F
fairweather
Guest
Absolutely. If they can pick up Howard, look out eastern conference! It is always two star-caliber players. I thought we had close to that with Boozer, but he was too injury prone and played matador defense.
You DONT build around PG
- Thread starter Scorpjazz
- Start date
NotDeadYet
Well-Known Member
Yep; Williams is either a lure or trade bait; we'll see next year 'bout this time...
A big problem with Williams is defensively he lacked the lateral quickness of many of the younger PG's coming out the last few years. He's better defensively than Boozer, but no where near the defender Devin Harris is at PG, for instance... And, both Isiah and Dumars were excellent defenders... At SG, Williams, IMO, is a much better defender, where he needs less quickness and can use his strength more effectively to deny position.
A big problem with Williams is defensively he lacked the lateral quickness of many of the younger PG's coming out the last few years. He's better defensively than Boozer, but no where near the defender Devin Harris is at PG, for instance... And, both Isiah and Dumars were excellent defenders... At SG, Williams, IMO, is a much better defender, where he needs less quickness and can use his strength more effectively to deny position.
You can't have two big softies maning the pain either.
we finally have a defensive big....
we finally have a defensive big....
JAZZFAN_2814
Active Member
Isiah was a mediocre defender, at best.
Dumars was another plane as far as elite backcourt D.
Dumars was another plane as far as elite backcourt D.
Last edited:
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
I don't know if you should or shouldn't build around a point guard. I do know you absolutely can build around Deron Williams.
Teams win championships not PGs, SGs, SF, PFs or Centers not even two superstars. It a team game and the Jazz will go on no matter who is on the team. I like DW as a player. I think he got frustrated with the lack of improvement with the team much like many people on this board. I wish him well and hope that dealing him improves the team down the line because all I really want is for the Utah Jazz to win a championship. I don't care who plays for them.
If you can build a good two-man game and then have above-average players at 4 or all 5 positions (kind of like a rich-man's 2004 Pistons), I believe it makes a ton of sense. Bringing that much QUANTITY of skilled players is challenging, though, which I think is the biggest problem.
If you have to worry about ONLY two positions to have as your pillars, I believe they would be C and SG, in that order (besides tradition showing this, you can basically do everything the Jazz do with their 1-4 but with bigger players).
But, I have a big problem with the word 'can't' and correlation does not (necessarily) show cause.
If you have to worry about ONLY two positions to have as your pillars, I believe they would be C and SG, in that order (besides tradition showing this, you can basically do everything the Jazz do with their 1-4 but with bigger players).
But, I have a big problem with the word 'can't' and correlation does not (necessarily) show cause.
JAZZFAN_2814
Active Member
Without the Jordan outlier, the SG position would look pretty poor vis a vis championship result, as well.
Further, the parallel point is that the 90s would have been dominated by bigs -- were, actually, dominated by bigs, anyway -- on every level including championship result; without Jordan, Malone likely wins multiple titles, Barkley probably has one and even Ewing may have had a decent shot.
Further, looking at the top teams from that period, it's likely that the decade would have been seen as dominated by 1-4 combinations at the championship-level: Stockton/Malone with a couple, Barkley/KJ with one, even Payton/Kemp in 96 were likely winners without the MJ factor.
And that's, also, why Jordan is considered so great, or a huge part of it: he was a wing that dominated a league typically owned by bigs, and during a decade that may have been the best on talent at 4/5 all-time.
Today, all the rules push for advantages at the wings, and for backcourt offensive stars. Yet the last decade has been dominated, as usual, by big men. That is, without Jordan.
Kobe? Hasn't been able to get out of the first round or even make the playoffs without either the best C in the league or one of the very best PFs and overall frontcourts today, if not the best overall talent upfront.
You can make the argument that he is the best player, but the point is myopic; the team is a loser, no matter Kobe's individual greatness, without superior frontcourt talent.
To criticize the PG position as being a losing proposition is not the brightest point in and of itself, especially when looking at history and context across the positions and the amount of contention that has resulted.
The real point, relative to whatever moment, is that real game-changing, championship result stems foremost in the frontcourt, and this a criticism that remains today of BOTH PGs/SGs even with the new rules favoring these positions.
Further, the parallel point is that the 90s would have been dominated by bigs -- were, actually, dominated by bigs, anyway -- on every level including championship result; without Jordan, Malone likely wins multiple titles, Barkley probably has one and even Ewing may have had a decent shot.
Further, looking at the top teams from that period, it's likely that the decade would have been seen as dominated by 1-4 combinations at the championship-level: Stockton/Malone with a couple, Barkley/KJ with one, even Payton/Kemp in 96 were likely winners without the MJ factor.
And that's, also, why Jordan is considered so great, or a huge part of it: he was a wing that dominated a league typically owned by bigs, and during a decade that may have been the best on talent at 4/5 all-time.
Today, all the rules push for advantages at the wings, and for backcourt offensive stars. Yet the last decade has been dominated, as usual, by big men. That is, without Jordan.
Kobe? Hasn't been able to get out of the first round or even make the playoffs without either the best C in the league or one of the very best PFs and overall frontcourts today, if not the best overall talent upfront.
You can make the argument that he is the best player, but the point is myopic; the team is a loser, no matter Kobe's individual greatness, without superior frontcourt talent.
To criticize the PG position as being a losing proposition is not the brightest point in and of itself, especially when looking at history and context across the positions and the amount of contention that has resulted.
The real point, relative to whatever moment, is that real game-changing, championship result stems foremost in the frontcourt, and this a criticism that remains today of BOTH PGs/SGs even with the new rules favoring these positions.
JAZZFAN_2814
Active Member
And as for Magic? Name me the championship this guy won without absolutely loaded teams or Kareem present throughout.
Laker guards have been overrated as far as contending results for a long time.
Laker guards have been overrated as far as contending results for a long time.
Perhaps, but Magic was one hell of a player, possibly the most well-rounded and versatile player of all time (even rivaling Oscar Robertson). His performance at C in a finals game in his rookie year is still one of the most unique and incredible feats ever accomplished, IMO.