[The8thDeadlySinParticipant]

So I was laying here thinking about the great teams in the NBA and what they all have in common. It was really crazy because once I thought about it, my opinion on which teams really were great teams and which really just had great players. So here are a few things that all the great teams have. I will give a few examples of each and just because I leave a team out doesnt mean they are excluded. Also, just because I mention a team, doesnt mean they fit all categories of a great team.

Trust – All great teams have to have trust. They have to know the their other teammates can get the job done. If you dont have trust, you end up with Kobe of a few years ago, where he was constantly complaining but dropping around 35 or 40 a night. Another team that really lacked trust was the Iverson era 76ers. They were not a great team, its just that nobody could stop Iverson. A team that does have great trust is the Spurs. This team constantly gets everyone involved. On any given night, they could have someone else lead them in scoring. Its not because everyone on their team is great, they do start Matt Boner and Roger Mason, but they trust them to take and make shots so they get the ball. All great teams have to have trust.

Experience – Every great team has that guy, that is a main cog for their team, that has been around for a while. Experience is something that cannot be replaced. If you take a look at the teams that get it done, like the Lakers, they have a seasoned vet or 2 that have been around a long time and really know how to play. Kobe is the guy in LA but until he got older, they really couldnt get to the next level as a team. Him being the player he is wasnt enough until he got wiser and more experienced. Every great team has one or 2 guys that have been around a while.

Depth – I cant think of a team that has won a championship with a 6 man rotation. The only team that I can remember to really make a run at a ring without great depth was the Cavs when Lebron carried the city to the finals. A team with lots of depth can just outwork, out play, and out last a team without it. Now depth isnt just having 12 players. It is having 9-11 guys that can play consistently and can contribute to a win. They have to produce more than they hurt. A team with great depth would have to be the Celtics. Not only do they have an amazing starting 5, but their bench is just as impressive. Wallace, Davis, and Daniels could start on most teams and great role players like House, Allen, and Williams would be great assets for any team. Every great team has to have depth.

Competitiveness – Now you might think this is a given but, not all teams have that competitive edge they need to win. A team that really has a competitive nature is the Nuggets. Every guy on that team plays hard all the time. Every time I see them play, I get excited because they are so aggressive. They do everything hard. They do it with a purpose. Not just a couple players, its everyone. Billups kills himself keeping the team under control, Melo kills himself on offense, Birdman, Afflalo, and K-Mart are super aggressive on defense and the glass, Nene is never satisfied with anything, Lawson flies up and down the court, and JR Smith really scores with the best of them. Every great team is super competitive.

I would like to hear who you think fits this mold? Also, do you agree or disagree or have anything to add? Thanks!!!!

[OrangeJuiceJonesParticipant]

Great list and descriptions, just awesome. The one thing I would add is defensive ability, not just as individuals, but as a unit. Every championship team and dynasty in recent memory, the Spurs, Celtics, Bulls, Pistons, Lakers circa 2000 and even the Showtime Lakers, all had one thing in common: they were the best defensive teams in the league during their championship runs. Teams that play like the Suns and the Warriors may rack up the wins during the regular season, but they’ll never get deep in the playoffs.

“Offense wins games, defense wins championships”

[fastdanParticipant]

1. A go to guy
2. at least 2 other guys who can score
3. a big man who can control the paint
4. everyone playing defense at at least league average.

The only champion team who is kind of a an exception to that is the 03-04 detroit team, because they had 4 guys who scored in the teens, but no one who scored in the 20s. Also I guess it could be debated that certain players are subpar defensively, like fisher, but for the most part top teams don’t have too many holes on defense.

Also, competitiveness, and trust is kind of hard to judge considering you don’t know how things are in the locker room, how individual players respond in different situations…not everyone yells and gets vocal when things get intense…and you don’t really know the teams game plan.

Depth might be a little overrated come playoffs, considering starters play close to 40 minutes and most teams don’t go 9 or 10 deep.

[zurnachatParticipant]

The only champion team who is kind of a an exception to that is the 03-04 detroit team, because they had 4 guys who scored in the teens, but no one who scored in the 20s. Also I guess it could be debated that certain players are subpar defensively, like fisher, but for the most part top teams don’t have too many holes on defense.

chat sohbet chat programı arama oyun hikaye şiir okey forum mirc zurna

[youngmagParticipant]

I’ve always said you can’t win without a at least decent point guard…someone who can run the plays or be some what effective in the offense like Derek Fisher.

[rtbtParticipant]

The8thDeadlySin, let me start by saying that was a fantastic post.

Allow me go back in NBA history and point out something I think is relevant to this thread. Red Auerbach was one of the greatest coaches in the league who brought a lot of firsts to pro basketball that were copied by many successful organizations over the years.

One of the changes Auerbach brought to Boston was the manner in which players were compensated. At that point in time players didn’t have multi million dollar contracts, they had salaries such as $10,000 per year. Many of them worked at 2nd jobs in the off season.

Anyway, NBA players were paid based on the number of points they scored. As most people realize, there’s only one ball and basketball is a team game. Therefore, if everyone is trying to score as many points as they can for salary reasons, team goals will take a back seat.

Red Auerbach realized you can only have 2, or maybe 3, good scorers on a team and they were supported by ROLE players. He paid certain guys for playing great defense and/or rebounding, which was unheard of in those days. In other words, he was the first guy to do what we take for granted today. It was the prototypical definition of how to build a winning basketball team.

[The8thDeadlySinParticipant]

The Lakers had all of this…

[delfamParticipant]

I think you need to have players that fit their position(not tweeners), and that all have a defined role, if you look at the Lakers and Celtics each player plays in position and has a specific role.

[Author]

Posts