Debate in another forum ..... Roy or Rose?

Billups was a first among equals - he was the best player on a team that had 5 starters mostly at his level - going against a dominant team crumbling because Shaq and Kobe wanted to kill each other rather than play basketball with each other.

Yahtzee.

 

Good company to be with. Should be noted that Roy actually was out for 20+ games in his rookie year - one suspects his +11 team wins would have been higher had he played in more of them - and even higher if he did not have Zach Randolph on his team (as shown in his 2nd year).

 

Rose for sure.

 

All the teams you mentioned had quality PG's. Very solid, nothing spectacular. Yet at the same time tried to fill the traditional role of a PG. The PG in the triangle only asks that you can make the reads like every other player on the court and make your open shots...Idk why you mention the Bulls since they obviously ran the triangle too. The NBA evolves. Right now teams want a top tier PG...Im not the only one to say this.

 

Teams who win championships tend to have "solid" players at most, if not all, positions. Hardly insightful. The point is that exceptional point guards aren't necessary.

I mentioned that the Bulls used the triangle. The point is, you can obviously run schemes that mitigate the importance of the point guard (you can run schemes that mitigate the importance of any specific position). Jackson plays to the strength of his players. If he had had a prime Chris Paul or Jason Kidd, he'd have adapted his system to take advantage of an elite point guard. However, he's never had one. His elite players were Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal. Three of those players were good to great passers, so it made sense to run a system that distributed the passing duties.

No, right now teams want top tier players. Like in every year. LeBron James would be at the top of everyone's wish list and he's not a point guard. Dwight Howard would be near the top of everyone's wish list. Only then do you get to Chris Paul. And then, if age weren't a big concern, Wade and Kobe would also be right up there. How many of those are point guards? Deron Williams and Tony Parker would not be ahead of any of those players.

Going back five or six years or so, Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Kobe and McGrady would probably have topped most people's wish lists. Maybe Kidd would have been on some people's lists, but probably not ahead of those players.

I'm certainly not seeing this new desire for "top tier point guards."

 

I am sure it is - and I did notice that Rose is in a good company - but let's face it - the Bulls of last year underachieved - grossly - and that team had/has some talent - where the '06 Blazers team was a mismatch of talents and they lost a lot of talent to injuries as well - Pryzbilla was knee'ed in the place where the sun does not shine very early in the season and the rest of his season was forgettable, Roy missed a lot more time than Rose did - and unlike the Bulls this year - the Blazers did not give Roy the reigns and told him to lead them to the promised land - they still went through Zach Randolph (a supreme offensive talent - but he gave all that he took on the other side of the court).

I still say that the '06 Blazers team would have improved by more than 11 games if Roy was not out as long as he was.

 

Ben Wallace was by far the best player on that Pistons team, and it's not even close.

 

Huh. Billups had a higher PER, higher win-share and a finals-mvp trophy to call your bluff. Granted - Ben Wallace was the 2nd best player on this team - but that's as far as it goes.

 

Regarding Crane's comparison of each ones's rookie year, Rose also played in the east.

 

EXACTLY!

If you can get a top5 player you do it, position doesn't matter. If your team ends up with no PG but two of the best wings in the game you manipulate the teams system to fit these elite players.

You don't manipulate players to fit an elite system.

 

Rose had a fantastic rookie season and the accolades he got were well deserved. Does not change the fact that I just do not buy the elite PG stuff is so crucial mantra.

 

The last one?

After Chauncey Billups left Detroit, the Pistons went from 59-23 a year ago to 39-43 this season.

Here are others:

After Shaq left L.A., the Lakers failed to make the playoffs.

After Shawn Marion left the Suns, the Suns fell from #1 in the West to a 1-4 exit in the first round of the playoffs to the lottery.

After Kevin Garnett left Minnesota, the Wolves went from 32-50 to 22-60.

After Baron Davis left Oakland, the Warriors went from 48-34 to 29-53.

 

None of those players left for "greener pastures" (in other words, for money...the "green" is a hint). They were all traded for team-related issues.

He definitely left, and it hurt, but the Warriors were also done in by losing Monta Ellis for the vast majority of the season. Players rarely leave existing teams for more money because their current teams can offer them the most. Almost always when a team goes to another team for more money it's because their current team no longer considers them worth the money. And, consequently, it's usually not too damaging to the team to lose the player.

 

I understand.