Juice wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:OKC is playing on pure Adrenaline. I doubt they beat the Lakers at home. Lakers total lack of a bench is what is hurting them. Orlando bench is solid this year.

They won 50 games this season... it isn't all Adrenaline.

I was referring to this series.

Thunder arent going to be able to breathe without getting a foul called on them if they keep this up...Stern will nip this in the bud.

jimimou wrote:bitty - dallas in on the verge..of losing again. what gives? it's like dirk on 5 out there. i thought they could have done wome work this year....loooks like they may win one more gama at best but san antonio will take this thing. who would have thought george hill would be playing like an allstar for them though....

Let me first say that this SA is just as good as anyone in the West right now. The only reason they finished 7th was because Manu, Parker, and even Duncan missed a ton of games throughout the season. So this series could easily be a Conference Finals if the circumstances were different.

As to Dallas' problem I'm not really liking Rick Carlisle he seems to be in total reactionary mode. SA has been setting the tempo from game 2 and Dallas allows them to dictate. Imo when SA goes to that small ball of Parker, Hill, and Manu I would put Butler or Kidd on the block to try to create from down low. Because no one on Dallas outside of Dirk is taking the ball to the rim everyone is just settling for jumpshots. Defensively they are allowing Hill, Parker, or Manu to get into the offense with no pressure. Why not trap with Barea and Kidd? Kidd, Marion, and Butler are all great at creating steals yet he just has them sitting back in some lame ass 2-3 zone. When they go into that zone they need to extend everyone is standing around the block while SA knocks down corner three after corner three.

Bottom line Carlisle is getting outcoached by Greg Pop that's what it boils down to. Popovich wasn't afraid to go with George Hill and he produces for him whereas RC refuses to even use Roddy even though Dallas has gotten subpar production from their guards offensively. Carlisle's offensive plans seems to consist of two things either going with Dirk the whole game and sitting the rest of his starters or he's trying to get shots for Butler, Marion, and Terry while Dirk becomes 3rd or 4th option. The offensive game plan from day one should have been pounding it inside. Either getting it inside to Dirk or Butler or even put Kidd on the block. Make Hill, Manu, and Parker work down low make SA pay for going with a small lineup.

I just want to point out another thing about SA. Their entire team with the exception of Tim Duncan is composed of late first round and 2nd round picks. They built their team and rebuilt again through the draft and yet every year they are in the mix as serious threat during the playoffs. Talk about a franchise that always has it right. Even though in the next 2 years they will start having to look for Tim Duncan's replacement they are still one of the best teams in the West when healthy.

martin wrote:

bitty41 wrote:I just want to point out another thing about SA. Their entire team with the exception of Tim Duncan is composed of late first round and 2nd round picks. They built their team and rebuilt again through the draft and yet every year they are in the mix as serious threat during the playoffs. Talk about a franchise that always has it right. Even though in the next 2 years they will start having to look for Tim Duncan's replacement they are still one of the best teams in the West when healthy.

I think you can kind of say the same thing with regards to CLE. You HAVE to start with a superstar and then everything after that is just filler and molding the team.

My main point as with both of these teams is that they drafted their superstar. And make no mistake SA success in recent years can def be attributed to drafting guys like Parker and Manu. Without them they would not have won their Championships. SA represents a team that has done things the right way they have some the best evaluators of talent and have used almost every draft to better their team. Whereas the Knicks can't even get a lottery pick right.

martin wrote:

bitty41 wrote:

martin wrote:

bitty41 wrote:I just want to point out another thing about SA. Their entire team with the exception of Tim Duncan is composed of late first round and 2nd round picks. They built their team and rebuilt again through the draft and yet every year they are in the mix as serious threat during the playoffs. Talk about a franchise that always has it right. Even though in the next 2 years they will start having to look for Tim Duncan's replacement they are still one of the best teams in the West when healthy.

I think you can kind of say the same thing with regards to CLE. You HAVE to start with a superstar and then everything after that is just filler and molding the team.

My main point as with both of these teams is that they drafted their superstar. And make no mistake SA success in recent years can def be attributed to drafting guys like Parker and Manu. Without them they would not have won their Championships. SA represents a team that has done things the right way they have some the best evaluators of talent and have used almost every draft to better their team. Whereas the Knicks can't even get a lottery pick right.

Getting the superstar is the most important part, whether by trade (Lakers with Shaq, KG/Ray Allen Boston) or by luck (TD, LeBron). And after you get that person you can build around, everything else is easy by comparison, no?

Well if Gallo is a homerun pick because you know he is Larry Bird/Dirk rolled into one player we could have put draft picks around him moving forward right? Gallo can be that Superstar lottery pick right? Hopefully we trade our 2 2nd round picks into the first round and somehow buy another pick somehow with cash.

Juice wrote:

martin wrote:

bitty41 wrote:

martin wrote:

bitty41 wrote:I just want to point out another thing about SA. Their entire team with the exception of Tim Duncan is composed of late first round and 2nd round picks. They built their team and rebuilt again through the draft and yet every year they are in the mix as serious threat during the playoffs. Talk about a franchise that always has it right. Even though in the next 2 years they will start having to look for Tim Duncan's replacement they are still one of the best teams in the West when healthy.

I think you can kind of say the same thing with regards to CLE. You HAVE to start with a superstar and then everything after that is just filler and molding the team.

My main point as with both of these teams is that they drafted their superstar. And make no mistake SA success in recent years can def be attributed to drafting guys like Parker and Manu. Without them they would not have won their Championships. SA represents a team that has done things the right way they have some the best evaluators of talent and have used almost every draft to better their team. Whereas the Knicks can't even get a lottery pick right.

Getting the superstar is the most important part, whether by trade (Lakers with Shaq, KG/Ray Allen Boston) or by luck (TD, LeBron). And after you get that person you can build around, everything else is easy by comparison, no?

Well if Gallo is a homerun pick because you know he is Larry Bird/Dirk rolled into one player we could have put draft picks around him moving forward right? Gallo can be that Superstar lottery pick right? Hopefully we trade our 2 2nd round picks into the first round and somehow buy another pick somehow with cash.

Gallo got potential and growing room but hasn't shown anything yet. I don't think anyone is suggesting he is anywhere near the talent to build a team around, so I don't know where your statements are coming from.

bitty41 wrote:

martin wrote:

bitty41 wrote:

martin wrote:

bitty41 wrote:I just want to point out another thing about SA. Their entire team with the exception of Tim Duncan is composed of late first round and 2nd round picks. They built their team and rebuilt again through the draft and yet every year they are in the mix as serious threat during the playoffs. Talk about a franchise that always has it right. Even though in the next 2 years they will start having to look for Tim Duncan's replacement they are still one of the best teams in the West when healthy.

I think you can kind of say the same thing with regards to CLE. You HAVE to start with a superstar and then everything after that is just filler and molding the team.

My main point as with both of these teams is that they drafted their superstar. And make no mistake SA success in recent years can def be attributed to drafting guys like Parker and Manu. Without them they would not have won their Championships. SA represents a team that has done things the right way they have some the best evaluators of talent and have used almost every draft to better their team. Whereas the Knicks can't even get a lottery pick right.

Getting the superstar is the most important part, whether by trade (Lakers with Shaq, KG/Ray Allen Boston) or by luck (TD, LeBron). And after you get that person you can build around, everything else is easy by comparison, no?

Building a successful franchise is done through the draft period. Every franchise player in the league right now was brought in through the draft. Franchise rarely leave the team that drafted them; outside of Shaq there has been no other MVP level player that has left his franchise. Even Kobe during the height of his bitching about the Lakers management did not leave. Successful franchises are built through the draft or do you not agree with this? Sure you add a few supporting cast players through signings but great franchises are built through the draft. Even Boston in a unconvential way was built through the draft. They drafted Paul Pierce, used the Jeff Green pick to get Ray Allen, and drafted Al Jefferson which in turn allowed them to get KG, and they drafted Rajon Rondo. All these moves where achieved through the draft.

I think you are finessing the Boston team, IMHO that team was built through trades. Detroit? They were an odd-ball win. Heat paired Shaq and Wade, was that half traded for?

Since 1995 there have been like 5 franchise players who have won titles: Jordan, Wade, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan. So that means once every 3 years IF you get the top pick you may have a shot at one of those types of guys.

martin wrote:

Juice wrote:

martin wrote:

Juice wrote:

martin wrote:

bitty41 wrote:

martin wrote:

bitty41 wrote:I just want to point out another thing about SA. Their entire team with the exception of Tim Duncan is composed of late first round and 2nd round picks. They built their team and rebuilt again through the draft and yet every year they are in the mix as serious threat during the playoffs. Talk about a franchise that always has it right. Even though in the next 2 years they will start having to look for Tim Duncan's replacement they are still one of the best teams in the West when healthy.

I think you can kind of say the same thing with regards to CLE. You HAVE to start with a superstar and then everything after that is just filler and molding the team.

My main point as with both of these teams is that they drafted their superstar. And make no mistake SA success in recent years can def be attributed to drafting guys like Parker and Manu. Without them they would not have won their Championships. SA represents a team that has done things the right way they have some the best evaluators of talent and have used almost every draft to better their team. Whereas the Knicks can't even get a lottery pick right.

Getting the superstar is the most important part, whether by trade (Lakers with Shaq, KG/Ray Allen Boston) or by luck (TD, LeBron). And after you get that person you can build around, everything else is easy by comparison, no?

Well if Gallo is a homerun pick because you know he is Larry Bird/Dirk rolled into one player we could have put draft picks around him moving forward right? Gallo can be that Superstar lottery pick right? Hopefully we trade our 2 2nd round picks into the first round and somehow buy another pick somehow with cash.

Gallo got potential and growing room but hasn't shown anything yet. I don't think anyone is suggesting he is anywhere near the talent to build a team around, so I don't know where your statements are coming from.

Why can't you build around Gallo if he has those skillsets? Better yet say if we didn't make the trade why couldn't we build around Gallo/Hill who have Dirk/Amar'e skillsets? Both lottery picks BTW. Wasn't this the some of the talk we experienced this season? Why can't we build around Gallo?

I'm not picking an argument here seriously why couldn't we build a team around a 6th and 8th pick?

I guess you could build a team around whomever you want. Bitty and I were talking about superstars and possibly how to acquire them. I have no idea why you bring Gallo and Hill to that discussion. So just stop.

I followed the convo. Bitty pointed out the draft being a key and you're stating there are other methods. I don't disagree with either line of thinking. If we don't strike big in Free Agency and say we had our picks who would we be building our team around? No one really knew for certainty that Duncan nor Lebron would be as good as they have been until time went by. Duncan and Lebron weren't superstars the day they were drafted but in time they proved to be ones. No doubt they had signs of greatness but still unknowns. Both teams still acquired them... by drafting them. Now are we going the Hawks/Lakers/Bos/Det route it appears so but most teams in the playoffs right now.... main player, was acquired through the draft and built around them.