How's my Historical Team? (Awesome right!)

[wdleehi]

Tricity Blackhawks  (we are going historical name)


PG  Williams
SG  Ray Allen
SF  Deng
PF  Love
C   Howard

Bench

PG Brandon
SG Petrovic
SF Glen Robinson
PF/SF Robert Horry
PF/C Clifford Robinson (big headband one)
PF/C Aldridge

I love the pieces that you have here, Allen Deng and Love are enough of the, "do your job, go about your business" type guys to balance out the diva that we all know is alive inside of Dwight and Deron.  I was worried about your 0 championships in your starting lineup but I think Robert Horry was a big pickup for you in terms of bringing some leadership and a guy that knows what it takes to get it done.

Ray Allen will win a title in his career once his paired with other top talent.  

Big Dog one a title deep on a bench once.  


This is an issue with a lot of teams.  Many players win title after their best season.  Does it make them less likely to win a title on a loaded team?

Its an interesting question, I personally think that when almost every team is, "Loaded" as you say the championship experience is a big factor.  I would agree with you that if your team were playing in the NBA today they would steamroll, but every team in this league is a super team.  Thats where overcoming adversity, knowing what it takes to win a big game comes into play.

But with all these players, the difference between winning a title early or later (or not) has been teammates. 


But that is not an issue for these teams.




So it comes down to talent, fit and possible chemistry issues. 


If a player proves to be a title quality star when they get the right teammates eventually in the NBA, then they are a quality title star. 

I agree with the fit and Chemistry and like I said, I really like that aspect of your team.  But I don't agree that you can argue that player X is a championship quality player because when he was surrounded by talent in the real NBA he did it so he had it in him all along.

In this league every team has a superb amount of talent.  with the exceptions of some teams that I see clearly at the top I think it is mostly a level playing field of talent.  For example, and im not picking on him, i love Ray, watching Ray play basketball has been my favorite thing about the celtics over the last 5 or so years.

But Ray didnt win a title until he was on a top two team talent wise in the league.  Do I think your team is top two in this league in talent?  Maybe, your team is up there, thats for sure.  But im just not sure you can say he is a championship caliber player on your team

Of course he is.  He never had a really good big man until he got to Boston.  He was still leading teams deep into the playoffs built around perimeter players. 


Give that Bucks team an actual inside threat, they would have been in the finals.

[Rondo2287]

Tricity Blackhawks  (we are going historical name)


PG  Williams
SG  Ray Allen
SF  Deng
PF  Love
C   Howard

Bench

PG Brandon
SG Petrovic
SF Glen Robinson
PF/SF Robert Horry
PF/C Clifford Robinson (big headband one)
PF/C Aldridge

I love the pieces that you have here, Allen Deng and Love are enough of the, "do your job, go about your business" type guys to balance out the diva that we all know is alive inside of Dwight and Deron.  I was worried about your 0 championships in your starting lineup but I think Robert Horry was a big pickup for you in terms of bringing some leadership and a guy that knows what it takes to get it done.

Ray Allen will win a title in his career once his paired with other top talent.  

Big Dog one a title deep on a bench once.  


This is an issue with a lot of teams.  Many players win title after their best season.  Does it make them less likely to win a title on a loaded team?

Its an interesting question, I personally think that when almost every team is, "Loaded" as you say the championship experience is a big factor.  I would agree with you that if your team were playing in the NBA today they would steamroll, but every team in this league is a super team.  Thats where overcoming adversity, knowing what it takes to win a big game comes into play.

But with all these players, the difference between winning a title early or later (or not) has been teammates. 


But that is not an issue for these teams.




So it comes down to talent, fit and possible chemistry issues. 


If a player proves to be a title quality star when they get the right teammates eventually in the NBA, then they are a quality title star. 

I agree with the fit and Chemistry and like I said, I really like that aspect of your team.  But I don't agree that you can argue that player X is a championship quality player because when he was surrounded by talent in the real NBA he did it so he had it in him all along.

In this league every team has a superb amount of talent.  with the exceptions of some teams that I see clearly at the top I think it is mostly a level playing field of talent.  For example, and im not picking on him, i love Ray, watching Ray play basketball has been my favorite thing about the celtics over the last 5 or so years.

But Ray didnt win a title until he was on a top two team talent wise in the league.  Do I think your team is top two in this league in talent?  Maybe, your team is up there, thats for sure.  But im just not sure you can say he is a championship caliber player on your team

Of course he is.  He never had a really good big man until he got to Boston.  He was still leading teams deep into the playoffs built around perimeter players. 


Give that Bucks team an actual inside threat, they would have been in the finals.

But not if the opposing team had an equally good inside threat/post defender.

[wdleehi]

Tricity Blackhawks  (we are going historical name)


PG  Williams
SG  Ray Allen
SF  Deng
PF  Love
C   Howard

Bench

PG Brandon
SG Petrovic
SF Glen Robinson
PF/SF Robert Horry
PF/C Clifford Robinson (big headband one)
PF/C Aldridge

I love the pieces that you have here, Allen Deng and Love are enough of the, "do your job, go about your business" type guys to balance out the diva that we all know is alive inside of Dwight and Deron.  I was worried about your 0 championships in your starting lineup but I think Robert Horry was a big pickup for you in terms of bringing some leadership and a guy that knows what it takes to get it done.

Ray Allen will win a title in his career once his paired with other top talent.  

Big Dog one a title deep on a bench once.  


This is an issue with a lot of teams.  Many players win title after their best season.  Does it make them less likely to win a title on a loaded team?

Its an interesting question, I personally think that when almost every team is, "Loaded" as you say the championship experience is a big factor.  I would agree with you that if your team were playing in the NBA today they would steamroll, but every team in this league is a super team.  Thats where overcoming adversity, knowing what it takes to win a big game comes into play.

But with all these players, the difference between winning a title early or later (or not) has been teammates. 


But that is not an issue for these teams.




So it comes down to talent, fit and possible chemistry issues. 


If a player proves to be a title quality star when they get the right teammates eventually in the NBA, then they are a quality title star. 

I agree with the fit and Chemistry and like I said, I really like that aspect of your team.  But I don't agree that you can argue that player X is a championship quality player because when he was surrounded by talent in the real NBA he did it so he had it in him all along.

In this league every team has a superb amount of talent.  with the exceptions of some teams that I see clearly at the top I think it is mostly a level playing field of talent.  For example, and im not picking on him, i love Ray, watching Ray play basketball has been my favorite thing about the celtics over the last 5 or so years.

But Ray didnt win a title until he was on a top two team talent wise in the league.  Do I think your team is top two in this league in talent?  Maybe, your team is up there, thats for sure.  But im just not sure you can say he is a championship caliber player on your team

Of course he is.  He never had a really good big man until he got to Boston.  He was still leading teams deep into the playoffs built around perimeter players. 


Give that Bucks team an actual inside threat, they would have been in the finals.

But not if the opposing team had an equally good inside threat/post defender.

They already had a better inside player.  They had Mutumbo. 

[Moranis]

Tricity Blackhawks  (we are going historical name)


PG  Williams
SG  Ray Allen
SF  Deng
PF  Love
C   Howard

Bench

PG Brandon
SG Petrovic
SF Glen Robinson
PF/SF Robert Horry
PF/C Clifford Robinson (big headband one)
PF/C Aldridge

I love the pieces that you have here, Allen Deng and Love are enough of the, "do your job, go about your business" type guys to balance out the diva that we all know is alive inside of Dwight and Deron.  I was worried about your 0 championships in your starting lineup but I think Robert Horry was a big pickup for you in terms of bringing some leadership and a guy that knows what it takes to get it done.

Ray Allen will win a title in his career once his paired with other top talent.  

Big Dog one a title deep on a bench once.  


This is an issue with a lot of teams.  Many players win title after their best season.  Does it make them less likely to win a title on a loaded team?

Its an interesting question, I personally think that when almost every team is, "Loaded" as you say the championship experience is a big factor.  I would agree with you that if your team were playing in the NBA today they would steamroll, but every team in this league is a super team.  Thats where overcoming adversity, knowing what it takes to win a big game comes into play.

But with all these players, the difference between winning a title early or later (or not) has been teammates. 


But that is not an issue for these teams.




So it comes down to talent, fit and possible chemistry issues. 


If a player proves to be a title quality star when they get the right teammates eventually in the NBA, then they are a quality title star. 

I agree with the fit and Chemistry and like I said, I really like that aspect of your team.  But I don't agree that you can argue that player X is a championship quality player because when he was surrounded by talent in the real NBA he did it so he had it in him all along.

In this league every team has a superb amount of talent.  with the exceptions of some teams that I see clearly at the top I think it is mostly a level playing field of talent.  For example, and im not picking on him, i love Ray, watching Ray play basketball has been my favorite thing about the celtics over the last 5 or so years.

But Ray didnt win a title until he was on a top two team talent wise in the league.  Do I think your team is top two in this league in talent?  Maybe, your team is up there, thats for sure.  But im just not sure you can say he is a championship caliber player on your team

Of course he is.  He never had a really good big man until he got to Boston.  He was still leading teams deep into the playoffs built around perimeter players. 


Give that Bucks team an actual inside threat, they would have been in the finals.

You mean the Bucks team that lost to Iverson's Sixers.  I mean what was the inside threat that Philly had?  Sure Deke is a great defender, but he isn't someone you had to worry about at all on the other end of the floor.  I like Ray Allen as much as the next guy, but his team with him, Big Dog, and Cassell, lost to Iverson and a bunch of role players.  Now granted the role players were all excellent defenders, but all the Bucks had to do was stop Iverson to win and they couldn't do it.

[Rondo2287]

Tricity Blackhawks  (we are going historical name)


PG  Williams
SG  Ray Allen
SF  Deng
PF  Love
C   Howard

Bench

PG Brandon
SG Petrovic
SF Glen Robinson
PF/SF Robert Horry
PF/C Clifford Robinson (big headband one)
PF/C Aldridge

I love the pieces that you have here, Allen Deng and Love are enough of the, "do your job, go about your business" type guys to balance out the diva that we all know is alive inside of Dwight and Deron.  I was worried about your 0 championships in your starting lineup but I think Robert Horry was a big pickup for you in terms of bringing some leadership and a guy that knows what it takes to get it done.

Ray Allen will win a title in his career once his paired with other top talent.  

Big Dog one a title deep on a bench once.  


This is an issue with a lot of teams.  Many players win title after their best season.  Does it make them less likely to win a title on a loaded team?

Its an interesting question, I personally think that when almost every team is, "Loaded" as you say the championship experience is a big factor.  I would agree with you that if your team were playing in the NBA today they would steamroll, but every team in this league is a super team.  Thats where overcoming adversity, knowing what it takes to win a big game comes into play.

But with all these players, the difference between winning a title early or later (or not) has been teammates. 


But that is not an issue for these teams.




So it comes down to talent, fit and possible chemistry issues. 


If a player proves to be a title quality star when they get the right teammates eventually in the NBA, then they are a quality title star. 

I agree with the fit and Chemistry and like I said, I really like that aspect of your team.  But I don't agree that you can argue that player X is a championship quality player because when he was surrounded by talent in the real NBA he did it so he had it in him all along.

In this league every team has a superb amount of talent.  with the exceptions of some teams that I see clearly at the top I think it is mostly a level playing field of talent.  For example, and im not picking on him, i love Ray, watching Ray play basketball has been my favorite thing about the celtics over the last 5 or so years.

But Ray didnt win a title until he was on a top two team talent wise in the league.  Do I think your team is top two in this league in talent?  Maybe, your team is up there, thats for sure.  But im just not sure you can say he is a championship caliber player on your team

Of course he is.  He never had a really good big man until he got to Boston.  He was still leading teams deep into the playoffs built around perimeter players. 


Give that Bucks team an actual inside threat, they would have been in the finals.

But not if the opposing team had an equally good inside threat/post defender.

They already had a better inside player.  They had Mutumbo. 

Ok so give the 76ers a better player in whatever positions they were lacking.  the point remains the same.

[wdleehi]

Tricity Blackhawks  (we are going historical name)


PG  Williams
SG  Ray Allen
SF  Deng
PF  Love
C   Howard

Bench

PG Brandon
SG Petrovic
SF Glen Robinson
PF/SF Robert Horry
PF/C Clifford Robinson (big headband one)
PF/C Aldridge

I love the pieces that you have here, Allen Deng and Love are enough of the, "do your job, go about your business" type guys to balance out the diva that we all know is alive inside of Dwight and Deron.  I was worried about your 0 championships in your starting lineup but I think Robert Horry was a big pickup for you in terms of bringing some leadership and a guy that knows what it takes to get it done.

Ray Allen will win a title in his career once his paired with other top talent.  

Big Dog one a title deep on a bench once.  


This is an issue with a lot of teams.  Many players win title after their best season.  Does it make them less likely to win a title on a loaded team?

Its an interesting question, I personally think that when almost every team is, "Loaded" as you say the championship experience is a big factor.  I would agree with you that if your team were playing in the NBA today they would steamroll, but every team in this league is a super team.  Thats where overcoming adversity, knowing what it takes to win a big game comes into play.

But with all these players, the difference between winning a title early or later (or not) has been teammates. 


But that is not an issue for these teams.




So it comes down to talent, fit and possible chemistry issues. 


If a player proves to be a title quality star when they get the right teammates eventually in the NBA, then they are a quality title star. 

I agree with the fit and Chemistry and like I said, I really like that aspect of your team.  But I don't agree that you can argue that player X is a championship quality player because when he was surrounded by talent in the real NBA he did it so he had it in him all along.

In this league every team has a superb amount of talent.  with the exceptions of some teams that I see clearly at the top I think it is mostly a level playing field of talent.  For example, and im not picking on him, i love Ray, watching Ray play basketball has been my favorite thing about the celtics over the last 5 or so years.

But Ray didnt win a title until he was on a top two team talent wise in the league.  Do I think your team is top two in this league in talent?  Maybe, your team is up there, thats for sure.  But im just not sure you can say he is a championship caliber player on your team

Of course he is.  He never had a really good big man until he got to Boston.  He was still leading teams deep into the playoffs built around perimeter players. 


Give that Bucks team an actual inside threat, they would have been in the finals.

You mean the Bucks team that lost to Iverson's Sixers.  I mean what was the inside threat that Philly had?  Sure Deke is a great defender, but he isn't someone you had to worry about at all on the other end of the floor.  I like Ray Allen as much as the next guy, but his team with him, Big Dog, and Cassell, lost to Iverson and a bunch of role players.  Now granted the role players were all excellent defenders, but all the Bucks had to do was stop Iverson to win and they couldn't do it.

It was a 7 game series.  76ers won not because of AI, but because they had a better defense.  If the Bucks had a better inside presence then Ervin Johnson, they probably beat the 76ers.  

Mutombo did average 14 and 14 in the playoffs that year.  

[wdleehi]

Ok so give the 76ers a better player in whatever positions they were lacking.  the point remains the same.

Correct.


These players win or lose titles based on the teammates.

[Rondo2287]

Ok so give the 76ers a better player in whatever positions they were lacking.  the point remains the same.

Correct.


These players win or lose titles based on the teammates.

well yes, but that wasnt the point i was arguing, or at least trying to.  Im afraid we have gotten off topic, my point is just that the championship experience factor doesnt come into play until the player actually wins it.  At least in my book.

[Moranis]

You mean the Bucks team that lost to Iverson's Sixers.  I mean what was the inside threat that Philly had?  Sure Deke is a great defender, but he isn't someone you had to worry about at all on the other end of the floor.  I like Ray Allen as much as the next guy, but his team with him, Big Dog, and Cassell, lost to Iverson and a bunch of role players.  Now granted the role players were all excellent defenders, but all the Bucks had to do was stop Iverson to win and they couldn't do it.

It was a 7 game series.  76ers won not because of AI, but because they had a better defense.  If the Bucks had a better inside presence then Ervin Johnson, they probably beat the 76ers.  

Mutombo did average 14 and 14 in the playoffs that year.  

True, and Johnson was at like 5.5/11 on 57% from the field.  Maybe the issue was Allen, Big Dog, and Cassell just never shared the ball with Ervin.

[Who]

Nash
Finley/Battier
Pippen/Rice
Elton Brand/J Smith
J O'Neal/M Okur/Big Z

1 pick in the 12th, 2 picks in the 13th left.

Obviously you need a defensive PG, I have one in mind that I would really like to see on your team if you want my advice.  

I don't think a defensive PG is a priority. A playmaking PG who can maintain your style of play while Nash rests should be the priority.

Especially with a bench that will be much more effective with a creative playmaking PG rather than a setup guard. Shane Battier, Memo Okur, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Josh Smith. All of these guys will play better alongside a playmaking PG. The only real bench player who doesn't need a playmaking PG and can create his own at a reasonable level is Glen Rice.

It's not like you are going to bench Steve Nash for this defensive guard. Nash is the second best player on the team. He needs to be out on the court.

Need a playmaking PG as your primary backup PG.

You can add a defensive PG as a situational sub. A third string player. Or you could go bigger with a third string defensive wing with great defensive range who can guard 1-3. Either option can work well.

[Rondo2287]

Nash
Finley/Battier
Pippen/Rice
Elton Brand/J Smith
J O'Neal/M Okur/Big Z

1 pick in the 12th, 2 picks in the 13th left.

Obviously you need a defensive PG, I have one in mind that I would really like to see on your team if you want my advice.  

I don't think a defensive PG is a priority. A playmaking PG who can maintain your style of play while Nash rests should be the priority.

Especially with a bench that will be much more effective with a creative playmaking PG rather than a setup guard. Shane Battier, Memo Okur, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Josh Smith. All of these guys will play better alongside a playmaking PG. The only real bench player who doesn't need a playmaking PG and can create his own at a reasonable level is Glen Rice.

It's not like you are going to bench Steve Nash for this defensive guard. Nash is the second best player on the team. He needs to be out on the court.

Need a playmaking PG as your primary backup PG.

You can add a defensive PG as a situational sub. A third string player. Or you could go bigger with a third string defensive wing with great defensive range who can guard 1-3. Either option can work well.

Fine, then I'll take the defensive pg i have in mind! 

[wdleehi]

You mean the Bucks team that lost to Iverson's Sixers.  I mean what was the inside threat that Philly had?  Sure Deke is a great defender, but he isn't someone you had to worry about at all on the other end of the floor.  I like Ray Allen as much as the next guy, but his team with him, Big Dog, and Cassell, lost to Iverson and a bunch of role players.  Now granted the role players were all excellent defenders, but all the Bucks had to do was stop Iverson to win and they couldn't do it.

It was a 7 game series.  76ers won not because of AI, but because they had a better defense.  If the Bucks had a better inside presence then Ervin Johnson, they probably beat the 76ers.  

Mutombo did average 14 and 14 in the playoffs that year.  

True, and Johnson was at like 5.5/11 on 57% from the field.  Maybe the issue was Allen, Big Dog, and Cassell just never shared the ball with Ervin.

Since his high water mark for scoring was 8 points a game, probably not a terrible thing they didn't feed him more. 

[Roy H.]

Ok so give the 76ers a better player in whatever positions they were lacking.  the point remains the same.

Correct.


These players win or lose titles based on the teammates.

well yes, but that wasnt the point i was arguing, or at least trying to.  Im afraid we have gotten off topic, my point is just that the championship experience factor doesnt come into play until the player actually wins it.  At least in my book.

It's an interesting question.

Here's how I look at it:  I think future titles a player wins are relevant.  In determining how relevant, you ask "how similar was this player to the player who eventually won?"

In the case of somebody like Paul Pierce, you might argue that younger Pierce didn't have the maturity to be a cog on a championship squad.  (I'm not saying I agree, but it's arguable).  In the case of Ray Allen, on the other hand, he didn't necessarily change all that much from his best years to his time in Boston.

It's a lot of tea leaf reading, and it's certainly objective, but in evaluating teams I'll be looking at their future careers almost as much as their years prior to the year selected.

[StartOrien]

C: Vlade Divac
PF: Chris Webber
SF: Shawn Marion
SG: Manu Ginobli
PG: Baron Davis

Andre Iguodala, Lamar Odom, Theo Ratliff
Stephon Marbury, Toni Kukoc,
Kenyon Martin

Think I'm looking at adding a swing shooter this round, and probably a more 'conventional' point guard. I'd like to get you a minutes breakdown, but it's so dependent on matchup it's really not worth the time.

Any other thoughts?

[Rondo2287]

Ok so give the 76ers a better player in whatever positions they were lacking.  the point remains the same.

Correct.


These players win or lose titles based on the teammates.

well yes, but that wasnt the point i was arguing, or at least trying to.  Im afraid we have gotten off topic, my point is just that the championship experience factor doesnt come into play until the player actually wins it.  At least in my book.

It's an interesting question.

Here's how I look at it:  I think future titles a player wins are relevant.  In determining how relevant, you ask "how similar was this player to the player who eventually won?"

In the case of somebody like Paul Pierce, you might argue that younger Pierce didn't have the maturity to be a cog on a championship squad.  (I'm not saying I agree, but it's arguable).  In the case of Ray Allen, on the other hand, he didn't necessarily change all that much from his best years to his time in Boston.

It's a lot of tea leaf reading, and it's certainly objective, but in evaluating teams I'll be looking at their future careers almost as much as their years prior to the year selected.

Rays game changed significantly his skill set and personality didnt but his game did.  In boston he has been primarily a shooter coming off picks whereas, in seattle, (I didnt see much of him with the bucks) he handled the ball a great deal more and created for himself off the dribble.