bulls' offense is good enough to go up against teams 4-on-5, which is essentially what they'd be doing with Rodman (especially if Rodman is out on the perimeter as a SF).  Having a guy like Pippen or Lebron or Bird or whoever else roam and help on the Bulls' other four players is going to hurt.

For instance, look at the Bulls against Portland:

Moncrief can adequately defend West
Robinson can adequately defend Walton
Webber can adequately defend Reed

The one mismatch would seem to be Magic against Tiny.  However, with Rodman chilling on the perimeter, Bird is free to help on Magic, mitigating the Bulls perceived advantage. 

Inserting Rodman into the starting lineup means that your starting small forward will be outscored by 15 points every night, and opposing teams will be able to limit your other four starters because they'll be using five defenders to do so.

Agree about Rodman, but wouldn't Moncrief on Magic and Tiny on West make more sense?

Yeah, I'm not sure how Redz would do it.  Since West is a more explosive scorer, I'd tend to put Moncrief on him, but yeah, Tiny's quickness might give West some problem's, while Moncrief could at least limit Magic.

I'm not sure anyone limits Magic. Dennis Johnson played the best defense I ever saw on Magic and Magic still routinely put up 20 PPG and 12 APG on DJ and had many HUGE games versus DJ.

[StartOrien]

After giving a tongue-bath to the Lakers, let me ask LA a question:

You've continuously pointed out that 'defense wins championship,' is there any concern that you might not have enough offense?

[Roy H.]

Lastly, because some of my players are from a much earlier era, I don't think they are getting their just due here defensively due to a lack of familiarity with them. Walton, Reed and West were elite defensive players and could limit other players as much as Hakeem or Pippen or any of the other more modern defensive elites could.

Oh, defensively I think your team is very strong overall.  I do think picking Durant over Grant Hill hurt, because a starting lineup with Durant and Magic is a lot more vulnerable.

However, it's on offense that I'm worried.  Using Rodman against Bird or Lebron frees upon those guys on defense.  In this entire draft, there probably aren't five starters who are more dangerous than Lebron as a defensive roamer, and obviously Bird was a very good team defender, as well.  I think that particular decision limits you.

[Who]

I think Rodman limitations makes him very vulnerable against a guy like that when standing 17+ feet away from the rim ... because Pippen is just going to completely ignore Rodman, play 10+ feet off of him when he doesn't have the ball and play a free safety against all your other offensive players. Doing quite a bit of damage to your offense.

In those situations, against elite team / help defenders, I think it's debatable as to whether Dennis Rodman is adding enough with his defense / rebounding to make up for what he is costing you offensively.

That's basically my point.  I don't think the Bulls' offense is good enough to go up against teams 4-on-5, which is essentially what they'd be doing with Rodman (especially if Rodman is out on the perimeter as a SF).  Having a guy like Pippen or Lebron or Bird or whoever else roam and help on the Bulls' other four players is going to hurt.

For instance, look at the Bulls against Portland:

Moncrief can adequately defend West
Robinson can adequately defend Walton
Webber can adequately defend Reed

The one mismatch would seem to be Magic against Tiny.  However, with Rodman chilling on the perimeter, Bird is free to help on Magic, mitigating the Bulls perceived advantage. 

Inserting Rodman into the starting lineup means that your starting small forward will be outscored by 15 points every night, and opposing teams will be able to limit your other four starters because they'll be using five defenders to do so.

Agree about Rodman, but wouldn't Moncrief on Magic and Tiny on West make more sense?

Yeah, I'm not sure how Redz would do it.  Since West is a more explosive scorer, I'd tend to put Moncrief on him, but yeah, Tiny's quickness might give West some problem's, while Moncrief could at least limit Magic.

I'm not sure anyone limits Magic. Dennis Johnson played the best defense I ever saw on Magic and Magic still routinely put up 20 PPG and 12 APG on DJ and had many HUGE games versus DJ.

The game's greatest facilitators are much harder to limit than it's greatest scorers.

Chicago = Magic Johnson + Bill Walton

[Roy H.]

I think Rodman limitations makes him very vulnerable against a guy like that when standing 17+ feet away from the rim ... because Pippen is just going to completely ignore Rodman, play 10+ feet off of him when he doesn't have the ball and play a free safety against all your other offensive players. Doing quite a bit of damage to your offense.

In those situations, against elite team / help defenders, I think it's debatable as to whether Dennis Rodman is adding enough with his defense / rebounding to make up for what he is costing you offensively.

That's basically my point.  I don't think the Bulls' offense is good enough to go up against teams 4-on-5, which is essentially what they'd be doing with Rodman (especially if Rodman is out on the perimeter as a SF).  Having a guy like Pippen or Lebron or Bird or whoever else roam and help on the Bulls' other four players is going to hurt.

For instance, look at the Bulls against Portland:

Moncrief can adequately defend West
Robinson can adequately defend Walton
Webber can adequately defend Reed

The one mismatch would seem to be Magic against Tiny.  However, with Rodman chilling on the perimeter, Bird is free to help on Magic, mitigating the Bulls perceived advantage. 

Inserting Rodman into the starting lineup means that your starting small forward will be outscored by 15 points every night, and opposing teams will be able to limit your other four starters because they'll be using five defenders to do so.

Agree about Rodman, but wouldn't Moncrief on Magic and Tiny on West make more sense?

Yeah, I'm not sure how Redz would do it.  Since West is a more explosive scorer, I'd tend to put Moncrief on him, but yeah, Tiny's quickness might give West some problem's, while Moncrief could at least limit Magic.

I'm not sure anyone limits Magic. Dennis Johnson played the best defense I ever saw on Magic and Magic still routinely put up 20 PPG and 12 APG on DJ and had many HUGE games versus DJ.

Yeah, by limit I'm talking a slight dip in production, not anything drastic.  Teams are going to have as much luck "limiting" Magic or Bird as they would Jordan.

Sadly, box scores / head-to-head stats aren't available prior to around '87, so it's hard to tell exactly how much many of these guys were, in fact, limited by elite defenders.

[nickagneta]

After giving a tongue-bath to the Lakers, let me ask LA a question:

You've continuously pointed out that 'defense wins championship,' is there any concern that you might not have enough offense?

being someone who has the same philosophy I think it fair to say that great defense, truly great team defense, creates its own offense.

Its easy to look at these stats and figure that's about what those players will do but put those same players against elite defensive teams and things change, sometimes drastically.

Turnovers, defensive rebounding lead to extra possessions and more points, many times easy points. I think that gets lost in these things.

Look at the 2008 Celtics.Not outstanding offense but their defense could create offense and dictate a game and limit other teams that had an offensive philosophy, sometime dominating them because of that defense and transition offense caused by it.

[Redz]

I think Rodman limitations makes him very vulnerable against a guy like that when standing 17+ feet away from the rim ... because Pippen is just going to completely ignore Rodman, play 10+ feet off of him when he doesn't have the ball and play a free safety against all your other offensive players. Doing quite a bit of damage to your offense.

In those situations, against elite team / help defenders, I think it's debatable as to whether Dennis Rodman is adding enough with his defense / rebounding to make up for what he is costing you offensively.

That's basically my point.  I don't think the Bulls' offense is good enough to go up against teams 4-on-5, which is essentially what they'd be doing with Rodman (especially if Rodman is out on the perimeter as a SF).  Having a guy like Pippen or Lebron or Bird or whoever else roam and help on the Bulls' other four players is going to hurt.

For instance, look at the Bulls against Portland:

Moncrief can adequately defend West
Robinson can adequately defend Walton
Webber can adequately defend Reed

The one mismatch would seem to be Magic against Tiny.  However, with Rodman chilling on the perimeter, Bird is free to help on Magic, mitigating the Bulls perceived advantage. 

Inserting Rodman into the starting lineup means that your starting small forward will be outscored by 15 points every night, and opposing teams will be able to limit your other four starters because they'll be using five defenders to do so.

Agree about Rodman, but wouldn't Moncrief on Magic and Tiny on West make more sense?

Yeah, I'm not sure how Redz would do it.  Since West is a more explosive scorer, I'd tend to put Moncrief on him, but yeah, Tiny's quickness might give West some problem's, while Moncrief could at least limit Magic.

That's what I have this guy for...

[StartOrien]

After giving a tongue-bath to the Lakers, let me ask LA a question:

You've continuously pointed out that 'defense wins championship,' is there any concern that you might not have enough offense?

being someone who has the same philosophy I think it fair to say that great defense, truly great team defense, creates its own offense.

Its easy to look at these stats and figure that's about what those players will do but put those same players against elite defensive teams and things change, sometimes drastically.

Turnovers, defensive rebounding lead to extra possessions and more points, many times easy points. I think that gets lost in these things.

Look at the 2008 Celtics.Not outstanding offense but their defense could create offense and dictate a game and limit other teams that had an offensive philosophy, sometime dominating them because of that defense and transition offense caused by it.

But you're talking about great defense against great defense, great offense against great offense in this case.

The 2008 Boston Celtics was a great defensive team. But they more often that not had 3 of the best 5 offensive players on the court at the same time.

[nickagneta]

Lastly, because some of my players are from a much earlier era, I don't think they are getting their just due here defensively due to a lack of familiarity with them. Walton, Reed and West were elite defensive players and could limit other players as much as Hakeem or Pippen or any of the other more modern defensive elites could.

Oh, defensively I think your team is very strong overall.  I do think picking Durant over Grant Hill hurt, because a starting lineup with Durant and Magic is a lot more vulnerable.

However, it's on offense that I'm worried.  Using Rodman against Bird or Lebron frees upon those guys on defense.  In this entire draft, there probably aren't five starters who are more dangerous than Lebron as a defensive roamer, and obviously Bird was a very good team defender, as well.  I think that particular decision limits you.

Sadly, the more I think about it the more I wish I had taken Hill, because it was down to those two, but honestly, I'm not thrilled with Hill's defense either. It's okay. Definitely better than Durant's but I loved Durant's elite offense and the though of him running the break with Magic and West, which with Walton doing the outlet passing should happen a lot.

Remember 1986, Walton's outlet passes were a thing of beauty on that 86 Celtics team and if hockey assists counted in basketball Bird and Walton might be just have had numbers in the 20 assist per game area(as would a number of other player but I think Bird and Walton might be most affected by such a stat).

[nickagneta]

I think Rodman limitations makes him very vulnerable against a guy like that when standing 17+ feet away from the rim ... because Pippen is just going to completely ignore Rodman, play 10+ feet off of him when he doesn't have the ball and play a free safety against all your other offensive players. Doing quite a bit of damage to your offense.

In those situations, against elite team / help defenders, I think it's debatable as to whether Dennis Rodman is adding enough with his defense / rebounding to make up for what he is costing you offensively.

That's basically my point.  I don't think the Bulls' offense is good enough to go up against teams 4-on-5, which is essentially what they'd be doing with Rodman (especially if Rodman is out on the perimeter as a SF).  Having a guy like Pippen or Lebron or Bird or whoever else roam and help on the Bulls' other four players is going to hurt.

For instance, look at the Bulls against Portland:

Moncrief can adequately defend West
Robinson can adequately defend Walton
Webber can adequately defend Reed

The one mismatch would seem to be Magic against Tiny.  However, with Rodman chilling on the perimeter, Bird is free to help on Magic, mitigating the Bulls perceived advantage.  

Inserting Rodman into the starting lineup means that your starting small forward will be outscored by 15 points every night, and opposing teams will be able to limit your other four starters because they'll be using five defenders to do so.

Agree about Rodman, but wouldn't Moncrief on Magic and Tiny on West make more sense?

Yeah, I'm not sure how Redz would do it.  Since West is a more explosive scorer, I'd tend to put Moncrief on him, but yeah, Tiny's quickness might give West some problem's, while Moncrief could at least limit Magic.

That's what I have this guy for...

Way to avoid the question Redz....I approve wholeheartedly

I further deflect all answers regarding game strategy to this guy:



You can send all questions to his email address:

Pat@about-2-win-another-ring-only-this-time-as-a-team-president-instead-of-as-a-player-or-coach.com

[GreenFaith1819]

After giving a tongue-bath to the Lakers, let me ask LA a question:

You've continuously pointed out that 'defense wins championship,' is there any concern that you might not have enough offense?

being someone who has the same philosophy I think it fair to say that great defense, truly great team defense, creates its own offense.

Its easy to look at these stats and figure that's about what those players will do but put those same players against elite defensive teams and things change, sometimes drastically.

Turnovers, defensive rebounding lead to extra possessions and more points, many times easy points. I think that gets lost in these things.

Look at the 2008 Celtics.Not outstanding offense but their defense could create offense and dictate a game and limit other teams that had an offensive philosophy, sometime dominating them because of that defense and transition offense caused by it.

Basically what Nick stated (TP).

For SO: To be honest, there were at least two players that I had on my list that would've created instant offense for me - Chris Mullin and Alex English.

I also had Adrian Dantley on my list, too.

But my concern with having those players in my lineup is that if you placed one of the great all-time defenders on either (Say - Dennis Rodman, KG, etc) that would basically negate their offense.

I'll be the first to admit - besides maybe Kareem, JO or Ralph Sampson, I don't have many players that just jump out at you offensively.

GP could take over games offensively, but in watching many clips of him over the last few weeks, he was much better in just distributing the ball and letting the game come to him.

Same with Dumars.

Even KG - he RARELY took over games offensively..never has. He just seems out of element when he does that.

I'm at peace with the fact that most of my games vs most opponents would be ugly, slow, grind them out games.

There is only one other player..maybe two - that IMO had the ability to pick up the pace of ANY game offensively, and Nick drafted one of them with his 1st pick (Magic).

That other player was Kidd.

But yeah, SO - Between my Bigs and adequate scoring from GP, Dumars, Jones, Coop, etc - I think we could easily average around 100 pts...with most nights probably closer to 90-95.

For the most part, our Defense would create more opportunities for us that would offset our lack of having many offensive stars.

07-08 Celtics all the way, Babeeee!!!

[Moranis]

I never said he was a better 3pt shooter, I said he was a better shooter.

And are you really acting like .004 is a victory?  I mean call 3pt shooting a wash but don't act like .004 is really better, especially when he's shooting almost 1/3 less 3s.

well Paul is the better foul shooter as well and since you don't think .004 is worth anything then the .003 they are separated from 2 point land doesn't mean anything either.  

Acting like Williams is so much a better shooter (like you were doing) isn't borne in reality and that frankly is the only area they are even close.  Paul is significantly better in every other aspect of basketball.  Unless of course defense, rebounding, and passing don't matter.

I don't think I was acting like he was SO much of a better shooter, he was when they entered the league but Paul has improved.  I said he was a better shooter, that's it, and I still think that's true as he relies more on the mid-range whereas Paul prefers to get into the paint.  I also don't think more 3 pointers made at a similar percentage is indicative of a worse 3pt shooter, it's pretty much a wash.

I said at the moment it could go either way all right?  If your opinion is Paul is better, that's fine with me, you're not the only one.  I think by the end of their careers, Williams will be considered better, and he will play at his top level longer than Paul will.  It's just speculation on my part.

To say that it's not even close and that Paul is clearly and significantly better in every aspect isn't a fair evaluation, and I don't think you'll find a lot of people that would agree with that.

well I didn't see anyone else mentioning Williams as the best PG since Stockton, yet quite a few thought Paul was.  I think you are the only person on this blog that thinks Williams and Paul are even close.