RealGM

if you were starting to build a team, which foundation would result in an easier and quicker path to success:

1. building a team of shooters but poor defenders and then adding defensive players over the years

or

2. building a team of defenders put poor shooters and then adding shooting over the years?


note- none of the players you start with are superstars.

those are your two options. both is not valid.

You need that offensive superstar. If you have him, you build out a defensive team like OKC who won with a pretty trash fire looking offense at times. But, Indiana has shown you don’t need a superstar to win it all and arguably they could have if Halliburton didn’t go down. Either way, you still need a guy and Indiana had one of the clutchest players in basketball during that run.

Basketball_Jones wrote:You need that offensive superstar. If you have him, you build out a defensive team like OKC who won with a pretty trash fire looking offense at times. But, Indiana has shown you don’t need a superstar to win it all and arguably they could have if Halliburton didn’t go down. Either way, you still need a guy and Indiana had one of the clutchest players in basketball during that run.

appreciate the response but that wasnt the question. do you start building out with shooters first or defenders.

djsunyc wrote:

Basketball_Jones wrote:You need that offensive superstar. If you have him, you build out a defensive team like OKC who won with a pretty trash fire looking offense at times. But, Indiana has shown you don’t need a superstar to win it all and arguably they could have if Halliburton didn’t go down. Either way, you still need a guy and Indiana had one of the clutchest players in basketball during that run.

appreciate the response but that wasnt the question. do you start building out with shooters first or defenders.

I mean, it depends what you have. If you have the offensive superstar then defenders. If not you go shooters imo.

Basketball_Jones wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

Basketball_Jones wrote:You need that offensive superstar. If you have him, you build out a defensive team like OKC who won with a pretty trash fire looking offense at times. But, Indiana has shown you don’t need a superstar to win it all and arguably they could have if Halliburton didn’t go down. Either way, you still need a guy and Indiana had one of the clutchest players in basketball during that run.

appreciate the response but that wasnt the question. do you start building out with shooters first or defenders.

I mean, it depends what you have. If you have the offensive superstar then defenders. If not you go shooters imo.

fair, i changed the OP to note that none of the players you start with are superstars

You’re not building an elite offence without a superstar offensive engine.

Best pathway to us being a playoff team again is via defence.

djsunyc wrote:if you were starting to build a team, which foundation would result in an easier and quicker path to success:

1. building a team of shooters but poor defenders and then adding defensive players over the years

or

2. building a team of defenders put poor shooters and then adding shooting over the years?


note- none of the players you start with are superstars.

those are your two options. both is not valid.

#1. I'd rather score and hope the other team misses than get stops and have low confidence I can go the other way and score.

When you score you put pressure on the other team to score. When you don't score you put pressure on your own defence, not the other team.

In addition, over a season if you can't score you can't really be competitive and lack of competitiveness is not good for team culture.

Defense always
Even if u draft a luka doncic gives u more incentive to surround with more defenders and 2 way guys

Defense wins championships. Some of the greatest offensive forces of our generation have been unable to win a chip because they were lacking exactly that.

A good defender imo generally means that they also have strong athletic traits, good BBIQ to understand rotations and player tendencies, and importantly, a willingness to work hard, study film, and put the team first. That sort of attitude and non-box score attributes are a huge part of a winning team. Offensive player types can oftentimes be a more "me-first" kind of player.

If the players are not superstars, I take the defenders everytime and find a microwave scorer elsewhere. Every championship team needs multiple guys to guard different types of opposing stars throughout the playoffs, from PG's to C's. You can have an awesome 1-4 on defense, but if you don't have a C and run into Embiid or Jokic, you're cooked. You just have no options to stop them. If your POA defense is porous like it was with say the SSOL Suns, or any Harden team, it really doesn't matter how many points you can put up on the other end - you simply have a fatal flaw that gets exploited in the playoffs. Scoring/shooting on the other hand, can come from any position. You don't necessarily need 3p shooters 1 thru 5.

HumbleRen wrote:You’re not building an elite offence without a superstar offensive engine.

Best pathway to us being a playoff team again is via defence.

Nah, making the playoffs can be done with either, winning in the playoffs requires both. The Magic were a great example of that last year, great defence poor offence, and lost in the first round. I think it would be easier/faster with offence first though scoring in the RS is easier than defending, both types are lopsided so they won't really win anything.

Start with scorers. Then add complimentary players. Unless you can make defense adjust, your half court offense will struggle.

Defense first. It sets the tone and culture of the team from the outset. Then you add shooters and the offensive star(s) you need to take you to the next level.

Offense wins games, Defense wins Championships.

I sort of look at it as certain players.

Simons vs Suggs

I think Suggs wins that matchup a bunch more over time.

HumbleRen wrote:You’re not building an elite offence without a superstar offensive engine.

Best pathway to us being a playoff team again is via defence.

And I’d always start defenders first because it’s a more seamless add to ou that superstar engine in.

A great offensive team can’t really add an offensive hub. Their room for improvement is 2-way stars aka like 5 players on the league. A great defensive team can take a chance on guys like Trae Young to put them over the top.

Steph Curry is actually a great example. He isn’t a great defender by any stretch, but the amazing defensive team around him let him at least fit well into a defensive system even if individually he wasn’t stellar.

But put Curry on an offensive team without Dray/Klay/Iggy/Bogut/etc. and I don’t think he has that success

I think this would be out best 2 way lineup.

For Defense, The key is the the box.
Murray-Boyles In there against stretch bigs, and Switch with Scottie if there is a true lob threat.
They can provide help for everyone, clog up the high post.

Ja'kobe is the Point of Attack defender.
Jakob provides more help for BI.

If the ball handler gets by Ja'kobe, and isn't in the Triangle, then he can play rover.

That Triangle is where we should try and and force the ball handlers.

Scase wrote:

HumbleRen wrote:You’re not building an elite offence without a superstar offensive engine.

Best pathway to us being a playoff team again is via defence.

Nah, making the playoffs can be done with either, winning in the playoffs requires both. The Magic were a great example of that last year, great defence poor offence, and lost in the first round. I think it would be easier/faster with offence first though scoring in the RS is easier than defending, both types are lopsided so they won't really win anything.

I don’t think so. You basically need to be an historic offence to make the playoffs by being offence first.

Ideally you’d like both but the starting path has to be defence.

Defense first all the way.

Defense always.

You can’t teach defense.

HumbleRen wrote:

Scase wrote:

HumbleRen wrote:You’re not building an elite offence without a superstar offensive engine.

Best pathway to us being a playoff team again is via defence.

Nah, making the playoffs can be done with either, winning in the playoffs requires both. The Magic were a great example of that last year, great defence poor offence, and lost in the first round. I think it would be easier/faster with offence first though scoring in the RS is easier than defending, both types are lopsided so they won't really win anything.

I don’t think so. You basically need to be an historic offence to make the playoffs by being offence first.

Ideally you’d like both but the starting path has to be defence.

Lakers just made the PO this year with a 115 ORTG (11th in the league) and 113.8 DRTG (17th in the league). Magic are an argument for D first with 108.9/109.1 but they needed the 2nd best defence in the league.

I think it's doable both ways, you just don't see it very often cause it's a stupid idea

TimeForChange wrote:Defense always.

You can’t teach defense.

Haven't been watching the raps the last 5-8 years eh? You can't teach offence either it seems