The year they won the title they had one all star: Ben Wallace and he averaged 9.5ppg

Might be the best defensive team ever.

Chauncy/Rip/Tayshaun/Sheed/Big Ben were your starting 5 with Corliss Williamson, Lindsay Hunter, Okur and Elden Campbell off the bench.

So here are the questions to the UK faithful:

Is such a team model still viable in this NBA?

They didnt have a single great iso player. They played a team based offense. They were 15th in 3pg%. Their offense was 18th in PP100. They were 2nd (just behind Spurs) in opponents PP100. Their EFG% was 18th, while their EFG% against was 2nd. They were a middle of the road offense with a legendary defense.

Thibs has been able to create an impressive defense with pretty limited talent. Is this a viable path back to being an elite team?

Curious what you guys think...

fishmike wrote:2004 they won the title, but it was no fluke. They made the conference finals for 6 straight years. They lost in the NBA finals once (3-4 vs. Spurs) and won one title (4-1 vs. the Shaq/Kobe/Payton/Malone/PhiJackson Lakers). Fun fact: The only guys to shoot over 40% for that Lakers series were Shaq and Rick Fox, and Fox shot 4-7 in 29 minutes over 3 games.

The year they won the title they had one all star: Ben Wallace and he averaged 9.5ppg

Might be the best defensive team ever.

Chauncy/Rip/Tayshaun/Sheed/Big Ben were your starting 5 with Corliss Williamson, Lindsay Hunter, Okur and Elden Campbell off the bench.

So here are the questions to the UK faithful:

Is such a team model still viable in this NBA?

They didnt have a single great iso player. They played a team based offense. They were 15th in 3pg%. Their offense was 18th in PP100. They were 2nd (just behind Spurs) in opponents PP100. Their EFG% was 18th, while their EFG% against was 2nd. They were a middle of the road offense with a legendary defense.

Thibs has been able to create an impressive defense with pretty limited talent. Is this a viable path back to being an elite team?

Curious what you guys think...

No

BRIGGS wrote:

fishmike wrote:2004 they won the title, but it was no fluke. They made the conference finals for 6 straight years. They lost in the NBA finals once (3-4 vs. Spurs) and won one title (4-1 vs. the Shaq/Kobe/Payton/Malone/PhiJackson Lakers). Fun fact: The only guys to shoot over 40% for that Lakers series were Shaq and Rick Fox, and Fox shot 4-7 in 29 minutes over 3 games.

The year they won the title they had one all star: Ben Wallace and he averaged 9.5ppg

Might be the best defensive team ever.

Chauncy/Rip/Tayshaun/Sheed/Big Ben were your starting 5 with Corliss Williamson, Lindsay Hunter, Okur and Elden Campbell off the bench.

So here are the questions to the UK faithful:

Is such a team model still viable in this NBA?

They didnt have a single great iso player. They played a team based offense. They were 15th in 3pg%. Their offense was 18th in PP100. They were 2nd (just behind Spurs) in opponents PP100. Their EFG% was 18th, while their EFG% against was 2nd. They were a middle of the road offense with a legendary defense.

Thibs has been able to create an impressive defense with pretty limited talent. Is this a viable path back to being an elite team?

Curious what you guys think...

No

fishmike wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

fishmike wrote:2004 they won the title, but it was no fluke. They made the conference finals for 6 straight years. They lost in the NBA finals once (3-4 vs. Spurs) and won one title (4-1 vs. the Shaq/Kobe/Payton/Malone/PhiJackson Lakers). Fun fact: The only guys to shoot over 40% for that Lakers series were Shaq and Rick Fox, and Fox shot 4-7 in 29 minutes over 3 games.

The year they won the title they had one all star: Ben Wallace and he averaged 9.5ppg

Might be the best defensive team ever.

Chauncy/Rip/Tayshaun/Sheed/Big Ben were your starting 5 with Corliss Williamson, Lindsay Hunter, Okur and Elden Campbell off the bench.

So here are the questions to the UK faithful:

Is such a team model still viable in this NBA?

They didnt have a single great iso player. They played a team based offense. They were 15th in 3pg%. Their offense was 18th in PP100. They were 2nd (just behind Spurs) in opponents PP100. Their EFG% was 18th, while their EFG% against was 2nd. They were a middle of the road offense with a legendary defense.

Thibs has been able to create an impressive defense with pretty limited talent. Is this a viable path back to being an elite team?

Curious what you guys think...

No

why did you etit this? Spell "no" wrong the first time?

I was going to talk about the three point shot spacing of the floor and the different rules from era to era but no gets the job done quicker. Again no

In fact we drafted and traded for 3 non defensive players??

fishmike wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

fishmike wrote:2004 they won the title, but it was no fluke. They made the conference finals for 6 straight years. They lost in the NBA finals once (3-4 vs. Spurs) and won one title (4-1 vs. the Shaq/Kobe/Payton/Malone/PhiJackson Lakers). Fun fact: The only guys to shoot over 40% for that Lakers series were Shaq and Rick Fox, and Fox shot 4-7 in 29 minutes over 3 games.

The year they won the title they had one all star: Ben Wallace and he averaged 9.5ppg

Might be the best defensive team ever.

Chauncy/Rip/Tayshaun/Sheed/Big Ben were your starting 5 with Corliss Williamson, Lindsay Hunter, Okur and Elden Campbell off the bench.

So here are the questions to the UK faithful:

Is such a team model still viable in this NBA?

They didnt have a single great iso player. They played a team based offense. They were 15th in 3pg%. Their offense was 18th in PP100. They were 2nd (just behind Spurs) in opponents PP100. Their EFG% was 18th, while their EFG% against was 2nd. They were a middle of the road offense with a legendary defense.

Thibs has been able to create an impressive defense with pretty limited talent. Is this a viable path back to being an elite team?

Curious what you guys think...

No

why did you etit this? Spell "no" wrong the first time?

Well, at least I know how to respond to any thread BRIGGs starts from now on...

It's a good question, I think the answer is yes because sometimes, you can put all the advance metrics, and processes in place, but at the end of the day there's an unquantifiable element that makes a team a championship team- where the whole is better than the sum of it's parts. And heck, sometimes luck or, just capturing a moment or something. The other team I think of, in the regard, is the championship Mavs team. There was just something about the Pistons team- their spirit, or chemistry or something, it wasn't just their defense.

fishmike wrote:2004 they won the title, but it was no fluke. They made the conference finals for 6 straight years. They lost in the NBA finals once (3-4 vs. Spurs) and won one title (4-1 vs. the Shaq/Kobe/Payton/Malone/PhiJackson Lakers). Fun fact: The only guys to shoot over 40% for that Lakers series were Shaq and Rick Fox, and Fox shot 4-7 in 29 minutes over 3 games.

The year they won the title they had one all star: Ben Wallace and he averaged 9.5ppg

Might be the best defensive team ever.

Chauncy/Rip/Tayshaun/Sheed/Big Ben were your starting 5 with Corliss Williamson, Lindsay Hunter, Okur and Elden Campbell off the bench.

So here are the questions to the UK faithful:

Is such a team model still viable in this NBA?

They didnt have a single great iso player. They played a team based offense. They were 15th in 3pg%. Their offense was 18th in PP100. They were 2nd (just behind Spurs) in opponents PP100. Their EFG% was 18th, while their EFG% against was 2nd. They were a middle of the road offense with a legendary defense.

Thibs has been able to create an impressive defense with pretty limited talent. Is this a viable path back to being an elite team?

Curious what you guys think...

Finding a Rasheed Wallace is the hardest part of it. The 2nd hardest is collecting all those pieces at once.

Sheed though could guard 3-5, one of the best help defenders, could space the floor out, or be a go to guy in the paint. Not counting the leadership he brought to the table outside of on court skills.

And we almost had him as a FA to pair with Marbury if Pistons didn't steal him from us SMH. He even asked the Pistons not to trade for him as he wanted to play for the Knicks. Vince Carter was also clamoring to come if Marbury and Sheed were pulled off. Could have had a completely different history.

knicks1248 wrote:Back then Defense and Rebound was still how you won Rings, that's not so much the case today.

The 3 ball has taken over the game.

Imagine Quickly taken those 30 footers back then, he would have probably gotten cut from the team..lol..weather he made them or not, he would appear to be a selfish player.

Defense will always matter, but the way teams whip the ball around the court for open 3's, pull up 3's on fast breaks, 30 footers becoming the norm.

Give a defensive coach mostly offensive players, and he will win multiple championships

That Pistons team could play in any era. They could play any style of ball. They could slide Sheed over to Center and have 3 pt shooters if they wanted. Yet still be lock down defensively. They could slow it down and still be efficient half court offense.

They would smack majority of the teams today honestly. Nets & Lakers would probably be their only real comp due to holding 5 of the top 10 talents in the NBA.

newyorknewyork wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:Back then Defense and Rebound was still how you won Rings, that's not so much the case today.

The 3 ball has taken over the game.

Imagine Quickly taken those 30 footers back then, he would have probably gotten cut from the team..lol..weather he made them or not, he would appear to be a selfish player.

Defense will always matter, but the way teams whip the ball around the court for open 3's, pull up 3's on fast breaks, 30 footers becoming the norm.

Give a defensive coach mostly offensive players, and he will win multiple championships

That Pistons team could play in any era. They could play any style of ball. They could slide Sheed over to Center and have 3 pt shooters if they wanted. Yet still be lock down defensively. They could slow it down and still be efficient half court offense.

They would smack majority of the teams today honestly. Nets & Lakers would probably be their only real comp due to holding 5 of the top 10 talents in the NBA.

Don't underestimate the fact that players are better today even compared to 16 years ago. More depth, better athletes etc. Their starting lineup was fine but their depth was nothing compared to today's depth on good teams. I do agree that Sheed at the 5 and a big time shooter at the 4 would do well today, but the depth would have to be better.

Knixkik wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:Back then Defense and Rebound was still how you won Rings, that's not so much the case today.

The 3 ball has taken over the game.

Imagine Quickly taken those 30 footers back then, he would have probably gotten cut from the team..lol..weather he made them or not, he would appear to be a selfish player.

Defense will always matter, but the way teams whip the ball around the court for open 3's, pull up 3's on fast breaks, 30 footers becoming the norm.

Give a defensive coach mostly offensive players, and he will win multiple championships

That Pistons team could play in any era. They could play any style of ball. They could slide Sheed over to Center and have 3 pt shooters if they wanted. Yet still be lock down defensively. They could slow it down and still be efficient half court offense.

They would smack majority of the teams today honestly. Nets & Lakers would probably be their only real comp due to holding 5 of the top 10 talents in the NBA.

Don't underestimate the fact that players are better today even compared to 16 years ago. More depth, better athletes etc. Their starting lineup was fine but their depth was nothing compared to today's depth on good teams. I do agree that Sheed at the 5 and a big time shooter at the 4 would do well today, but the depth would have to be better.

Don't know about the bench. Guys like Okur and Williamson were considered more like oddities than valued players. Not saying they weren't good, but stretch 5s like Okur were written of as soft and Williamson was always kinda belittled as a "tweener." I think Williamson versatility would be highly valued. Lindsay was a good athlete and I still think his game as reserve combo guard would translate. I also think Campbell might be more effective today. He always had a decent touch and it's not out of the realm of possibility that he could extend his range if he focused on it. I mean, I might still take their depth over the depth of the Lakers team that won last season

knicks1248 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:Back then Defense and Rebound was still how you won Rings, that's not so much the case today.

The 3 ball has taken over the game.

Imagine Quickly taken those 30 footers back then, he would have probably gotten cut from the team..lol..weather he made them or not, he would appear to be a selfish player.

Defense will always matter, but the way teams whip the ball around the court for open 3's, pull up 3's on fast breaks, 30 footers becoming the norm.

Give a defensive coach mostly offensive players, and he will win multiple championships

That Pistons team could play in any era. They could play any style of ball. They could slide Sheed over to Center and have 3 pt shooters if they wanted. Yet still be lock down defensively. They could slow it down and still be efficient half court offense.

They would smack majority of the teams today honestly. Nets & Lakers would probably be their only real comp due to holding 5 of the top 10 talents in the NBA.

Billups/Prince/Sheed should smother guys on the wing. Their defense was tops in the game in any era

I'm not saying they wouldn't, I'm just having a hard time looking around the league and seeing Leaders Like Billups, 2 way players like Rasheed/prince/rip, Rebounders and defenders like Wallace.

I was actually hoping Mitch's role would be like Wallace