Posted by BRIGGS:

To me this is how you build a team. You need a 20-10-3 Interior player
You need guards who can shoot 45% play tough defense hit the open shot and willing to move the ball--not necessary to have a 12 assists guy. You need either the PF or the C to be complimetary to the 20-10-3 big man and can get you 12 + 8 himself. You need a scorer from the SF position. Off the bench you need atleast 2 bigs who can come in and sustain good play and perhaps even a third as depth. You need 1 player who can come off the bench with the ability to score 14-15 points. You need a PG who will direct second unit to not make mistakes. Add in 1-2 intangible guys maybe 1 defender 1 three point guy and then learn to play as unit instead of individual.

I like how Stanford was set up this year sans their poor guards. I like the way the Lopez's worked off each other and also created tough physcial backline--one guy could score 20-25 the other 12-8 block shots etc... they just did not have enough because CBB is guard dominated---having a great big man in college--shaq duncan doesnt mean ring--guards rule cbb. I still think the big man rules NBA yet NBA has changed some.

Posted by BRIGGS:

To me this is how you build a team. You need a 20-10-3 Interior player
You need guards who can shoot 45% play tough defense hit the open shot and willing to move the ball--not necessary to have a 12 assists guy. You need either the PF or the C to be complimetary to the 20-10-3 big man and can get you 12 + 8 himself. You need a scorer from the SF position. Off the bench you need atleast 2 bigs who can come in and sustain good play and perhaps even a third as depth. You need 1 player who can come off the bench with the ability to score 14-15 points. You need a PG who will direct second unit to not make mistakes. Add in 1-2 intangible guys maybe 1 defender 1 three point guy and then learn to play as unit instead of individual.

I like how Stanford was set up this year sans their poor guards. I like the way the Lopez's worked off each other and also created tough physcial backline--one guy could score 20-25 the other 12-8 block shots etc... they just did not have enough because CBB is guard dominated---having a great big man in college--shaq duncan doesnt mean ring--guards rule cbb. I still think the big man rules NBA yet NBA has changed some.

Posted by fishmike:

Posted by BRIGGS:

To me this is how you build a team. You need a 20-10-3 Interior player
You need guards who can shoot 45% play tough defense hit the open shot and willing to move the ball--not necessary to have a 12 assists guy. You need either the PF or the C to be complimetary to the 20-10-3 big man and can get you 12 + 8 himself. You need a scorer from the SF position. Off the bench you need atleast 2 bigs who can come in and sustain good play and perhaps even a third as depth. You need 1 player who can come off the bench with the ability to score 14-15 points. You need a PG who will direct second unit to not make mistakes. Add in 1-2 intangible guys maybe 1 defender 1 three point guy and then learn to play as unit instead of individual.

I like how Stanford was set up this year sans their poor guards. I like the way the Lopez's worked off each other and also created tough physcial backline--one guy could score 20-25 the other 12-8 block shots etc... they just did not have enough because CBB is guard dominated---having a great big man in college--shaq duncan doesnt mean ring--guards rule cbb. I still think the big man rules NBA yet NBA has changed some.

Briggs... great formula. But when you look at teams that win the title it just comes back to stars. Duncan has had some pretty cheesy centers aside him. Rasho, Nazr, Oberto.. ok role players but hardly 12/10 types your talking about. Jordan won 6 titles w/ Cartwright/Grant and then Rodman and some of the worst centers to grace the court in Purdue, Longley, etc
Hakeem won with a good backcourt, but Vernon Maxwell and Kenny Smith are not world beaters. A 40 year old Drexler was good.

I could go on and on but really the only team that won a title with your type of depth formula was Detroit. Only Big Ben wasnt versatile and has a DPOY. Sheed, Prince, Billups, Rip and a good bench to win a title is the only real "team" to win a title since the Pistons or Lakers (who also had mega stars).

NBA titles are won with superstars. A top 3 player and some good depth around them. Sprinkle in some good coaching and presto. But it starts and ends with the star

both of you guys are correct... if we really wanna think about winning championships in realistic terms, getting a dominant bigman or a completely dominant scorer like Kobe, Lebron or Iverson in his prime to build around is the only way & even then you still need a team full of complementary players to surround them with who fill their roles effectively... not even Jordan won championships until he got the players around him that he needed.

Posted by fishmike:

4 ways to add a player. Trade, sign and trade, draft and sign via FA. So far only Shaq has left via FA to another team, and that wasnt even this CBA. No other championship caliber star has.. the closest would have been Nash (who ironicly went to play for D'Antoni)

Posted by fishmike:

Isles.. you tell me.

Lets just say Walsh, Isiah or any other GMs first move is to sign a player who is 6'3 and neither a PG or SG.

That player is 24, has been traded 3 times and played on 4 teams, all losing. That player averaged 11 points, 4 assists and shot 40% from the field for his career.

What is your opinion, based on that body of work, of giving that player the full MLE?

So my definition is NOT getting narrow.

Is Billups, or is he not, a championship caliber star?

You tell me.. is he? Is he the same caliber as Shaq (younger), Kobe, Duncan, Hakeem, Michael Jordan? As Wade even? Is Billups thats good? In that class? Answer your own question.