Big Men are not trends

[Buzzard]

But I will always be on their bandwagon. When it comes to winning it all they are facts of life. Really this is simple history. Detroit both versions, Lakers both versions, San Antonio, Boston, Philly, and even the mighty Jordan had the rebounding champ in Rodman for three years.

You pretty much do not have a snowballs chance in hell of winning a championship without either a solid center and/or power forward. And most of the above mentioned teams had both. Until we get at least one we will always be at least one player away.

PG,s SG's and SF's are just fillers for losers until you get a big man or two.

I like this subject, decided it was worth a new post.

[Packfill]

Completely agree. All those teams had someone inside to set the tone - it may not be through a single dominate player (I am thinking specifically of the Issiah Pistons), but someone who would at least police the middle. Hawks do not have that.

That inside presence alone does not guarantee a championship - think of the Deke/Smitty/Mookie Hawks - because you have to have the complementary scorers.

In summary, the Hawks need someone with some attitude/moxie in the post. This does not mean you need some jerk like Rodman, just someone who will make the other team think twice and clean the glass.

[Packfill]

I should add that this is the reason I advocated paying Kenyon Martin the max this past summer. I, maybe incorrectly, perceived him as someone with the type of attitude and skill set to provide some of the attitude needed down low. Hasn't worked out that way for Denver though so what do I know.

[Buzzard]

I am with you on this. Does not have to be a head case like Rodman. They just have to be a tough defenders and rebounders and you have to have scorers who can work from the outside/in.

Good big men have to have the attitude that the post is mine and anytime you come down here it will not be easy. Having solid big men does not guarantee a championship but it is required to win one.

[Buzzard]

I hear you man. I was hoping to sign Kenyon as well. Turns out that without Kidd he is just a little higher than a middle tier Power Forward. Certainly not worth the max that he got.

[Wretch]

I'm not one of these people who drool over every 7 foot prospect that flashes a double-double every now and again. On the other hand, I think you need a combination of both inside and out. Guys who get good high% shots can obviously make others better, but don't forget that players who can break down a defense from the outside (or cutting through the lane) also do the same thing. Chicago couldn't win without Jordan. Detroit doesn't do it without Zeke and Joe D. The Lakers DEFINITELY don't do it without Magic; much as I can't stand him, the recently broken up Lakers wouldn't have been the same without Kobe. Boston doesn't do it without Bird. None of these teams are the same without certain players both inside and out.

I would also add to what you're saying here that you don't just go balls out simply to secure a bigman. Especially not this early in the game. That's the quickest way to screw sh#t up. It just comes when it comes. Potential is one thing, but what you really have to look out for is the guy that you KNOW is going to get it done. Kenyon didn't strike me as that, neither did any of last years big flops. I think Dalembert or Chandler might be worth a look, but not at the expense of a crippling 6 - 7 million in junk salary. After signing one of these guys, to a likely overly generous offer, adding just a few bad contracts will make that player essentially a max salary.

Unless there's a sure thing that we could get without breaking the bank, or eating everyone else's garbage, I'd prefer just to roll the dice and draft our own post project. We are years away from winning, let alone a championship. So, we've got plenty of time. The most important thing for us now is to secure talent and find a superstar and an identity regardless of where they play.

[Buzzard]

I would rather do it thru the draft as well if possible. FA's are iffy at best. Kenyon and Damp proved that to me last year big time.

What worries me is passing on the potentially solid bigs in the draft. I was ok with all the sf's we took last year and would honestly like to see us do the same thing this year with pf's/centers.

I just think it is much easier to pick up a pg or sg later than it is a quality big man.

If Bogut is truly in the top 5 rated by people a lot smarter than me I say take him with our 1st. And if any other big falls within 5 picks higher or lower than our next pick I say take him also.

They will get rookie contracts and hopefully at least one of them will pan put. I say do that for this draft or any other draft like it simply because no one appears to be a clear cut favorite. Jordan, Bird, Magic, LeBron or Shaq type player.

Cannot pass up on those types of players but if everything is close to being equal then take the big guy. Hopefully we have at least two of our perimeter players for the future in Chillz, JSmoothe and possibly a third in Donte as well.

[Diesel]

Unfortunately,

The one person who screws up your examples is Hakeem Olajuwaun. He basically showed that a dominant C can lead you to a championship. His sidekicks were all replacable and were replaced...

However, he was not...

[Wretch]

I wouldn't call Drexler, Maxwell, Cassell, Kenny Smith, and Horry replaceable to those Houston squads. They were a good team and Olajuwan was clearly the main reason - that is indisputable. However, it took them 7 very tight games to beat NY. And with Oneal and 'Keem dueling it out in 95, it was the experience in Houston's wing play that made the difference.

Without the level of production from their wing players, I don't think they are the same championship teams. I'm not saying one is more important than the other. What I'm saying is you need a balance. A dominant center is going to take you nowhere with 11 scrubs.

Regardless, I would have liked to see either Houston Championship team beat the Bulls with Jordan. That in itself would give more support to what you're saying.

[Buzzard]

Quote:

---

A dominant center is going to take you nowhere with 11 scrubs.

---

I think the whole point of this post is almost the opposite of this statement. You are not going to win a championship without a dominant big man.

I have to disagree with you totally on your Lakers and Magic statement. The Lakers had a much better chance of winning a championship without Magic than they would have without Kareem.

And yes, you can point to the "one" game were Magic played center and they won. But honestly, do you not think that would have been a joke if they would have tried it for the whole season? I have my doubts as to whether they would have even gotten to the championship without Kareem.

There is no doubt that it takes a solid team across the board and a super star at whatever position he happens to play. But the one constant, even if you look at the conference finals, is at least one dominant big man PF or C.

The Celtics with Walker and Pierce are the closest thing to that lately that I can remember. Jordan's first team without Rodman is the only one I can think of at all that won everything.

Big men are not trends and history for the most part proves that many more times than not. I am hoping we have at least one of our superstars in JSmoothe and we get a big man this year or next who can assist us sometime in the future with a championship run.

I do not think I am greedy or a dreamer. Many doubters were around when the Braves could not get 10,000 fans to a game back in the 70's and early 80's.

I am just like any other fan who would like to see his team compete at the highest level. And until we win a championship, I will always want more. And after that, I will still be hoping for more. Until we get a dominant big man, I do not think we can acomplish it.

Out of all the NBA championships ever won, history proves this is the best way to a championship. More times than not the only way. And I just think we should start playing the odds. Honestly, how often does a Jordan come around?

[Packfill]

I also have to disagree with your post. No way Houston sniffs a championship without Hakeem. Yes you need good role players, but the dominant post player carried Houston, San Antonio, LA (Shaq years) to championships. LA (Magic/Kareem years) and Boston one titles because, in addition to top players such as Magic and Bird they each had a hall of famer at center. That fact cannot be dismissed.

Detroit (Issiah years) and the Bulls (both times) are the only teams of recent vintage to win a title without a hall of fame caliber post player. The Pistons did it both times with solid team play, strong defense and good coaching. Both Pistons teams had strong interior play - including power guys who set a tone on the inside that there are no freebies (Detroit with Lambier, Salley, Rodman and Mahorn and Detroit with Wallace, Wallace and co.).

The Bulls with Jordan are a unique case because they had Jordan, the best player of all time. Still both Bulls teams had a few strong interior players - Horace Grant the first go round and Rodman the second - that set the tone defensively. Still you cannot compare the Bulls to anything because Jordan was so head and shoulders above everyone else.

So yes you need good role players around the big guy, but Jordan needed good role players around him to.

Plenty of teams have had success without a dominant big guy but none have won a championship. Maybe this year will be different if the Suns or Sonics breakthrough (although even the Suns have Stoudamire).

[Wretch]

The "greatest" only comes around once in a generation. But, if we're simply talking dominant perimeter players...then more often than a true, dominant, bigman.

Anyway, saying that you aren't going to win a championship without an exceptional big man is the same as saying you won't win a championship without exceptional play from your wing players. You honestly believe that without Magic the Lakers would have had a chance against the likes of the powerhouse teams of the 80's?

That's news to me *lol*

Who do you think opened the game up for Worthy, Scott, Coop, and Kareem - who I might also add was fading towards the end of their run. And you take away the penetration, passing, and perimeter game of Magic, Worthy, Scott, and Coop...and I'm sorry, but you don't have a very good Lakers team. The Lakers were good not because they had a dominant big man. They were good because they had a dominant player at almost every position. As Magic once said, the Lakers were so bad that they would just walk in your house and they knew they were going to flat out whoop @ss. *lol* It was a given.

Quote:

---

There is no doubt that it takes a solid team across the board and a super star at whatever position he happens to play. But the one constant, even if you look at the conference finals, is at least one dominant big man PF or C.

---

This is not completely accurate. Not all C/PF's are what I would consider dominant. The Pistons (both incarnations) and Bulls had guys who could get things done DEFENSIVELY and on the boards; but, offensively the load was carried elsewhere. That represents NINE Championships without "dominant" big men - and put an asterisk next to 1993-1995 with Jordan taking a vacation. Conversely, you will be hard pressed to find a championship team without dominant outside players. What's more, check the Finals MVP count (bigs vs. wings) over the last 20 or so years. Quite interesting.

Don't get me wrong, I know how important it is to have a dominant big man. I would say it's MUCH EASIER to build a team around a guy that commands the paint (ala Shaq/Garnett/Duncan), but the real key to a winning team or championship team would be having a superstar. It doesn't really matter where they play, you simply have to get a superstar. Someone who WILL get the ball in the basket. THAT is what wins games and the only example that I can think of that refutes the rule would be last year's Pistons.

[Wretch]

I'm not saying that Houston didn't need Hakeem. Nor am I saying that the Celtics didn't need McHale and Parish. Nor am I discounting what Rodman brought to the Bulls. That would just be downright absurd. What I am saying is there is no singular part that is more important than the other. It may be easier to build around a big man, but just as important are players that can get it done from outside, break down the defense, and get others involved.

That is how you win.

You need guys on the outside, just like you need guys on the inside. You rarely find championship teams without dominant inside play and you rarely find them without dominant outside play. It's that simple, and what we need to focus on isn't finding the best big man available.

We need a superstar and an identity. Period.

[Buzzard]

Quote:

---

You honestly believe that without Magic the Lakers would have had a chance against the likes of the powerhouse teams of the 80's?

---

Absolutely, simply because it is much easier to get a pg or sg to replace Magic than it would have been to find a center that could replace Kareem.

Neither replacement would or could be expected to be just as good, lets face it they are hall of famers. But that team with all that talent would win with a good point guard and no Magic much easier than without a Kareem and just a good center.

Quote:

---

Who do you think opened the game up for Worthy, Scott, Coop, and Kareem - who I might also add was fading towards the end of their run. And you take away the penetration, passing, and perimeter game of Magic, Worthy, Scott, and Coop...and I'm sorry, but you don't have a very good Lakers team. The Lakers were good not because they had a dominant big man. They were good because they had a dominant player at almost every position. As Magic once said, the Lakers were so bad that they would just walk in your house and they knew they were going to flat out whoop @ss. *lol* It was a given.

---

This whole quote is four players versus one. Give me a break on Magic opening the game up for Scott. Scott opened the game up all by himself.

Quote:

---

The Pistons (both incarnations) and Bulls had guys who could get things done DEFENSIVELY and on the boards; but, offensively the load was carried elsewhere. That represents NINE Championships without "dominant" big men

---

When I talk dominant, I am talking defense. All the champions could light you up for 100pts a game. But when It got dirty they also won simply because thay smothered you. And that starts down low in the half court and pushes you further and further away from the basket.

Quote:

---

Don't get me wrong, I know how important it is to have a dominant big man. I would say it's MUCH EASIER to build a team around a guy that commands the paint (ala Shaq/Garnett/Duncan), but the real key to a winning team or championship team would be having a superstar. It doesn't really matter where they play, you simply have to get a superstar. Someone who WILL get the ball in the basket. THAT is what wins games and the only example that I can think of that refutes the rule would be last year's Pistons.

---

No argument here. I agree totally, it is much easier to reach (and be successfull) for the next Wallace, Lambier, or Rodman (does not have to be Shaq, Hakeem, or even Malone) than it is to spend every draft pick you have every year reaching for the next Wilkens, Jordan, or Magic.

When was the last time we spent our first round pick on a good big man? You look at that and you will also see it was the last time we had a team that actually competed.

[Wretch]

Quote:

---

This whole quote is four players versus one.

---

I'm sorry, but isn't that what you're saying? That all it takes is a dominant big man, or excuse me, everyone else is replaceable on these championship teams - even Magic. Correct me if I am wrong.

Quote:

---

Give me a break on Magic opening the game up for Scott. Scott opened the game up all by himself.

---

I'm going to leave it on that man. *lol*

[Buzzard]

You are funny. Big man are not trends is what I am saying and I think you know that. But maybe you think all it takes is a Jordan, Magic or Bird. And the Rodmans, Lambiers, McHales etc. . . need not apply. I really do not think you believe that, just thought I would throw it in.

Big men are not trends. We need at least one, most champions had two. They are much easier to draft for most teams, except us, because we (our previous management, hopefully not this one) share your opinion and are always looking for the superstar.

You see a superstar draft him, but all things being equal on the draft board, I would take a Lambier over a JT and a Kareem over a Magic any day.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

I'm not saying that Houston didn't need Hakeem. Nor am I saying that the Celtics didn't need McHale and Parish. Nor am I discounting what Rodman brought to the Bulls. That would just be downright absurd.

What I am saying is there is no singular part that is more important than the other.

It may be easier to build around a big man, but just as important are players that can get it done from outside, break down the defense, and get others involved.

That is how you win.

You need guys on the outside, just like you need guys on the inside. You rarely find championship teams without dominant inside play and you rarely find them without dominant outside play. It's that simple, and what we need to focus on

isn't finding the best big man available

.

We need a superstar and an identity. Period.

---

This I more or less agree with. As it pertains to the Hawks, I feel that it is essential that they obtain a quality "big" whose talents include bringing it defensively. If that big is a Shaq, Duncan, or Hakeem then great, but at this point I would settle for a Ben Wallace, Horace Grant or Bill Lambeer[sp?]. They need defense and rebounding in the middle to become competitive, let alone win a championship.

[Wretch]

Quote:

---

You are funny. Big man are not trends is what I am saying and I think you know that. But maybe you think all it takes is a Jordan, Magic or Bird. And the Rodmans, Lambiers, McHales etc. . . need not apply. I really do not think you believe that, just thought I would throw it in.

---

If you don't believe that's my position, then why throw it in? It has absolutely no relevance to the discussion. That's just being asinine.

You must take me for a fool... I've watched this game for over two decades, and I know what a dominant big man means to a franchise. There is no arguing that. Given the opportunity to choose between a dominant big man and a dominant wing player, most people will choose the big man for one simple reason - they are a rarity and as such make the building or rebuilding process easier.

At the same time, your whole arguement is ambiguous and biased at best. Surely, you won't find many teams that didn't have a dominant big man that won the championship; but that isn't saying anything at all. That is a childish logic, because you will also not find many teams that won a championship without dynamic play outside of the post. You are simply taking a championship team and picking what YOU think is the most important thing to a franchise and saying that's what's needed.

The simple fact that you cannot get around is that you need guys that can get others involved, break down a defense, and score from the outside just like you need big guys down low to collect rebounds, block shots, and score high percentage shots. It isn't that one peice is more important than the other. The bottom line is that there is simply no way around the team concept. You can say, "yuk-yuk, but uh...they had a big man down dere!" all you want. But chances are, they had a Kobe, Magic, Bird, Zeke, Cousy, or Dr. J too.

You think MY line of thinking is what hinders a franchise...? No. It YOUR short-sighted opinion that leads GMs to the drafting of an Olawakandi over Bibby or Sam Bowie over a Jordan. It is what makes teams drop crippling contracts on marginal talent like Dampier. "Cause you gots ta have dat big man!"

Quote:

---

Big men are not trends. We need at least one, most champions had two. They are much easier to draft for most teams, except us, because we (our previous management, hopefully not this one) share your opinion and are always looking for the superstar.

---

First of all, most Champions feature a STAR that can carry a team (and BTW, Magic and Worthy did that as Kareem faded during the latter two Championships).

About us...

This is particularly retarded here. The reason the Hawks could never draft a superstar was because management would never allow the team to lose. It had nothing to do with Babcock trying to find a superstar. It was all about fielding a good team that could win and make the playoffs as opposed to packing it in for a few seasons and drafting a star. Babcock wanted nothing to do with playing the lottery or developing players; he had a win now (to whatever degree) at all costs mentality and mortgaged our future for nice guys that HE thought would help us win. Additionally, he had Lenny Wilkens in his ears demanding HIS types of players be brought in and the rest (which he called selfish and which included Nique) be dealt. That's simple Hawks History 101.

...and MY opinion? It is MY opinion that you need a superstar to win? Every team in the lottery is scanning it for that potential superstar. It is what brings in the money, attracts the free agents, and leads a franchise out of the darkness. Name a Championship team OTHER than last year's Pistons that didn't feature a superstar. Hell, name a runner up for that matter. Name a conference runner up that didn't have at least one true superstar.

You can't. It isn't about where they play it is about what they do for the TEAM. You need bigs and you need wings. Simple as that. I understand everyone's role on a team and what a team needs. You however, are discrediting the legendary contributions from some of the greatest players to ever play the game.

To think that it was Byron Scott that was opening up the game for everyone else with no one opening up the perimeter (Kareem), drawing the defense (Worthy), or getting him the ball (Magic)...

[TheDude]

i will interject with just this....you can win without a good big man....but if you have a good big man, you are at an advantage that is hard to defend..if you have a really good guard, there can be ways for him to be defended..

plus a big man makes others around him better also, like a point guard...but with more physicality..

you can win without one sure, you don't HAVE to have one...but it makes everything else alot easier.

[Buzzard]

Quote:

---

I'm sorry, but isn't that what you're saying? That all it takes is a dominant big man, or excuse me, everyone else is replaceable on these championship teams - even Magic. Correct me if I am wrong.

---

You are funny. Big man are not trends is what I am saying and I think you know that. But maybe you think all it takes is a Jordan, Magic or Bird. And the Rodmans, Lambiers, McHales etc. . . need not apply. I really do not think you believe that, just thought I would throw it in.

Quote:

---

If you don't believe that's my position, then why throw it in? It has absolutely no relevance to the discussion. That's just being asinine.

---

Because your above statement about someone not being replaceable was asinine. At least I new mine was a joke. But you seemed to think yours was serious.

I did notice your "correct me if I am wrong" but at the same time you said it anyway. You already knew you were wrong (which made it asinine). Otherwise you would have found the dumbass quote of mine making this statement.

Everyone is replaceable and all it takes is time, another free agent or a good draft pick.

Quote:

---

You must take me for a fool... I've watched this game for over two decades, and I know what a dominant big man means to a franchise.

---

Why do you think this? Blows my mind! You know why? because of this:

Quote:

---

Given the opportunity to choose between a dominant big man and a dominant wing player, most people will choose the big man for one simple reason - they are a rarity and as such make the building or rebuilding process easier.

---

I have never said draft anyone at any cost. I am probably at least as old as you are and was lucky enough, I think, to get to watch Danny Roundfield play(my first favorite Hawk big man).

I agree with your opinion above and that is what this post is all about. You have to choose between a equal big man or a equal pg. Common sense just like you said, take the Big Man.

This draft has a lot of equality in it. Players are all over the board with no clear cut franchise player. As far as I am concerned, could be a turning point for us. Are we going big or small. If they are truly equals, no winner either way, I want the big guy this time, thats all I am saying.

I want a draft were we get our Danny, Tree, or Willis. I can wait on the superstar, especially if there is not one in the bunch.