What's new
By:
Filters

Is team concept play the way to go

S

slc

Well-Known Member
What does everyone think
Seems like every team that has a top ten type player or diva type player is struggling now
There are some who aren't also
Jazz have a group of team concept players that seem to want to play total team ball and are succeeding to a certain degree
Maybe this will be the trend of the future
There will always be 20 or more teams that don't have a top ten player
The only way for them to succeed is to build a solid roster of very good players that can win together
Jazz are positioned very nicely to add some draft picks even if they don't get a top 4 pick
 
I still think you need top end talent to win a championship. Look at the last 5 NBA champions...the Warriors won it twice in the past 5 years with Steph, the Lakers had Lebron, the Bucks had Giannis, and the Raptors had Kawhi. Then you likely need another all-star caliber player as a second option and a lot of good shooting and role players to fill out the roster.
 
Last edited:
NBA loves stars over teams, if you dont have a big name or two the REFS screw you over if you play a team that has the big names. Winning a ship will take getting a STAR so the NBA will allow it to happen.
 
A team that has 5 players on the floor who can create, shoot and defend is very difficult to beat. Having floor balance is a good strategy. That said, you still need a couple guys who are elite on either side of the floor.
 
I think failure to believe in the team is what impeded the Mitchell-Gobert Jazz teams. The blender went away along with all the success.

Hero ball is the fools gold of the NBA. The og Steph Clay Draymond warriors were such a beautiful example of chemistry and cooperation. It's the super team cryptonite.

The nets/Lakers super teams have been struggling. I think you can blame it on chemistry at some level. It's not enough to get the big names. The pieces really have to fit and work together.

Sent from my SM-G996U using JazzFanz mobile app
 
You need top ten talent that plays well with others. I don’t love Trae Young types. I think you have to be careful with some of the personalities.
 
Jingled said:
I still think you need top end talent to win a championship. Look at the last 5 NBA champions...the Warriors won it twice in the past 5 years with Steph, the Lakers had Lebron, the Bucks had Giannis, and the Raptors had Kawhi. Then you likely need another all-star caliber player as a second option and a lot of good shooting and role players to fill out the roster.
Click to expand...
As much as I appreciate Lebron, it was AD who won them that chip. Doesn't change the argument though, as AD was definitely top 5 guy that year and Lebron was up there as well.
 
vegas said:
I think failure to believe in the team is what impeded the Mitchell-Gobert Jazz teams. The blender went away along with all the success.

Hero ball is the fools gold of the NBA. The og Steph Clay Draymond warriors were such a beautiful example of chemistry and cooperation. It's the super team cryptonite.

The nets/Lakers super teams have been struggling. I think you can blame it on chemistry at some level. It's not enough to get the big names. The pieces really have to fit and work together.

Sent from my SM-G996U using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
Yeah all you need is two best shooters of all time, one of which is also a top 10 player of all time
 
You have to have stars. Point blank period.

It doesn't have to be iso ball and star centric, but you have to have someone who can takeover and put the team on their back.
 
slc said:
What does everyone think
Seems like every team that has a top ten type player or diva type player is struggling now
There are some who aren't also
Jazz have a group of team concept players that seem to want to play total team ball and are succeeding to a certain degree
Maybe this will be the trend of the future
There will always be 20 or more teams that don't have a top ten player
The only way for them to succeed is to build a solid roster of very good players that can win together
Jazz are positioned very nicely to add some draft picks even if they don't get a top 4 pick
Click to expand...
You dont need a perennial top 10 guy. You need a guy who can perform on that level if given the opportunity, and then you play as a team to set him (and others) up for success. You need players who lead on both ends of the court, and players who play in a way that elevates their teammates. Its also not about whether you play selfish offense or kumbayyah ball, the most important is that individual player skillsets are maximized and that the players boost each other.

Diva ball however is a dead horse no one should beat. There are no players other than Wilt in the history who have carried their team singlehandedly. Even MJ had a great supporting cast when he was dominant.
 
Jingled said:
I still think you need top end talent to win a championship. Look at the last 5 NBA champions...the Warriors won it twice in the past 5 years with Steph, the Lakers had Lebron, the Bucks had Giannis, and the Raptors had Kawhi. Then you likely need another all-star caliber player as a second option and a lot of good shooting and role players to fill out the roster.
Click to expand...
This. The team concept is necessary to get you to the big dance. But the top tier players elevate the team in those big moments. That is the difference. That is why money-ball, or team ball the way the Jazz have constructed it for time immemorial will only get you so far. Without the top tier talent you have little chance of advancing when it counts. Even when we arguably had 2 of the top 10 players in the league, easily 2 of the top 20, we ran into the ultimate #1 and another top 20 talent in the Bulls and could not get past that wall. But it took our TWO top 10 players, including an MVP and a top 3 PG of all time to even get us there. Without that, well you see the last few years where that gets you. A couple of lower level top 20 players in Gobert and Mitchell, call them "tier 2" players, and a strong team concept could even get us the best record in the regular season, but with 2 2nd tier players we just couldn't advance. At some point you have to have that guy, or guys, that can elevate their game and take things over when it counts. Without that you have little chance of winning it all.
 
HermanG said:
You dont need a perennial top 10 guy. You need a guy who can perform on that level if given the opportunity, and then you play as a team to set him (and others) up for success. You need players who lead on both ends of the court, and players who play in a way that elevates their teammates. Its also not about whether you play selfish offense or kumbayyah ball, the most important is that individual player skillsets are maximized and that the players boost each other.

Diva ball however is a dead horse no one should beat. There are no players other than Wilt in the history who have carried their team singlehandedly. Even MJ had a great supporting cast when he was dominant.
Click to expand...
Even Wilt had top-notch teammates in his championships. In '67 he had Hal Greer, one of the best play-makers and scorers in the league, who averaged 26ppg, 8 rpg, and 6 apg in the finals, where Wilt averaged 17 ppg, (an insane) 28 rpg, and 6 apg in that series. And others in that series who were multiple year all-stars. And in '72 Wilt had an all-time supporting cast including Goodrich and the Logo. If anything in the finals Wilt won you could argue for the other side of this discussion, that the teams he faced had no consensus top 10 players, but were team concept groups that didn't have the transcendent stars to get them over the top, especially in '72 where the best player on the knicks was Walt Frazier, who wasn't even on Goodrich's level and Goodrich was probably the 3rd best player on that Lakers team that year, and it showed in the fact that the Lakers won that series 4-1. The '67 team faced stiffer competition in a Warriors team lead by Rick Barry and Nate Thurmond (who nearly matched Wilt by the way with a line of 14/26/3), who just wasn't enough to transcend the Wilt and Greer combo. Even with Barry averaging an insane 40 ppg in that series, including putting up 55 pts in a game 3 Warriors win.

So even the greatest players almost always have another top 20 to top 10 player as support. Steph had Klay. LBJ had multiple over the years. You could almost argue that the Time Duncan spurs were the ultimate example of a single top 10 player and a transcendent team concept winning the ring without other top 10 support, although you could probably argue that Manu was a top 20 player, but from stats and such he really wasn't. Top 25 maybe.

Otherwise it is almost always a top 10 and top 20 (at least) player duo or trio that wins the rings.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
You have to have stars. Point blank period.

It doesn't have to be iso ball and star centric, but you have to have someone who can takeover and put the team on their back.
Click to expand...
You need it most in the playoffs for those star calls esp when the game slows down. When is the last time one of these team concept squads with 5 very good players and no superstar actually won a championship? The '04 Pistons? Even that was an anomoly because Shaq and Kobe were feuding. Shaq ended up getting traded that offseason.

Going back to the early Boston Celtic Bill Russell days and it's very, very rare that a team devoid of a top 10 superstar actually wins a title.
 
HeatCheck said:
You need it most in the playoffs for those star calls esp when the game slows down. When is the last time one of these team concept squads with 5 very good players and no superstar actually won a championship? The '04 Pistons? Even that was an anomoly because Shaq and Kobe were feuding. Shaq ended up getting traded that offseason.

Going back to the early Boston Celtic Bill Russell days and it's very, very rare that a team devoid of a top 10 superstar actually wins a title.
Click to expand...
Brother they had Bill Russell, that guy was a top 5 player in the NBA.
 
The '04 Pistons is basically the only team off the top of my head that had no clear top 10 player. 3 of their top 5 guys were elite defenders though. Chauncy was a very good defender and Rip wasnt bad.

That was also still a time period where you could win a playoff game with a score of like 80-75.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
The '04 Pistons is basically the only team off the top of my head that had no clear top 10 player. 3 of their top 5 guys were elite defenders though. Chauncy was a very good defender and Rip wasnt bad.

That was also still a time period where you could win a playoff game with a score of like 80-75.
Click to expand...
Yeah really that Pistons team benefited from one of the great collapses in NBA history as a clearly dominant Lakers team fell apart due to internal bickering. If they had played united they would have won it running away.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Yeah really that Pistons team benefited from one of the great collapses in NBA history as a clearly dominant Lakers team fell apart due to internal bickering. If they had played united they would have won it running away.
Click to expand...
Ehh, I hate that narrative. Detroit won it. The Lakers ran through the West with ZERO issue that year.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Yeah really that Pistons team benefited from one of the great collapses in NBA history as a clearly dominant Lakers team fell apart due to internal bickering. If they had played united they would have won it running away.
Click to expand...

Kobe had an very bad Finals series from a star perspective. He shot 43/113 from the field in that series for a terrible 38% from the field. Pistons had a dominant defense that year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top