Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

fart · Post #1 » by **fart** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:57 am

So a lot of teams have a go to player that is supposed to create the offense for himself and take a lot of shots, but I've found teams made up of a bunch of good role players that move the ball until they get the best shot are better offensively than teams that have a "the man" who usually stops ball movement when he catches the ball and takes it upon himself to create an offensive possession instead of just swinging the ball. I think the Nuggets are a prime example of this, with Carmelo gone, they just swing the ball until someone gets a great look and takes it as opposed to giving the ball to Melo and allowing him to shoot tough shots. Weren't the Nuggets one of the top offensive teams last season? I also believe this is the case for the Bulls. I think their offense flows much better without their "the man", Derrick Rose. Bulls are just a bunch of good role players that keep swinging the ball until they get an open shot. What are your thoughts on this matter?

TwentyOne920 · Post #2 » by **TwentyOne920** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:59 am

What about the Spurs? They have a 3 go-to guys AND move the ball.

Dez · Post #3 » by **Dez** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:00 am

Our offense without is beyond horrific without Rose most of the time.

Optms · Post #4 » by **Optms** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:02 am

Teams without "the man" are forever stuck in mediocrity. Just like the Nuggets.

The Nuggets probably weren't going to win a title with Anthony but along with Billups, he took them further than they'll ever go with their current roster. They were a better team with Anthony.

fart · Post #5 » by **fart** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:05 am

TwentyOne920 wrote:What about the Spurs? They have a 3 go-to guys AND move the ball.

Exactly. Another great example the Spurs are. They don't rely on any one guy to get them shots. I don't really consider the Spurs to have a "the man", they just keep swinging the ball until they get an open shot. I mean, how many times if ever this season has a single player on the Spurs attempted 20+ shot attempts?

Optms wrote:Teams without "the man" are forever stuck in mediocrity. Just like the Nuggets.

The Nuggets probably weren't going to win a title with Anthony but along with Billups, he took them further than they'll ever go with their current roster. They were a better team with Anthony.

This is simply not true, look at the Pistons that won it in 04. Also, the Grizzles that were one game away from the WCF. neither of those teams had a "the man".

pj0tr · Post #6 » by **pj0tr** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:07 am

fart wrote:I also believe this is the case for the Bulls. I think their offense flows much better without their "the man", Derrick Rose. Bulls are just a bunch of good role players that keep swinging the ball until they get an open shot. What are your thoughts on this matter?

Have you even watched the Bulls play this season?

Sinant · Post #7 » by **Sinant** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:09 am

Durant and Chris Paul and (Phoenix) Steve Nash disagree.

QueenzAllDay · Post #8 » by **QueenzAllDay** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:10 am

fart wrote:
This is simply not true, look at the Pistons that won it in 04. Also, the Grizzles that were one game away from the WCF. neither of those teams had a "the man".

Pistons had exceptional players with great upside. They are like a rare exception to the rule because of how well the talent & coaches meshed.

I could argue Zach was playing out of his mind. He is the man for that team.

branny · Post #9 » by **branny** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:10 am

Doubt this is true for Bulls

Optms · Post #10 » by **Optms** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:11 am

fart wrote:
TwentyOne920 wrote:What about the Spurs? They have a 3 go-to guys AND move the ball.

Exactly. Another great example the Spurs are. They don't rely on any one guy to get them shots. I don't really consider the Spurs to have a "the man", they just keep swinging the ball until they get an open shot. I mean, how many times if ever this season has a single player on the Spurs attempted 20+ shot attempts?

Optms wrote:Teams without "the man" are forever stuck in mediocrity. Just like the Nuggets.

The Nuggets probably weren't going to win a title with Anthony but along with Billups, he took them further than they'll ever go with their current roster. They were a better team with Anthony.

This is simply not true, look at the Pistons that won it in 04. Also, the Grizzles that were one game away from the WCF. neither of those teams had a "the man".

Chauncy Billups was the man on offense for the Pistons. And even if you consider Detroit, they're the exception, not the rule.

Duncan led the Spurs to 4 championships. Are you arguing that the Spurs are better now because they move the ball more and don't have a real focal point on offense?

fart · Post #11 » by **fart** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:12 am

Sinant wrote:Durant and Chris Paul and (Phoenix) Steve Nash disagree.

Denver agrees with me. 4th best offensive team this season. Spurs 3rd.

Post #12 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:13 am

Get back to me when the nuggets get out of the 1st round.

As long as you have a team that encourages ball movement overall, having a go to scorer makes a difference.

fart · Post #13 » by **fart** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:14 am

Optms wrote:Duncan led the Spurs to 4 championships. Are you arguing that the Spurs are better now because they move the ball more and don't have a real focal point on offense?

Go look at the amount of points those teams scored and compare it to the amount of points the Spurs score now.

Sinant · Post #14 » by **Sinant** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:15 am

fart wrote:
Sinant wrote:Durant and Chris Paul and (Phoenix) Steve Nash disagree.

Denver agrees with me. 4th best offensive team this season. Spurs 3rd.

By ORTG:

OKC 1st
LAC 4th
SAS 5th
DEN 6th

Seems like the men are doing alright.

Who's 2nd and 3rd? NYK and MIA. I think they have some pretty good players too.

fart · Post #15 » by **fart** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:18 am

^^

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/ ... /avgPoints
3rd and 4th in ppg are Spurs and Nuggets.

Sinant · Post #16 » by **Sinant** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:19 am

fart wrote:^^

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/ ... /avgPoints
3rd and 4th in ppg are Spurs and Nuggets.

That's nice?

Doesn't take away the fact that the top four teams by total offensive rating are led by Durant, Paul, LeBron and Carmelo.

hamek · Post #17 » by **hamek** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:20 am

Watch a bulls game that isn't against the Lakers defense, then you won't be saying it. They're not as good offensively without rose, and statistics show this. (look at the Bulls FG% this year compared with last year and 2011).

fart · Post #18 » by **fart** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:20 am

I could also argue that Clippers don't have a "the man" as none of their players average over 18ppg and they have 8 players averaging 7 ppg or better.

Same thing for golden state, they have 5 guys in double figures.

Sinant · Post #19 » by **Sinant** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:22 am

fart wrote:I could also argue that Clippers don't have a "the man" as none of their players average over 18ppg and they have 8 players averaging 7 ppg or better.

Sure, if you ignore the fact that if you take CP3 away from that team they'd fall apart. You could certainly argue it under those conditions.

Post #20 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:22 am

fart wrote:I could also argue that Clippers don't have a "the man" as none of their players average over 18ppg and they have 8 players averaging 7 ppg or better.

They're very deep, but they also have the best PG in basketball, who can get any shot he wants and get to any spot he wants on the floor. You're attempting to suggest that doesn't make a difference, which is ludicrous.

Starting to wonder if you're trolling or something.