On your fantasy team, would you rather have a:Great Duo (Yao & T-Mac)a "Big Three" (Dirk, Terry, Howard)or a total team (Detroit pistons)and Why??
Piston-like total team. 4-5 solid options on offense, and an amazing defense. Superstars are nice, but you need other options on offense.
Great duos, it seems to me if you have two great players, you'll do good in your quest for a championship. Even though I disagree with the two you mentioned, Shaq and Wade would be better for present. As for trio's, as a Mavs fan, I've witnessed two, the three J's(Kidd, Jackson, Mashburn), and the first Big Three with Nash/Fin/Dirk and neither won anything. But then you great ones like Bird/McHale/Parish. But I'll stick with great duos.
Great Duo's are good to have, but it depends on the role players mostly. Shaq and Wade had Posey, Walker, Haslem, Zo, Jason Williams, Payton, etc. TMac and Yao had Stro Swift, Rafer, Wesley, Mutombo, Juwan Howard, etc.I like a team that has more options than 2 or 3. Where if the injury bug hits your best player, you still have other options to go to.
That's why the question doesn't make any sense. But for what it's asking, great duos have a good track record, and when your a team that has two superstar type players. You should be in good shape, yes injuries happen. When they do, your going down, it happens. But I'd take that team over a group of role players. Not bagging on the Pistons, but they were like the first team to really win it all without a true superstar.
I would rather have a whole team. But with the Suns we can`t be like the Pistons because we don`t have the great defense. We have more than enough offense but we dont have any defense at all. If we can get some more defense on our team, that should be the type of game that we play, especially with an MVP at the point.
I'd take the great duo, because then you can just surround that tandem with solid role players and thats usally how championship teams are.
Duo's, the only teams to buck that trend in the last decade or so is the spurs [no duoe in 2003] and the pistons.
I'll take a superstar duo over anything else. Historically teams win with superstars... if you have a superstar duo, all you need is a halfway decent GM to surround them with some solid role players and you're in contention season after season.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (streetshox23 @ Jul 28 2006, 01:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I would rather have a whole team. But with the Suns we can`t be like the Pistons because we don`t have the great defense. We have more than enough offense but we dont have any defense at all. If we can get some more defense on our team, that should be the type of game that we play, especially with an MVP at the point.</div>I'm really starting to wonder how many Suns games you've watched if you think Amare is great on D and a great rebounder and the Suns don't have defense. We have plenty of guys that can play good defense on the team.I would pick a team in this thread but they also have to have a great coach who can get them to "play the right way" like Larry Brown did. If you got a guy like Saunders making you play offense when your team's strength is D then it won't work.Out of those 3 I'd pick a trio. Why get 2 great players when you can have 3 all-star caliber players? It depends on how the role players do for both a duo or a trio for them to win the championship though.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ArizonaFan @ Jul 28 2006, 03:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Out of those 3 I'd pick a trio. Why get 2 great players when you can have 3 all-star caliber players? It depends on how the role players do for both a duo or a trio for them to win the championship though.</div>I would say, for salary cap reasons, it would be hard to get good role players to fill out your team with 3 stars. However, if you could pull it off, it would be better than a duo.
Great duo. Great duo's = dynasties. If you can put good role players and smart players around 2 great players then you can be sure to be a contender. The Rockets havn't been able to get TMac and Yao good role players though.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 28 2006, 05:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Great duo. Great duo's = dynasties. If you can put good role players and smart players around 2 great players then you can be sure to be a contender. The Rockets havn't been able to get TMac and Yao good role players though.</div>Would you not say that 3 great players is better? What if the Bulls (Jordan Era) had Isiah Thomas, or even a Joe Dumars, would they not be a better team?
I don't think the topic was 2 great players against 3 great players. That would be obvious, wouldn't it? I think it is 2 great players or 3 good players.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 28 2006, 05:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't think the topic was 2 great players against 3 great players. That would be obvious, wouldn't it? I think it is 2 great players or 3 good players.</div>OK then, would you rather have Jordan and Pippen or one of Bird, McHale and Parish, or Magic, Worthy and Kareem? It's happened.However, I'd have to agree with you over 3 good players, but I think the NBA is shifting towards a team game, and 3 good players is closer to an all-round team game.
Exactly. It's two great players against a solid trio (i.e. one great player and two very good players or two great players and one very good player).Even if you looked at it in terms of two great players vs. three great players, how many trios of three great players in history have won an NBA title? It has been done, but it's hard to find three great players who can play with each other unselfishly and feed off each other.Either method you choose, you have to be able to surround them with the right pieces.
Magic, Kareem and James Worthy were 3 great players, not 3 good players. Same with Bird, McHale and Parish.
