People in Los Angeles used to complain about Mitch Kupchak. Gooc thing Phil Jackson isn't the Lakers' GM. In an interview with Dan Patrick, Jackson said:
Dan Patrick asked Phil Jackson who he would want to start a team with. Jackson said that power players are really the key to the NBA. There are exceptions, like Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, but he would take Dwight Howard over James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Paul if he was starting a team right now.
I don't even know where to begin. LeBron James is so far ahead of everyone else right now - if starting a team right now. Can you imagine James playing in the Triangle? He already had arguably the greatest statistical year in NBA history and his teammats love playing with him. And you would take Howard because he is a big guy? Sure.
18 comments:
I would agree with Jackson. A player like Howard really anchors your team. Not to say that James isn't a great player, but how many teams win a championship without at least 1 great PF/C?
How many win without a great guard?
Howard arguably has more talent around him than James, so we'll see how they do in the play-offs. Would you rather have Lewis, Turkuglo and Alston or big Z, Williams and Vareajo?
I prefer to have the best player in the game, regardless of position, and that is LeBron James.
MJ didn't need a dominant center to win a championship. How many championships did Ewing - thought by some to be the best big of his era - win? How many did Karl Malone, called the best PF in history by some, win? Cleveland did not win much when its best player was Brad Daugherty. How's Yao Ming doing as the best center in the game?
Michael Jordan is the exception to the rule. Look at the history of the league and subtract Jordan's rings and dominat frontcourt play and defense were the primary drivers of most if not all championships.
That is not to say great perimter play is not necessary. In general, championship teams have to have all around balance.
But other than jordan's bulls i cannot think of any championship that was not LEAD by dominant front court play. Conversely, you can definitely come up with the latter.
I think Phil is exaggerating when he says Howard. Howard has not fulfilled his potential. But assuming he does, you would be more likely to win a ring lead by him coupled with above avg but not great perimeter play than vice versa.
History excluding Jordan, who is the ultimate aberration, does not lie.
As for Lebron, I still say he is the best athlete in the NBA but not the most skilled. Kobe and Wade are so much more skilled it ain't funny. Maybe you can say Lebron's athletic ability closes the gap. I can buy that.
Finally, Cleveland's supporting cast is very underrated. People tend to look at scoring and ignore defense and rebound are more importnat factors to winning rings.
when people compare "weapons", by "weapons" they almost exclusively mean scoring.
When factoring defense and rebounding into account, Cleveland's supporting cast as a unit can stand up to any. They play the best team defense, and not a finesse defense but the rugged type that wins rings (not sure i can trust them yet in crunch time enough to guarantee they will win it all, but on paper i think they are best constructed with what it typically takes to win champsionships...we will see).
If i want scoring i would rather have turk, alston, and lewis. but defense? no way.
we should have learned from last year that scoring and finesse never beats defense and power when it comes to rings.
jackson is just scared to validate lebron james as the best player in basketball. i dont understand how kobe is even in conversation for this anymore. look at the talent around each of the 5 players who are in the upper tier of the nba (james, wade, bryant, paul, howard)james clearly has the 2nd least potent roster (to wade). kobe obviously has the most talented, boasting 3 bigs are considered semi-franchise players(ok odom stretching it but u get my point) and perhaps the best basketball coach of all time!! all lebron has is spare parts and mo williams, who was given away by milwaukee because apparently he couldnt run a team. put kobe on the cavs, and that team probably wins 45 games, but lebron on the lakers wins 75, and probably blows through the playoffs in like 18 games. i think the whole debate is ridiculous. lebron is better passer, scorer, leader, AND he shoots halfcourt shots on 60 minutes. if dan rather believes it, so do i.
This one is far from a no brainer, but if you could only choose one player to start building a team with, a dominant big man makes the most basketball sense. A skilled big that plays in the paint will always put more pressure on a team defense than a skilled guard would. Certainly there are noted exceptions, but alot of what you are trying to do on the court is facilitated much better if you have a dominant big man. Ask anyone who has coached at a decent level. I know my team could use a dominant big.
If you didnt know what other players you were going to get to build with and you had one NBA player to choose? based on current talent Id pick Howard too... and im a Kobe fan... sorry, it just makes the most sense
The Lakers were led by Magic Johnson, a PG. Sure, they had Abdul Jabbar, but Magic was their leader. The Celtics were led by Larry Bird, who was a small forward, much like LeBron James. Jordan led the Bulls. The Pistons were led by Thomas and Dumars. Wade led the Heat.
Sure, they had good bigs too, but you can say the same thing the other way. Duncan doesn't win without Parker and Ginobili, Robinson doesn't win without Duncan, Olajuwon doesn't win without Clyde Drexler, Russell had Cousy, Havelechik and others. Shaq doesn't win without Kobe.
Second, the rule changes have made guard play more important and post play less so because of the ability to play a semi-zone and not hand check on the perimeter. Dwyane Wade, LeBron, Chris Paul, Kobe are all near the top of the league in FTA per game.
I can't even fathom an argument for Howard other than "he's big." He's not a dominant force. He has few moves, no range and can't make free throws. He gets easy shots because he is surrounded by 4 3-pointt shooters and he finishes putbacks and alley-oops. I'm still not convinced that he's better than Andrew Bynum if Bynum could stay healthy. Because of injury and the like, Bynum is basically 3 years behind Howard, but if you put Bynum on the Magic and made him the focale point of the offense with plenty of space, I bet he'd get 20ppg and 10-12 rebounds. Howard is significantly better on defense, but who knows how Bynum would progress if he was the man on his team or if he was healthy.
Discounting Jordan misses the point because James is approaching Jordanness. Many consider him the best defensive player in the NBA this year and he was the best offensive player: if you adjust for pace, he had a better staistical year than when Oscar Robertson averaged a triple-double. He gets 30ppg and 8apg in 25 fewer possessions per game than Robertson! That's absurd.
Jame makes his teammates better. He rebounds. He's unstoppable.
So, last possession of the game, do you want James to have the ball at the top of the key with 7 seconds to play or do you want Howard to have the ball a step off the block?
If the other team has the ball, do you want James covering the other team's best player or do you want Howard as a help defender or do you want James as a help defender (bc, what team runs a play for a post player at the end of the game? The Spurs have Duncan, but they usually put the bll in Parker's hands, Celts go with Pierce, Mavs go with Terry, etc).
Mr. McCormick, you had an intriguing (although ultimately very subjective) argument... until you said that Andrew Bynum might be better than Howard. Howard dictates things on both ends of the court, whether he's getting shots or not. He gets shots when he's single-covered, and he creates shots for others when he's doubled. Defensively, he's the #1 reason the Cavs have struggled against the Magic recently. LeBron cannot drive to the basket when Howard is there. No one controls the lane like he does right now. Let's not even get to the rebounding, which he is far and away the best in the league currently.
Bynum has also been worked pretty hard by Howard when they have met. That matchup is why the Magic swept the Lakers this year, Howard dominating in both games. If you want to use injuries as an excuse for Bynum, you can use the fact that the past three summers, Howard hasn't been able to develop nearly as much due to his obligation to Team USA. He was the rawest of the Redeem Team, yet he used his most valuable development time to help win a gold medal. LeBron might have a post game by now if he wasn't doing the same.
I said Howard was "significantly better" defensively.
My argument is that if Bynum was the man on his team, like Howard, it ould be interesting to see his development curve, especially if he was not injured. Bynum has better footwork and better touch around the basket offensively and he shoots free throws better.
I'm not worried about Bynum's missed practice, but his missed game experience and the maturity of his game because of the missed time.
Howard is definitely better now because Bynum has been injured and gets limited touches. If the situation was different, however, I'm not sure that Howard has a better skill set - how I should have phrased it.
My biggest question with Bynum is his mindset and I tend to think if he was the franchise player in another city, his mindset would be different. If not, then no way.
regardless, I still don't see how anyone would choose Howard over James.
I'll take that rationalization as one's opinion on upside, although I still believe Howard provides more matchup problems than Bynum and is a more naturally gifted athlete without question. In regards to the missed game time, I feel that has more to do with developing a player's timing, poise, and conditioning than their skill set. That comes with coaching and practice (such as Howard's added jump hook with either hand this year).
As far as the Howard vs. James debate for starting a franchise, the building around a big man is a traditional approach. Some people feel that building around a dominant point guard (like Paul) is smarter than a wing player or big man. It's why people have opinions. I personally feel that starting with a dominant big man is better generally, but I agree that James is an exception. Not only basketball-wise, but marketing-wise as well, he's an unstoppable force. I don't find it absurd by any stretch of the imagination though to want to build around a dominant big man, considering that it does more on both ends generally than a dominant wing player.
Sure, Howard is a freak athlete. As much so as James, really.
I agree that games are important for timing, etc. and generally not the place for development. However, I think post players are different. I think post players develop more slowly because they never get the competitive repetitions to master moves against defenders. It's easy for two guards to play 1v1 - Jason Kidd and Jason Terry could play 1v1 all day for the Mavs to work on different moves against a defender. Who is Howard going to work against?
I doubt his problem is a lack of exposure to moves. With most post players, the problem is reacting to the defense quick enough and making the right decision to exploit the advantage. I imagine that in a gym by himself, Howard has 101 moves. The problem is the game transfer (Bynum too).
I have no problem with the general argument that you build around a big guy, just like I have no problem with the general argument that you build around a QB vs a running back or a pitcher versus a hitter.
However, my argument is that you are much better off building around the best player, regardless of position. And, I don't see anyone arguing that Howard is a better player than James.
Wings, to me, are the least valuable position because it is easier to find a wing than a point guard or a post - although that is changing somewhat, as there are a lot of good point guards in the NBA righ now and you only need one point guard as opposed to two wings.
But, just like I would not have taken Ewing, Robinson, Olajuwon or Malone over Jordan just because they were posts and Jordan was a less valuable wing, I would not take Howard over James just because he is a post. I think that is a silly argument that overvalues position over talent.
Now, if you want to argue Shaq in his prime or Chamberlain in his prime, maybe. But, James is 24 years old and just had arguably the best season in basketball history. That would be like saying that you'd take Ewing over Jordan when Jordan was 24 or 25 years old. How'd that work out?
Howard's not even the consensus best post player in the game (Yao, Duncan, Garnett, Gasol).
I agree that you should not overvalue position over talent, which might be what Jackson is doing here. Or perhaps he thinks that Howard has enough potential to where he can be just as dominant of a big man as James is as a wing player, which has at least some merit. As you said, Howard hasn't really had anyone to bang with consistently besides crusty Ewing and Adonal Foyle. But I think we can both agree that right now, James is the best player on the floor and to start a franchise with.
As far as the argument about best post players specifically, Howard definitely is not there yet; he just does not have the polish those other players you mentioned have. BUT I do think he's definitely the best interior player in the game overall right now, and I think that's a widely accepted belief.
Did you mean best interior "defender?" Otherwise, how are we separating interior players from post players?
I'd still take Duncan as an interior defender. He's so smart and so well-positioned. Howard might be a more feared or more dominant defender because he might affect more shots with his athleticism, but Duncan's footwork and positioning continue to impress, though I would not argue for very long if you said Howard was the better defender, especially moving forward.
Sure, Howard has the potential to dominate the league. But, James already dominates the league and one has to believe that he has at least 6 more years at a very high level (until he's 30). So, while Howard has the potential to get there, James is there and isn't close to leaving his prime.
Also, two question marks for Howard would be:
(1) Injuries. 7-fters seem to get them frequently (Yao, Duncan, Bynum, Oden, Shaq, etc) and he has been relatively injury free. Will he continue to be the exception or will the pounding of that much size eventually wear down his feet, ankles or knees?
(2) Desire to be the best. We know Kobe wants to be the BEST. We know LeBron wants to be the BEST. We know Wade wants to be the BEST. Does Howard? How hard will he work in the off-season? Will he pay for a shooting coach to follow him around all summer to his promotional appearances? I don't know as much abou Howard, so that is a legitimate question, not a leading question. If he wants to be the absolute best player in the league, he has the potential. But, that doesn't just happen. I man, Van Gundy called leBron james the most improved player in the league this year and he might be right. His defense and free throw shooting are much improved. His 3-pt % is better. His shot selection is better. I can see things in his game that he has added. Great players do that. Will Howard? Again, an honest question, but if I was picking him over James to start a franchise, that better be a resounding YES.
What no one seems to be taking into account is Phil Jackson might just be a moron. I don't care how much zen philosophy he reads, I think the weed has finally gotten to him.
I know it's common practice to bow before Jackson, but what he's accomplished has always been done with superior talent. He got lucky in building his rep with Jordon and then sat back and cherry picked the LA job with Shaq and Kobe. Do you really think Jackson makes the playoffs with Oklahoma? No, but he wouldn't take that job, yet.
He's smart enough to recognize easy pickings, but let's not get carried away with his true intellengence. It probably isn't there.
This attitude (big man over all else) is how Sam Bowie was drafted before Michael Jordan, and, more recently, Greg Oden before Kevin Durant and Darko Milicic before Anthony and Wade.
As for champions without a dominant big, you can't expect it to happen all the time because most championship teams have a couple dominant players, so the chance of one being a 4 or 5 is reasonably good. But to pick a few examples: 03-04 Pistons (Ben Wallace?) over Lakers (Shaq); 6 Bulls championships in the 90s; 88-89 Pistons (Laimbeer?) over the Lakers (Jabbar/Worthy) (and 89-90 Pistons beat the Blazers with no dominant big on either team); 3 Celtics championships in 80s were led by Bird, not by McHale/Parish, beating the Jabbar/Worthy Lakers and the Sampson/Olajuwon Rockets (as well as a Moses Malone Rockets team). That's 12 of the last 28 NBA champions -- not shabby.
lol, I guess Phil was right. Howard about to take his team to the finals, Lebron is about to go fishing.
101煙火,煙火批發,煙火工廠,製造浪漫煙火小舖,煙火小舖,衣蝶,衣蝶,情趣用品,情趣商品,情趣,情趣,煙火批發,情趣禮品,成人用品,小泉彩,按摩棒,跳蛋,情趣內衣,情趣精品,情趣商品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,真愛密碼,真愛密碼,貓裝,自慰器,自慰器,性感內褲,飛機杯,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,角色扮演,丁字褲,性感丁字褲,跳蛋,跳蛋,AV,性感丁字褲,丁字褲,煙火,情趣用品,情趣用品
A片下載的成人影片下載的免費A片下載的日本A片的情色A片的免費A片的成人影城的成人電影的線上A片的A片免費看
米蘭情趣用品的情趣用品的情趣的飛機杯的自慰套的充氣娃娃的AV女優.按摩棒的跳蛋的潤滑液的角色扮演的情趣內衣的自慰器的穿戴蝴蝶的變頻跳蛋的無線跳蛋的電動按摩棒的情趣按摩棒的
情人趣味用品的柏拉圖情趣用品的成人論壇的情色論壇的一葉情貼圖片區
酒店兼職
酒店打工 打工兼差 台北酒店 酒店兼差 酒店經紀 禮服酒店 酒店工作
酒店 酒店PT 酒店上班
酒店喝酒 酒店消費 喝花酒 粉味
Post a Comment