The last four teams standing...Lakers, Wolves, Pistons, and Pacers... <u>Their big men</u> Lakers - Shaq O'neal, Karl Malone Wolves - K Garnett Pistons - Ben and Rasheed Wallace Pacers - Jermaine Oneal No team within the last 5 years has won a title without either a guy named Shaq, Duncan, or Robinson. So I pose two questions: (1) Is it concievable for a team to win an NBA title WITHOUT an inside presence (say within the next 5 years)... (2) How in the world did the Bulls win 6 titles without a MAJOR real inside threat? That's no knock on guys like Longley, Wennington, and Grant. Those guys were more perimeter players than "inside." Rodman was a great defender and rebounder, but he brought no inside scoring and no shot blocking...MJ was just great, but there must be more to it. right?
I can't think of another team that won without a allstar to superstar level bigman. That's what makes MJ and Pippen so great. MJ just had that will to win that pushed his team over the hump all those years. He's is the only player that can get on other players cases and they respond almost 100% of the time to his demands. I can't see anybody else pushing their teammates like he did.
No way, NBA is all about big men and if u wanne win you can't just play teams WITH a big man with ur guards or something. No u definitely need someone big cause every good team has one
Other than the Bulls,the last team I can think of that won the title without a dominate big man was the Detroit Pistons back-to-back teams. It can be done as proved by teams like the Bulls and Bad Boys. Both of these squads were excellent in team basketball and played great defense. I don't think we'll see a champion team like that for a long long time. The level of team basketball just isn't there in 90% of the teams in the NBA and neither is the defensive effort that it would require.
Well, Michael Jordan PLAYED like a big man, particular during the second championship run. He was arguably the best post player in the league during that run. I also think Chicago was somewhat fortunate during that second playoff run in that they never faced a Western Conference team with a great center in the playoffs. I believe that during the second three-peat, they faced Shaq once, Ewing a few time, and Mourning once. The only big challenge defensively there is Shaq (Mourning was never a dominant offensive player and Ewing was well past his prime). And they faced him during the 1995-1996 season, when Orlando was still relatively young and Shaq hadn't quite yet emerged as the best center in the league. How would Chicago have faired playing against the Rockets or the Spurs in the finals? The dream matchup would have been the 97 Bulls (Jordan, Pippen, Rodman) and the 97 Rockets (Olajuwon, Drexler, Barkely), but Stockton hit that lucky-ass shot and took us out.
Only team that was going to win a Championship without a big man was Orlando with Grant Hill and T-Mac , we then got Mike Miller as a backup!! we could've even have Drew Gooden plus we still had the energetic Darrel Armstrong that team could've win a championship...but...no Grant Hill...
Not in this day and age, Big men are the ones taht win the championship for you, and if you are in the Eastern Conference and have no one too match the likes of Garnett, Webber, Shaq, Duncan, and other big time big men, you can forget about winning the title withink the next 5 years.
i disagree w/ the comment that detroit was the last team to win it all w/out a dominant big man. sure, none of their big men were dominant scorers, but u could not make it past the freethrow line w/out getting wacked, or the ball jammed back down ur throat. and that was their dominance (on the defensive end). bill laimbeer was willing to go heads up with anyone, if shaq was in the league then, he would have no problem getting dirty with him. dennis rodman was the defensive player of the year in one of those years i believe, and i think averaged about 18 rebounds in one of those years as well. and rick mahorn had every trick in the book. maybe not one of them individually was dominant, but that was probably the most dominant front courts as a group ever.
N now a days Big men are what make champions. In the Next five years there won't be a team that will win a championship with a big man. A inside presence opens other options on the court. If you have someone inside you will have more open shots on the perimeter that are uncontested.
absolutley not. the only reason the bulls won so many championships without a superstar big man is because jordan was the GOAT!!! it serves to show just how ridiculous these jordan-kobe comparisons are because jordan won rings without a star big man, and without shaq the lakers are not even a playoff team even with kobe. In our lifetimes you will not see a team win a championship without a superstar big man. Thats one of the reasons its so hard to build a championship team in basketball. harder than any other sport because you can "build" as great a team as you want. you can get a great balanced talented team through the draft over x amount of years. But you can NOT win it all without one of the 2 or 3 best players in the game on your team and their can only be a tiny handful of those guys for every generation.
kareem02, my point is that bulls were the only team to win w/out a dominant big man or a core of big men. rodman was pretty darn good, but he wasnt dominant like the front court of the pistons. i thought i stated it pretty clear
