Date ended: Thursday August 24thTopic: Which is the most important component to winning (Teamwork, Defense, Offense, ECT)Rules: Keep it clean, No need to throw put instults and harmful remarks. You guys can just go at it unti the due date, Debate like crazy. If you both agree with the topic, See if you can prove your opponents points wrong, If you agree to the extent where there is nothing to debate about, Then say something and we will get you a new topic.Good luck.
I think the most imortant factor when it comes to success and winning a game, would have to be the teamwork. On an induvidual level, the game would fall apart... it doesnt matter if you have a great defensive or offensive threat, you need that chemistry to mold everything together.Look at any successful team and tell me they didnt have teamwork. Teams start to break down because of that lack of teamwork with disputes, inability to keep your role, etc. That's all I'm going to say until a response comes... I want to save my big guns for the big battle
Okay, I'm going to post as though this hasn't ended since 1. I haven't had time to post until now because of the gf and 2. the other debates aren't judged yet either. You may disqualify me or allow Eliiite to post again if he wishes.I was tempted to put chemistry when originally saw the topic. I can see why you would put teamwork, but I don't totally agree on that one. There's a few reasons I kinda don't. Not every team in the playoffs this past year was a great team. Hell, I have a hard time saying that even every team that has been in a recent finals has been a great team. Sure, they had to win to get to that point, but did they play as a single unit more than people that didn't make the playoffs? Do championship teams always get along? I really honestly have a hard time believing that players from recent championship teams (examples being Kobe, Shaq, Gary Payton, and Zo) don't ever argue, complain, etc. Okay, teamwork is important. A person can't play by himself. But aren't there teams with great teamwork who don't make the finals or even the playoffs? Aren't there teams with selfishness and poor teamwork who do win championships and make the playoffs? I would say yes. I would put five great players with mediocre teamwork on my team rather than five mediocre players with great teamwork on my team.I would have to say that defense is honestly the most important component of winning. There were five teams that scored 100+ ppg this past year. Only Phoenix made it out of the first round. There were only two teams out of eight that made it into the playoffs whose opponents had 100+ ppg, while five of the top ten teams in defense made it out of the first round of the playoffs. I know this is getting a little bit wordy, but try to stick with me.My main point is that a lot of the recent "teams to beat" have been defensive-minded teams. We all have our own opinions about the Mavs vs. Heat series, but I think we can all agree that the defense against Dirk and Josh Howard gave them a chance. Go back a few years, and the Spurs and Pistons were the teams to beat. Those teams are monstrous defensively. The Mavs have also improved greatly defensively, which in my opinion has allowed them to turn the corner as a franchise. There is an exception, and that is the Suns. I still am slow to put them at the top though, since they haven't gotten past the WCF since '93.
Since you guys just started yesterday, we'll be giving you a few extra days before judging this debate. I think you guys will have until Sunday night or so... is that fair enough?
I have to agree with the defensive dominance in championships, but any team with success wins with a team... thats why they spend so much time together; things like practicing and such. Coaches can't expect to win when their mentality is mainly focused on the one superstar approach, because that is rarely the case. And the point you made of the poor teamwork and selfishness going far, is that really what it is? Because every teamt o win the NBA championship that I have seen have a solid team. The only difference between them all is that their talent is ona different level. A team doesnt have to be that all starting 5 score double digits every night. I think if every player plays the role they are assigned, they can be a great contender team.Now your point on defence, it has a lot of truth. It is definitly one of the top reasons why teams have success and win games. We can even look on the individual side of this. I'm going out on a leg about this, but I believe every elite calibur player has very good defense. But without that "no I in team" mindset, the game can fall apart. You can be an offensive team and win games, the same goes for defence. But you need that "glue" that holds a franchise together. And that's chemistry. Now chemistry and teamwork go hand to hand... and if you lose that chemistry, you are almost assured faliure.A great example of this is the Kobe-Shaq feud. I think we can both agree they got along in the beginning, and the 3-peat proved it... but no matter how good a team they were, the whole arguing and constant fighting drew them apart, eventually leading to Shaq leaving the team. Now that Shaq is on a team where he is comfortable and with players that help to this teamwork mentality, they won a championship in 2 years. And the Heat were a great team no doubt, because they played great team ball.Sorry for the delay, I was at my uncles for most of the weekend
Yeah, well that's partly my point. Basically, you're saying, "Hey, look at Shaq! He used to be on a team that had good teamwork but then didn't, and now he's on a team with good teamwork! And he's winning again!" I'm sorry, but I don't see it that way. Shaq is funny and all that, but I really see him as a narcissist and pretty selfish. The only reason people look past that is because he is a winner and a great player. The seeds were sown long ahead of time with the Lakers. It's not like Shaq and/or Kobe woke up one day and said, "Man, I hate that guy!" They were cool with each other as long as they won, but it wasn't really completely what I would call teamwork.As for the Heat, I just don't really think they were the most unified team ever. Hey, Pat Riley did do a good job of motivating them to be a team, but they also had a lot of selfishness during the playoffs that didn't really affect them winning the championship. I remember Payton getting in Wade's face during the Bulls series. Maybe that has nothing to do with being a team; I don't know. I remember Posey clotheslining Hinrich for his own vengence. I guess that has nothing to do with hurting the team. I also remember Haslem throwing his mouthpiece at a ref because he felt like throwing a temper-tantrum. I'm sure his team was all for that. Really, winning has a good deal to do with being a team, but it doesn't make or break you. There are some "teams" that argue and fight and are selfish but still win. It's hard to really argue against teamwork, because it's really a neverending loop. You can easily say teams win because they have teamwork because they win because they have good teamwork because they win and so on, but how do you prove that?Now, I'm not saying you should have the superstar mentality, but teams with superstars do tend to win more often. It's a fact. That can be taken and used for good or used for evil, from a coach's/GM's perspective. I'm not claiming that every player should score x points or get x of whatever other stat. I'm just saying that one can be selfish to some extent and win, while others can be great team players and still lose.On the other hand, when you play great defense, you can have a mediocre offense and still win. This is pretty much the case with Detroit and SA, in my opinion. Okay, yeah, if you don't score more than the other team than you're still going to lose. But defense has been instrumental the past few years in winning championships for teams that have it, and costing championships for those teams lacking it.
Well as regard your responce with the shaq-kobe thing, here's what I gotta say:Yes, as long as they won they got along... and that's why I'm stressing that you need that teamwork to win. Shaq wouldn't have to leave if they had that mentality to keep peace and that their team's success is more important than childish bickering.Now on teamwork... it does matter. It matters partly for the present and definitely for the future. Teams that argue and fight can win, and that is when talent overshadows it. There is always an exception. But you can see in the Heat - when it mattered, they rised to the occasion.Ok, now if a player steps out of his role, it hurts the team, and it hurts the chemistry. Now I'm not saying teamwork/chemistry is the ONLY aspect to winning a game, all are fundamental. But really, is defence the main thing coaches strive to attain? No. It's teamwork. It's chemistry. When Phil Jackson stepped into the head coach position, one of his biggest concerns were his 2 superstars. He did this because he knew that Kobe and Shaq getting along was a must if he wanted the Lakers to win. Sure, defence, offence, and other things are good and all, but the point I'm trying to make clear is that although everything plays a vital role, you need that teamwork to pull everything together.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I'm just saying that one can be selfish to some extent and win, while others can be great team players and still lose.</div>That can be with anything. You can be great defenders and still lose; you can have a team full of talent and still lose. So with that, I don't think it counts for anything...
[quote name='ELiiiTE' post='146494' date='Aug 27 2006, 06:00 PM']Well as regard your responce with the shaq-kobe thing, here's what I gotta say:Yes, as long as they won they got along... and that's why I'm stressing that you need that teamwork to win. Shaq wouldn't have to leave if they had that mentality to keep peace and that their team's success is more important than childish bickering.[/quote]All you are showing is that a team has to have teamwork to stay together, not to win. I don't think they ever had a teamwork mentality. It was like as long as we're still winning things are okay. It was not like, let's hold hands and win a championship. They were ready to snap. It was just a matter of time.[quote name='ELiiiTE' post='146494' date='Aug 27 2006, 06:00 PM']Now on teamwork... it does matter. It matters partly for the present and definitely for the future. Teams that argue and fight can win, and that is when talent overshadows it. There is always an exception. But you can see in the Heat - when it mattered, they rised to the occasion.[/quote]Yeah, they rose to the challenge, but I don't really feel like it was that much teamwork. Usually it was an individual player hitting a big shot, like Payton, Wade, Walker, or even Haslem. They really weren't that great of a team in my opinion. They were all there to win for themselves, except for Wade perhaps. Man, if they had not come back, I can only imagine where this team would be.[quote name='ELiiiTE' post='146494' date='Aug 27 2006, 06:00 PM']Ok, now if a player steps out of his role, it hurts the team, and it hurts the chemistry. Now I'm not saying teamwork/chemistry is the ONLY aspect to winning a game, all are fundamental. But really, is defence the main thing coaches strive to attain? No. It's teamwork. It's chemistry. When Phil Jackson stepped into the head coach position, one of his biggest concerns were his 2 superstars. He did this because he knew that Kobe and Shaq getting along was a must if he wanted the Lakers to win. Sure, defence, offence, and other things are good and all, but the point I'm trying to make clear is that although everything plays a vital role, you need that teamwork to pull everything together.[/quote]Yeah, teamwork is a nice thing to use in practice and for building a foundation. But when you get to the playoffs and the finals, that's where you see great defense. Like I said, the best teams as of late have defensive powerhouses... your Pistons and your Spurs. And when the Heat won this year, it was largely because no one could drive at all. They manipulated the game very well defensively. If I want to start a team, I will stress teamwork. If I want to start a championship team, I will stress defense.[quote name='ELiiiTE' post='146494' date='Aug 27 2006, 06:00 PM']That can be with anything. You can be great defenders and still lose; you can have a team full of talent and still lose. So with that, I don't think it counts for anything...[/quote]That wasn't the point. What I pointed out earlier is that realistically there are teams every year that have poor teamwork that go pretty far in the playoffs. They are talented enough to overcome it. But teams with poor defense (the Suns being a major example) have not been able to get over the hump. There's also very, very few teams that have poor defense that do much of anything in the league, while quite a few teams with poor teamwork can still win with decent efficiency. I'm not being hypothetical. I'm being real world. And in the real world, defense wins ballgames. I'm not saying that there could be teams with poor teamwork that have won a lot, I'm saying there are teams with poor teamwork that have won a lot. It's convenient to say, "Hey, they had arguments, but they overcame!" but it's more practical to realize that those arguments just didn't have that much effect on the team because talent-wise, they were still better.
They did have a teamwork mentality... that's the first thing a coach strives to achieve. And I'm sure the Lakers organization wasnt going to let things loose until their HOF-worthy, all star center leaves. Phil Jackson wanted to keep them together because that was their best shot at winning. It ended up not happening... and now the Lakers have lost their spot as contenders. Now this is a case where defence/offence had nothing to do with it. It was there already, and again, they needed that teamwork to keep the team as championship contendersOk now... if a team doesnt stay together could they win? If Scottie left MJ would the bulls have a shot? If Stockton left Karl Malone would they be even close to winning a chamionship? (I'm sure they could, it's just that they were in the wrong time) And we've seen what happened with Kobe-Shaq. They all had chemistry to become a complement to their team and they did great together. You need to be a team to win games. Know when to pass, when to take the big shot, know how to play the other team to get success. The Heat did that. They didnt come out with their own game induvidually; they played together. Now of course they did some things induvidually, like you said hitting a big shot. But they didnt do it on their own... you can't win on one person's defence, you can't win on one person's scoring. Yes, one person may do more than others.. but they play that role. And even if they were there to win for themselves, they definitely don't expect to be doing all the work. So what are you saying that in the playoffs you need defence? Teamwork is not only for practice. They use that practice and apply it out on the court. That's how you form plays. That's how you know your team and get used to it. Unless you have loads and loads of talent with poor chemistry, I do not believe you could make it far at all. Sure, you need defence - it's an essential. But even look at the teams you mention that have success with defence - The pistons and Spurs. Now you can't tell me they didnt have teamwork, because I know they did. Before Duncan was picked up, the spurs just recently came off a carrer low record. But then things started to pick up because 1) He had extreme talent (remember his both ROY and All-NBA team honors?) and 2) He played a fundamental team game. Once he started to get used to his team... him and Drob were a powerhouse. Even though they both played low post roles, they seamlessly meshed on the court. Sure the Spurs were a great defensive team, but you could definitly tell that team played a vital role in their success. Without it... I dont think they couldve been a great team. Not true. In all cases of a championship team... they were examples of team ball. Take an example of any team with rings and tell me that their chemistry sucked or that players were being selfish to a point where it was detrimental to a team. It won't happen.
[quote name='ELiiiTE' post='146682' date='Aug 27 2006, 11:09 PM']Ok now... if a team doesnt stay together could they win? If Scottie left MJ would the bulls have a shot? If Stockton left Karl Malone would they be even close to winning a chamionship? (I'm sure they could, it's just that they were in the wrong time) And we've seen what happened with Kobe-Shaq. They all had chemistry to become a complement to their team and they did great together.[/quote]I don't see what this has to do with teamwork. Is it teamwork to resign with a team? It has nothing to do with the game at all. That's business, not teamwork.[quote name='ELiiiTE' post='146682' date='Aug 27 2006, 11:09 PM']You need to be a team to win games. Know when to pass, when to take the big shot, know how to play the other team to get success. The Heat did that. They didnt come out with their own game induvidually; they played together. Now of course they did some things induvidually, like you said hitting a big shot. But they didnt do it on their own... you can't win on one person's defence, you can't win on one person's scoring. Yes, one person may do more than others.. but they play that role. And even if they were there to win for themselves, they definitely don't expect to be doing all the work.[/quote]I don't think you're getting the point. I didn't say they didn't ever play team ball. You can't play basketball alone. It's a team sport. My point was that they showed extreme flashes of selfishness throughout the playoffs, but still won. It's as simple as that. The reason they won was because they are stacked with four HOF's and a bunch of other pretty good role players. Their team ball wasn't that great compared to a lot of other teams in the playoffs (Pistons, Spurs, Mavs, Suns, just to name a few). Their defense, in the finals at least, was stellar though. It's why they won, really. And it was a lot of individuals outplaying the Mavs.[quote name='ELiiiTE' post='146682' date='Aug 27 2006, 11:09 PM']So what are you saying that in the playoffs you need defence? Teamwork is not only for practice. They use that practice and apply it out on the court. That's how you form plays. That's how you know your team and get used to it. Unless you have loads and loads of talent with poor chemistry, I do not believe you could make it far at all. Sure, you need defence - it's an essential. But even look at the teams you mention that have success with defence - The pistons and Spurs. Now you can't tell me they didnt have teamwork, because I know they did. Before Duncan was picked up, the spurs just recently came off a carrer low record. But then things started to pick up because 1) He had extreme talent (remember his both ROY and All-NBA team honors?) and 2) He played a fundamental team game. Once he started to get used to his team... him and Drob were a powerhouse. Even though they both played low post roles, they seamlessly meshed on the court. Sure the Spurs were a great defensive team, but you could definitly tell that team played a vital role in their success. Without it... I dont think they couldve been a great team.[/quote]You're missing the point of where I'm going with this. You are saying, "Hey, teamwork is essential to being a team." I am saying, "Defense is essential to being a great team." You see, great teams win a lot. I am telling you that there are a lot of teams that have teamwork and don't win. As I mentioned above, I really do believe that there were quite a few teams with better teamwork than the Heat. Do you disagree? You don't see Dirk getting in Terry's face or Nash in Diaw's or so on. You can argue otherwise, but I just don't see those Heat players playing for the team. I see them playing for themselves.And no, you need defense all year. Detroit and the Spurs were the top two seeds this past year, and they were second and third in defense. I am telling you. Teamwork is good, but defense solidifies your team. A team with good teamwork can be good, but it's meaningless without great defense. I am merely pointing out that although the Heat weren't a fantastic defensive team in the regular season, they were pretty damn good in the finals.[quote name='ELiiiTE' post='146682' date='Aug 27 2006, 11:09 PM']Not true. In all cases of a championship team... they were examples of team ball. Take an example of any team with rings and tell me that their chemistry sucked or that players were being selfish to a point where it was detrimental to a team. It won't happen.[/quote]I just pointed out multiple cases of where Heat players were selfish and didn't play for the team. I don't know how much more blunt I can be. And that is the whole point of everything. It wasn't detrimental. That's because teamwork is important, but can be masked when you have a crapload of talent throughout your roster.
I'm saying if they chose to leave a team because they had problems with other players. They wouldve resigned if they had no problems. So no, you must have misunderstood. Well then we're both not getting our points then... when did players show "extreme flashes of selfishness"? And just because they beat a team doesnt always mean they played stellar defence... they beat them because they outplayed them. Youre making it out to be that every loss was because they played defense or not. The Mavs allowed DWade to have the 3rd highest ppg in the finals. You said they played great defense...there is offense too. You can't blame everything on defence. Sure they were playing for themselves, the induvidual wanted the ring... heck I wouldve played for myself. But you can't play for yourself, you play for your team, and that's when you win. And this debate is not on being a great team, it's about winning. And I'm not making the point that teamwork makes a team (which it does of course), it's that teamwork wins games. All the things you practice for helps you to win. If you want to win a game. Ok, let me explain a point I am trying to make that you don't understand. No matter what team you have, it is a team. May it be an offensive team or a defensive team. The point is, despite any type of team you want to have, you need teamwork to achieve it... if you dont have that, you will end up with a bunch of guys who can play defence, but can't get along, know how to play a zone, man-to-man etc. That is why you practice as a team. That's why you play as a team. If it wasnt detrimental, then why did you show examples of heat players being selfish but not having any detriment to the team? I doubt you stated them to be in vain. And although you have talent... teamwork is still there and is even more important when you have all that talent at stake
Winner: Justice.ELiiiTE's last post was probably one of his bests but it isn't enough IMO. Justice provided great examples and went in-depth on every point. The topic wasn't really easy and it's very broad so whoever provided the best detail would have won the debate.
Winner: JusticeI thought Justice made sharper points, and he had a lot of good points as to why defense is more essential than teamwork. I agree with Justice that defense is more important. Look at how succesful the Spurs and Pistons are/were. It was because of great defense. I agree that teamwork is important, but I can name some teams that did not always have great chemistry but still won. There are alot of players on the Heat who like to score, and alot of players that need the ball. They did not always gell together but they still won games. Also, look at the Lakers. Kobe/Shaq did not always get along on the court, but they still dominated the early 00's, didn't they?
Well, let me remind you that you can't choose a winner based on what you agree on, it has to be unbiasedGreat debate though.. justice you're a hell of a debaterI was going to pick defence at the beginning... I erased my 3 paragraphs on my first post after I reasoned with myself on teamwork
Good debate... I wasn't sure if we were doing best of three or five judges, but uh yeah. It was pretty broad and I think both of us had good points. I was just doing my best to stay the course and not cut and run. Good job, Eliiite!
It is 3... but you will most likely winI was extremely weak on my points at first... that's probably wht killed me the most
