ss_maverick wrote:Who cares if this team lives or dies by their jumpshot? with Dirk, Baron, Nash, Howard, Jackson, Terry, Ellis et al, one of them is bound to be on with their jumper.
Because relying on shooting jumpshots (let alone offense in general) typically doesn't win a championship. Aside from what other factors there are.
ss_maverick wrote:Plus, even for a team as good defensively as the Spurs, can you really stop so many offensive options at once?
No. But what definitely can be done is limit one or two of the main players (Dirk and Nash), and contain abilities that the team lives on, that makes them successful. The Spurs balanced, versatile game fits into being able to do that. I think the Spurs would slow down one of Nash/Dirk over a series (they've done it in the past multiple times). Consequently, the complementary players, and the team, would not be as good because of that. Baron Davis and Josh Howard would have good series.
ss_maverick wrote:and all those factors you mentioned are important but none are nearly as important as the overall talent being discussed here.
No, you can't have talent, but are significantly lesser, inconsistent, or non-existent in other areas of what makes a good, winning basketball team.
ss_maverick wrote:This team would, without an iota of doubt, be a dynasty.
Wow. Just completely disagree. That team would not win a championship, let alone be a
dynasty.
They obviously would rely on offense and jumpshots too much to win games. Not enough defense, rebounding, and the offense isn't quite flexible enough. None of those areas would be a stand-out of the team (at least not on a regular basis). The team's style works well in the regular season with success, but only to a certain extent, in the playoffs. That point being where elimination comes along.
They're just not a balanced team.
ss_maverick wrote:Jordan's Bulls weren't the type of team that won championships in the past either were they?
No. The media and others were proven wrong.
But Jordan's Bulls were a special group of teams. Michael Jordan was Michael Jordan. Only team (along with the late 80s-90 Piston teams) to win a championship without a quality, traditional-type big man. Oh, and they had a versatile, unique offense, quality defense, rebounding, depth, chemistry, coaching, and total toughness.
These type of teams mentioned for nellie ball, just meet partial requirement for the kind of team that would win a championship.
Comparing these Nellie-Ball teams to the
1990s Bulls, just isn't legitimate, because of the amount of difference there is between the two type of teams. The way of being a perimeter-biased team offensively is the only similarity. But, that doesn't mean things would work in the same way it did for the Bulls, with these Nellie-'ball teams. Simply different players and team set-up.
They're basically irrelevant in comparison, and quite frankly, it's ridiculous.
ss_maverick wrote:Dirk always torches the Spurs so he would require a double team so who on that team would they leave open?
With the improved defensive range and depth the Spurs have since the 2006 Mavs series, they have the personnel to defend Dirk effectively again. And now Josh Howard (at least the ability to consistently focus on him). It's already shown up, too, in relation to a playoff series meeting, possibly again. Combined with the Spurs being a good defensive team in general. Dirk also definitely didn't always torch the Spurs before that series, either. Mixed success, individually.
